Yes.Originally Posted by .blank cd
they got the inch.... and want the mile.
Peopled accepted the inch as a compromise. Line is drawn in the sand now.
Yes.
they got the inch.... and want the mile.
Peopled accepted the inch as a compromise. Line is drawn in the sand now.
Fully automatic rifles are only useful in military situations. There is no reasonable use for them in civilian life.
You ca get them legally though, and I know a couple of people that do have them - and legally. There is a lot of documentation and registration to getting them though.
Would you have military grade explosives, such as C-4, available to all as well? Should an individual be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons, if they have the capability to? There has to be a line in the sand somewhere.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I agree with where the current "line in the sand" is. But for the sake of argument.... tyranny would be a military situation and in that situation you would be defending yourself from fully automatic weapons.
Some of the current legislation i agree with or understand more than others.... some i dont. If given the option to do so, i would remove the ban on select fire rifles.Also, I understand the danger of silencers being on the open market, but it would be nice to be able to target shoot at my leisure without annoying the neighbors. A silencer isnt rocket science....... it's easily duplicated and if someone intended to use silencing for criminal purpose, they could pick one up at autozone.
Exactly how would you use a fully automatic rifle against an Army brigade with tanks and body armor? How about fighter jets and attack helicopters?
You would accomplish nothing with a machine gun - nothing.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I did not say that. Once again, you do not pay attention and respond to the discussion, instead, you move to tangents.
Perhaps you should study up on the legal status before involving yourself in discussions that you apparently do not fully understand.
Start with the comments from Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Scalia, June 26, 2008: Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Semi-autos are hardly considered unusual.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
double post
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
AK47 with a slidefire stock, would you classify that as unusual?
If it was fully automatic, then absolutely.
If it is a mass produced semi-automatic with no chance of being converted to fully auto, it's not unusual; however, requiring registration for such a weapon is not a violation of the Second Amendment, as you would still be allowed to own it - just like handgun registration.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Whatever you've got, I've read it, studied it. I know more than you.
Certainly doesnt appear that way. Like most liberals, you seem to sweep the facts that dont support the agenda under the rug and forget about them.
I can't tell. You seem to be a 22 year old who doesn't have any facts to ever back up their statements, and always attempts to change topics when you have nothing to work with.
I was an adult before the 1994 ban was enacted, you don't have the knowledge of the 1990's high homicide rates.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Coming from a person who is utterly wrong 99% of the time, I'll take that as a compliment.
You are delusional. You think your opinions are more relevant than actual facts. And as for "99%", that is another one of your made-up numbers. You just love to make-up statistics with no factual basis.
When you get older and have some actual knowledge and experience, come back with factual basis for your opinions.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I'm fairly certain I could go back 100 of your posts and 99 of them be completely useless.
I assume your evident frustration is because you're intelligent enough to realize that what David said about you is true.... but you're still brainwashed enough to stick to your liberal guns. (pun intended)
Factual statements are only useless to those who choose to ignore facts that do not fit with their beliefs.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Which part was true? My age? Or my level of intelligence? Both of which he hit the nail on his own thumb.
That you seem to value your own opinions over evidence and fade in debates that become oriented around evidence. It's a pretty typical occurrence from people on the left side of the spectrum.
L: This needs to happen because of this.
R: But the facts show that it actually happens because of this.
L: you're stupid, how can you not see it the way i see it?
This goes both ways pretty regularly. Despite the prevalence of ignorance in political debates, it's actually pretty rare for there to be an issue where one side has absolutely no valid points to make.
This is a very valid observation. What we see is that someone who should be capable of presenting plenty of facts to support his opinions, instead chooses to ignore them and sticks to beliefs only.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Please re-read your post. "hit the nail on his own thumb"? Do you even know what a hammer and nail are?
I have given you plenty of facts, and you have chosen to ignore the factual statements repeatedly, which speaks volumes concerning your intelligence level.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
So can you point out an instance where I issued my opinion as fact?
sure
I know this was directed at me, and yet none of you could find a single instance of where I issued an opinion in place of a fact. Hehehe.
I didn't look for one. I am fairly certain that I could find one if I wanted to look.
Didn't you proclaim that psychology was a science and was under the same scrutiny as chemistry? Perhaps you should re-read this thread.
And yes - the statement was concerning you (not directed at you, but rather to bu villan, who I quoted). Wasn't trying to hide it obviously. I really wish that you would present facts to support your opinions - I am 99% certain that you could do so, if you would put out the effort. (I made up the 99% statistic).
Are you saying that you only have opinions and take things completely on faith? That gives the appearance that a person that is studying science is refusing to actually apply it, and would rather just treat their opinions like they were religious beliefs.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Is that the same thread where you challenged me and cited the OPINION of someone who did not have a doctor in psychology?
I very seldom share my opinions and make sure anything I say at the very least can be found in a college level textbook with minimal effort.And yes - the statement was concerning you (not directed at you, but rather to bu villan, who I quoted). Wasn't trying to hide it obviously. I really wish that you would present facts to support your opinions - I am 99% certain that you could do so, if you would put out the effort. (I made up the 99% statistic).
Are you saying that you only have opinions and take things completely on faith? That gives the appearance that a person that is studying science is refusing to actually apply it, and would rather just treat their opinions like they were religious beliefs.
Same thread where I gave you the professional opinon of a nationally recognized psycologist, and the opinion of someone nationally recognized as a leader in autistic research - plus the professional and published opinion of the former head of the psychiatric department of City University in London - all which were not in agreement with your stated opinions. You should re-read the thread, as you provided no such support for your own personal, uneducated opinions.
So you claim that you don't share your opinions, yet we see that you have not provided factual statements either, and then you just stated that you didn't state your opinion as fact, so what exactly do you think that you are supplying when you type?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Pretty much sums up the position on both sides.
Ted Nugent, you are full of CRAP on ANY debate
Add this to the list of opinions.
Piers Morgan is a British anti-gun nut, and always has been. Even Jeremy Clarkson couldn't stand him, and punched him.
Let's get into a fact check though. Ted Nugent stated that the US and Switzerland were the top countries, and Piers Morgan said that it was the US and Yemen. Here's the facts:
The numbers that they were talking about come from smallarmssurvey.org 2007 report, "Annexe 4", which covers 178 countries.
The ownership rate reported is the average estimate. That table gives also the minimum and maximum estimates. For some countries, the margin of error is considerable. E.g. Yemen, ranked near the top with an ownership rate of 54.8, has a low estimate of 28.6 and a high estimate of 81.1. While the United States is ranked for the highest gun ownership rate unambiguously, Yemen based on the margin of error may rank anywhere between 2nd and 18th, Switzerland anywhere between 2nd and 16th.
The differences here are that Yemen is poor, and 46% of the population is under 15. Switzerland is one of the richest countries, and the structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their Army issued equipment, including all personal weapons, at home.
To conclude that guns make the country safer, or more dangerous, just from the per capita numbers is ill-informed. Anyone looking to use per capita to try to regulate guns is simply trying to promote an agenda. In this particular case, having a known liberal foreign national attempt to influence US policies is pathetic.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Clearly he is speaking to intentions.
If Obama accomplishes what he DESIRES to do..... people like Ted Nugent and myself.... and many others on this sight who live otherwise peaceful lives will become criminals by the letter of the law. Nugent, like others..... says he will not abide by these new laws and the result will either be death defending your rights or jail.
What part of this do you not understand?
I say again....................... you're too smart to be this stupid.
He's not attempting to influence US policy, he's the host of an opinion based news segment, no more relevant or influential than Bill O'Reiley. Ted Nugent is a washed up country music singer (I use that term loosely) who's only claim to recent fame is being a mouthy idiot who knows nothing about anything, and dodges drafts.
add this to the list of baseless opinions also.
CNN gave Piers Morgan a timeslot that held the largest viewership of US voters - Larry King's show. Do you think that was by accident?
If you have watched his show even once, then you would not say that he is not attempting to influence US policy. Please watch and see for yourself.
If you want, just go to YouTube and type in his name and listen to him yourself.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Piers hosts an opinion based show, Ted is a washed up country singer, and he dodged the draft. What about that is an opinion?
The draft part is your opinion. It's not a fact.
snopes.com: Ted Nugent Dodged the Draft?
1967 - 1-S
1968 - 2-S
1969 - 1-A, then failed the exam, and was clasified as 1-Y
1972 - 4-F
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Nugent said of Obama getting re-elected that he would either be dead or in jail, what part of that has anything to do with Obama accomplishing something and Nugent defending his rights?
Clearly he was right. Obama did get re-elected and despite the comforting denials from people like you, Obama is seeking to ban guns and Ted Nugent will become a criminal if Obama accomplishes what he is trying to do.
What part of this do you not understand?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
