|
trekie
Metal man


Registered: 05/11/09
Posts: 11,085
Loc: Larger cities
|
|
|
luvdemboomers
loner with a boner
Registered: 01/11/13
Posts: 5,054
|
|
Quote:
Herbologist said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: That exotic eh?
Can I ask what they are?
Haha not exotic at all, just nothing that I can find in the gun stores here.
Federal Tactical HST 124gr +P for my Glock 19
All I can find in stores are just regular Fedreal Hydra-Shok
The 9mm ammo quest series won you over as well?
|
withoutawire
hi


Registered: 08/16/09
Posts: 11,384
Loc: Honolulu, Hawaii
Last seen: 7 months, 16 days
|
Re: Why have a gun? [Re: trekie] 6
#23370830 - 06/22/16 06:30 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Shotguns are great for hunting. Pistols are great for home defense. Semi-automatic assault rifles are great for protecting us against government.
For thousands of years government has always turned on its people. We even locked people up for being Japanese during WWII...We as a people are no different than anyone us. We are just as susceptible to evil as any other nation. The founders knew this and included the 2nd amendment in the bill or rights for a reason. The militia in late 18th century was every able body white male ages 16-60. Through the 14th amendment we know the bill of rights applies to all people equally. If you look at the 2nd amendment it's pretty clear that it was written to give an individual the right to keep and bear arms because everyone is the militia.
Also the founders use the words "the people" in the 1st and 4th amendment. Clearly those are meant to apply to the individual, not a "collective" right. Why would the founders include a "collective right" within a document designed to protect an individual from government? Especially when that "collective right" gives the government sweeping authority to regulate the most effective means to overthrowing a tyrannical government? Also if you look at the history of the bill of rights it gives more insight into why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place. The federalists and antifederalists argued over the bill of rights because some felt it unnecessary to include a bill of rights in a constitutional republic. The government was never given the power to regulate arms in the constitution, so why include a protection in the first place? Traditionally a bill of rights is for people living in a monarchy, which also went against the principle of a constitutional republic.
However, no right is unlimited. The 1st amendment doesn't protect someone from yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The 4th amendment doesn't protect someone who a committed murder in their house, and the body was discovered when a police officer was chasing a bank robbery suspect through the murder's house. The 2nd amendment has limits as well, but it must be held to the same constitutional standard as the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. AR15's and other semiautomatic rifles account for less than 3% of murder. Almost 100 million guns will be bought during Obama's presidency yet overall murder rate is on the decline, and it has been for over 20 years. There is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rising. If that were true Mexico, Columbia, or Brazil would be the safest countries in the world and Switzerland would be one of the most dangerous, when in fact it's the complete opposite (Switzerland is #2 per capita in gun ownership). The government must pass something called "strict scrutiny" when deciding if a law is unconstitutional or not. That means the government must have a compelling interest (in the case of guns they do), and that law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that government interest. A blanket ban on semi automatic assault rifles does not pass that standard, especially since assault rifles account for so few murders in the first place.
AR15's are not "weapons of war". I challenge anyone to find me an army that uses semi auto assault rifles...they don't because machine guns are far more effective. They have been essentially outlawed from 1934-1986 and from 1986 on new machine guns could not be added to the registry. Much like property value, a legal machine gun goes for $25,000-$100,000 because they are limited and desirable.
It'd be nice if we could get rid of guns, but we cannot. Bad people ruin utopia for the overwhelming majority. Government is a beast that needs more and more power, so we must have an ability to protect ourselves or overthrow that government if things get bad enough, just like our founders did against the British. Rights are not thrown away because a few dozen commit mass shootings while 99.9% do not. That's not the way these things work. If you don't like it and think we should be more like Europe, that's okay too, but the rules, aka the constitution is not currently written for us to operate that way. If you want to remove "assault rifles" from the people then you (anyone) should be fighting to change the constitution, not create unconstitutional laws. When 50%-55% of the country is for something and the rest isn't, the simple majority does not decide for the rest of the country. That's why the rules, aka the constitution/the bill of rights, requires 3/4 of the people to agree. If we truly *needed* something to change it would happen, we've amended the constitution plenty of times.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Is that black dude sleeping?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
he's having a fantasy that his protest will accomplish something.
the conservatives should continue without these retards and pass legislation that repeals all the NFA laws, watch how fast their little liberal heads explode then
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
I love seeing liberals coming unhinged, except when they start shooting people, that part's not cool
|
trekie
Metal man


Registered: 05/11/09
Posts: 11,085
Loc: Larger cities
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Is that black dude sleeping?
Maybe because he is dreaming and living in a fantasy world.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: I love seeing liberals coming unhinged, except when they start shooting people, that part's not cool
the crazy part is they say they want to ban guns, then go buy a gun, shoot people and then say the reason to ban guns is because it's too easy for them to shoot people with guns
|
luvdemboomers
loner with a boner
Registered: 01/11/13
Posts: 5,054
|
|
Maybe we should make a law banning liberals from owning guns. Everybody wins.
|
Shroomslip
Architekt



Registered: 11/25/12
Posts: 23,651
Last seen: 4 hours, 56 minutes
|
|
I like my idea of everyone who is anti-gun cannot be helped by someone with a gun (including police) more. Let them talk or pepper spray their way out of the robbery or whatever the fuck it is they think is the right answer. Get taken hostage? No police sniper for you! I think after a few years all the ones who aren't dead yet will come around. Especially when they learn they're being specifically targeted for the lack of guns in their defense.
--------------------
With my face against the floor I can’t see who knocked me out of the way. I don’t want to get back up but I have to so it might as well be today. Nothing appeals to me no one feels like me, I’m too busy being calm to disappear. I’m in no shape to be alone contrary to the shit that you might hear. You can't wake up, this is not a dream. You're part of a machine, you are not a human being With your face all made up, living on a screen. Low on self esteem, so you run on gasoline
|
luvdemboomers
loner with a boner
Registered: 01/11/13
Posts: 5,054
|
|
Quote:
Shroomslip said: I like my idea of everyone who is anti-gun cannot be helped by someone with a gun (including police) more. Let them talk or pepper spray their way out of the robbery or whatever the fuck it is they think is the right answer. Get taken hostage? No police sniper for you! I think after a few years all the ones who aren't dead yet will come around. Especially when they learn they're being specifically targeted for the lack of guns in their defense.
Sadly I don't think they will ever come around. Any rational person who is robbed or has a home invasion will generally go "I want to get a gun to make sure this doesn't happen again." Anti gunners on the other hand will go "LOOK, THIS IS PROOF GUNS ARE BAD WE NEED MORE LAWS"
There's just no helping them.
These anti gun groups actually prey on family members of victims of gun violence. They'll give them something to blame (guns) and try to get them to go public. Some girls sister was killed by an exbf and some antigun lobbyist woman did exactly that. She recorded the call and pretended to be interested for like 5 minutes and then put the bitch in her place it was pretty epic. Can't remember her name it's on youtube somewhere though.
Edited by luvdemboomers (06/22/16 09:15 PM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
luvdemboomers said: Maybe we should make a law banning liberals from owning guns. Everybody wins.
I like that idea, what i find interesting is that we have a president that wants to ban guns, even signed an agreement to not sell guns to foreign nations and then immediately supplies terrorists and foreign nations with weapons
but we dont need guns, only the terrorists and criminals do
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
luvdemboomers said:
Quote:
Shroomslip said: I like my idea of everyone who is anti-gun cannot be helped by someone with a gun (including police) more. Let them talk or pepper spray their way out of the robbery or whatever the fuck it is they think is the right answer. Get taken hostage? No police sniper for you! I think after a few years all the ones who aren't dead yet will come around. Especially when they learn they're being specifically targeted for the lack of guns in their defense.
Sadly I don't think they will ever come around. Any rational person who is robbed or has a home invasion will generally go "I want to get a gun to make sure this doesn't happen again." Anti gunners on the other hand will go "LOOK, THIS IS PROOF GUNS ARE BAD WE NEED MORE LAWS"
There's just no helping them.
These anti gun groups actually prey on family members of victims of gun violence. They'll give them something to blame (guns) and try to get them to go public. Some girls sister was killed by an exbf and some antigun lobbyist woman did exactly that. She recorded the call and pretended to be interested for like 5 minutes and then put the bitch in her place it was pretty epic. Can't remember her name it's on youtube somewhere though.
the thing is, while the liberals push gun control the sales of firearms goes through the roof, obama and his ilk are the best salesmen that the gun manufacturers have ever had
http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
Re: Why have a gun? [Re: koods] 1
#23371668 - 06/22/16 10:09 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: If the second amendment protected assault weapons then state bans on assault weapons would be found unconstitutional. They have not.
You should probably read up on the second amendment. Case law is clear that the second amendment only protects guns that are in common usage AND that are not unusually dangerous.
Gee, that's really funny considering that ar-15's are in common usage and not really any more 'dangerous' than say an M1 garand or socom 16 which fire 30 ought 6 / 308, both of which are kind of uncommon compared to the AR platform.
sux 2 suck
|
ThatKidWithTheFace
R.I.P. ZIG R.I.P. Sloth


Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 11,904
Loc: All Good in Allgood
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Why have a gun? [Re: 404] 1
#23371692 - 06/22/16 10:15 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Most hunting rifles are more dangerous than an AR-15
-------------------- Check Out My Beats SoundCloud
[quote]Sheekle said: [quote]ThatKidWithTheFace said: Is this the same aunt that fucks dogs?[/quote] u bet ur ass it is.[/quote]
|
Shroomslip
Architekt



Registered: 11/25/12
Posts: 23,651
Last seen: 4 hours, 56 minutes
|
Re: Why have a gun? [Re: 404] 3
#23371749 - 06/22/16 10:29 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You can't really expect anti-gun people to be educated or use logic when it comes to which guns need to be banned. As has been proven ad nauseam is that they don't understand the first thing about ballistics. To them: Most widely used gun in mass shootings = most dangerous. Larger bullet always = more dangerous and lethal. Higher round count per magazine = greatly increases lethality. Armor piercing rounds = super deadly bullets no one needs. I mean you could keep going with all the stupid ideas they have in their head that are dead fucking wrong. They don't know shit about them and don't care to get to know them or understand what it is they're even talking about.
--------------------
With my face against the floor I can’t see who knocked me out of the way. I don’t want to get back up but I have to so it might as well be today. Nothing appeals to me no one feels like me, I’m too busy being calm to disappear. I’m in no shape to be alone contrary to the shit that you might hear. You can't wake up, this is not a dream. You're part of a machine, you are not a human being With your face all made up, living on a screen. Low on self esteem, so you run on gasoline
|
Sticky Green



Registered: 03/20/09
Posts: 1,396
|
|
Quote:
ThatKidWithTheFace said: Most hunting rifles are more dangerous than an AR-15
I bought an old Mosin for $79 off classic arms. Fits the bill for a liberals definition of a "weapon of war" or "assault weapon" Considering its probably killed more people than any other weapon ever besides the bow.
This thing fires a round that would probably take down an elephant. Ammo cost about fifty cent per round and an extra 70 bucks is all it takes to convert it to 20 round magazines. That's about 200 bucks for a sniper rifle with a "high capacity" magazine. In stock trim it's about as unassuming as a deer rifle.
Before

After
|
topdog82
Death Spirit



Registered: 07/16/10
Posts: 7,992
Loc: California
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
|
|
Quote:
Shroomslip said: You can't really expect anti-gun people to be educated or use logic when it comes to which guns need to be banned. As has been proven ad nauseam is that they don't understand the first thing about ballistics. To them: Most widely used gun in mass shootings = most dangerous. Larger bullet always = more dangerous and lethal. Higher round count per magazine = greatly increases lethality. Armor piercing rounds = super deadly bullets no one needs. I mean you could keep going with all the stupid ideas they have in their head that are dead fucking wrong. They don't know shit about them and don't care to get to know them or understand what it is they're even talking about.
What's wrong with any of these theories? I assumed all these to be true
All the experience I have had is shotguns, .22 rifle, black powder and a .22 pistol I think. Maybe an at-15 I think
Please let me know. I'm Curious
|
liloldme
( ͝° ͜ʖ͡°)つ=D



Registered: 05/15/04
Posts: 5,087
Loc: Zone 8
|
Re: Why have a gun? [Re: topdog82]
#23372086 - 06/23/16 12:48 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
|
|