Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

holy dear god, im frightened you are the same age as me. You are obscenely blind to the world, did you grow up under a rock? We're you home schooled? did you grow up in a cult camp? I would not care if thousands of lives were saved by following your ideas because the world as we know it would completely collapse into a depression of great magnitude. Having to rely on either a horse and carriage or govt controlled transportation to get somewhere would cause a calamity, no real on demand travel...tons of time wasted in life waiting. So in the end here, you are just plain STUPID and are not thinking about the BIG PICTURE. PEOPLE DIE, GET OVER IT.

100's of millions > thousands

NO ONE is forced to get in a car and drive. Its ASSUMED risk.

So because i make a proposal that saves lives, you insult me and get angry? You're so obsessed with car culture that you disregard human life? Have you ever been checked for a mental illness? It scares me to think someone with no regard for human life is riding around sharing the highway with children and families. You getting to the mall 15 minutes faster is more important than the lives of children? Yes, driving a car is a risk... a risk that can be minimized. There is no need for anyone to have a performance car like a corvette. People use the highways to travel and they should be able to do so safely without the added risk of people who are obsessed with their cars driving vehicles that far exceed the definition of transportation. People like you who have no regard for human life and put owning a car above it should be diagnosed with mental illness.


two questions...

How would you feel if your government presented you with the argument that i have?

How would you respond if they forced this measure through with executive order even though the majority of americans voted against it?

[David88vert]

Defeat? Where did that happen? David88 shared his uneducated opinion on the science of psychology, which, as an American, he's entitled to have. I chose not to dignify it with a response. If he wanted to be a little more educated about his stance, maybe sit in on some lectures, write a couple theses, I could take him a little more seriously. But simply saying he doesn't believe psychology is a science because he doesn't think it deals with analyticals, and quantifiable data, and repeatably conclusive research, despite the opposite being true, makes him look ignorant. He's only here to try and win an argument he knows he's on the loosing side of. I'm not gonna be a party to it. It's more fun, for me to let him bask in his ignorance.

Once again, you refuse to answer any question or address any facts. You have a tendency to ignore anything concrete, and only answer with your unsubstantiated opinions - or you just try to pretend that you answer with some unrelated question.

I actually did not offer my uneduacted opinion on psychology, I gave you the opinion of Professor Peter Rickman. He actually does have a degree and was at the City University of London.
Do you have a degree in Psychology, or any degree at all? Answer that question.
What is your official job title - you know, what you would actually list on your resume.

Define how happiness could be researched globaly.
Explain how human behavior can be accurately predicted. Here's a hint:
"Human behavior is complex, and it is not possible to conduct experiments to test all aspects of what people do or why." - Professor (of Psychology) Timothy D. Wilson - University of Virginia

I was in lectures when you were in diapers, if you are really only 22.

Convince myself that I'm right? Lol. When I type on this iPhone, I don't have to convince myself that its real. David88 is trying to convince himself that iPhones don't exist.

This is an outright lie from you. I never said such a thing. Once again, you make up whatever you want, and expect us to just accept it as truth.

Do iPhones exist?

Again, you do not answer the question posted to you. You reply with an unrelated question that has no bearing on the discussion.

iPhones exist - Physics can utilize all of the basic principle of science to verify that the molecules that make up the phone exist.. Physics is a science.

Ask yourself this, do you think it's not because you don't see psychologists and psychiatrists in fancy lab coats and swirling around graduated cylinders and beakers full of special brightly colored chemicals? Or is it because you don't really understand what kind of quantifiable data a psychologist is looking for, and what that data actually means?

What do you think a predictable and measurable result actually means?

[insert black_cd type of response]How is political science a science? [/insert black_cd type of response]

Science - The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.

Show me a thought in physical form. Don't give random comments back - show me the molecules involved.

[David88vert]

There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science. That's what makes science science.
So if you pour gas on a fire 100 times, and it the gas puts the fire out 30 times, how would you interpret that?
How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?
There are physiological responses that determine the validity of emotions.

"There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science." - only partially correct

"That's what makes science science." - No, not true. Review the definition of science - "the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms." Following the structure of science in testing the physical world, and discovering secular truths, that is what make science science.

"So if you pour gas on a fire 100 times, and it the gas puts the fire out 30 times, how would you interpret that?" - It would be an experiment that was not repeated exactly the same way 30 times - a flawed experiment. Think before you type.

"How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?" - Religion is not science. Why you added this random comment is not clear.

A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny.
The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas.
You take belief out of the equation.
As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests

"A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny" - Psychologists that are in the lab are practicing CHEMISTRY - a science that actually is dealing with the physical world. Of course their chemical tests should follow the same scrutiny - it's chemistry.

"The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas." - Correct. It's chemistry, and not psychology. How does this chemistry experiment prove that psychology is a science? You still have offered nothing more than your uneduated, personal opinion on the matter.

"You take belief out of the equation" - Again, religion is not science, and does not help your case.

"As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests" - Home pregnancy tests are based on chemistry, not psychology.

[.blank cd]

Ok. You're right. I'm wrong. Do you feel better?

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. You're right. I'm wrong. Do you feel better?

You're right..............


























































in admitting that you're wrong.

[Echonova]

I just look at geologic hydro-dynamics for a living, but as someone that believes in God I cannot be trusted in my judgements about scientific things.


Because the they are to totally different subjects that cannot be separated by a zealot like me.

[Sinfix_15]

I just look at geologic hydro-dynamics for a living, but as someone that believes in God I cannot be trusted in my judgements about scientific things.


Because the they are to totally different subjects that cannot be separated by a zealot like me.

How do you weigh that morally when everything you know, goes against everything you know?

[.blank cd]

You're right..............

in admitting that you're wrong.

Lol.

[Sinfix_15]

Lol.

I personally dont feel the studies of psychology are that conclusive, however... i will say this one is winning me over.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, can you offer some psychological input on a subject that troubles my mind?

[Echonova]

How do you weigh that morally when everything you know, goes against everything you know?

Because... scientifically speaking, water has no morals. It's the dirty whore of the environmental world. It goes where it wants and does unspeakable things with whoever it finds.


8lb 6oz baby Jesus hates water. Because she's a dirty slut. Therefore I always find dirty water that needs to be cleansed.



It's a win-win for me.

[SPOOLIN]

Why can't I have admin rights so I can ban this communist degenerate


www.MSSRACING.com

[Sinfix_15]

Why can't I have admin rights so I can ban this communist degenerate


Matt Stover Racing - Home

Answer the question please.


How would you feel if your government presented you with the argument that i have?

How would you respond if they forced this measure through with executive order even though the majority of americans voted against it?



Putting faith in the government to protect you provide you with what you need makes you a communist?

[David88vert]

Ok. You're right. I'm wrong. Do you feel better?

Actually, I just wanted you to answer the questions posed; however, it appears that you do not wish to divulge that information, and that is your choice.
As you stated earlier, as an American, you are entitled to your opinion and have the right to state it - just don't be surprised if it gets called into question (and I'm not saying that you were surprised).

[David88vert]

I just look at geologic hydro-dynamics for a living, but as someone that believes in God I cannot be trusted in my judgements about scientific things.


Because the they are to totally different subjects that cannot be separated by a zealot like me.

You're definitely going to hell....

[David88vert]

Blank, can you offer some psychological input on a subject that troubles my mind?

I think that he will need to run some tests on your first. Here: Drink this.....

[David88vert]

Because... scientifically speaking, water has no morals. It's the dirty whore of the environmental world. It goes where it wants and does unspeakable things with whoever it finds.


8lb 6oz baby Jesus hates water. Because she's a dirty slut. Therefore I always find dirty water that needs to be cleansed.



It's a win-win for me.

It's actually the saviour. Water filters and cleans all of the pollution. Double saviours for the win.

[David88vert]

Why can't I have admin rights so I can ban this communist degenerate


Matt Stover Racing - Home

You still haven't figured out that this thread was started sarcastically?
Everyone on here is a car guy - no one really wants to ban cars.

[David88vert]

Putting faith in the government to protect you provide you with what you need makes you a communist?

No, it makes you a sucker.

[Sinfix_15]

You still haven't figured out that this thread was started sarcastically?
Everyone on here is a car guy - no one really wants to ban cars.

This.

I would also like to add that i enjoyed being met with such hostility when pretty much all i did was read some Obama dialog and add the word "cars"

[David88vert]

This.

I would also like to add that i enjoyed being met with such hostility when pretty much all i did was read some Obama dialog and add the word "cars"

To be fair and balanced (see what I did there), Obama never stated that he wants a ban on guns. He has stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment, and his plans ranged from criminal background checks on all gun sales, to a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, to a 10-round limit on all ammunition magazines.
The list:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

[Sinfix_15]

To be fair and balanced (see what I did there), Obama never stated that he wants a ban on guns. He has stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment, and his plans ranged from criminal background checks on all gun sales, to a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, to a 10-round limit on all ammunition magazines.
The list:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Obama not banning guns is the same as this dog not biting you. The only reason he his walking his desire back is because of political pressure.Bill Clinton had to tell him to tone it down a notch. He will strike when the iron is hot..... just so happens it wasnt hot enough this time. Assault weapon ban is not acceptable. 10 round clip limit is not acceptable. Being left with my 12 gauge doesnt confirm that "Obama aint tryin to take your guns away". If you believe Obama supports the constitution, then i may i have overestimated your intelligence.

Obama has voiced many issues with the constitution, he "tests the water" with critiques and is slowly crafting his argument against it..... if i had to single out Obama's biggest beef with the constitution.... would probably be that it's not written in pencil or that he cant wipe his ass with it.

[David88vert]

Obama not banning guns is the same as this dog not biting you. The only reason he his walking his desire back is because of political pressure.Bill Clinton had to tell him to tone it down a notch. He will strike when the iron is hot..... just so happens it wasnt hot enough this time. Assault weapon ban is not acceptable. 10 round clip limit is not acceptable. Being left with my 12 gauge doesnt confirm that "Obama aint tryin to take your guns away". If you believe Obama supports the constitution, then i may i have overestimated your intelligence.

Obama has voiced many issues with the constitution, he "tests the water" with critiques and is slowly crafting his argument against it..... if i had to single out Obama's biggest beef with the constitution.... would probably be that it's not written in pencil or that he cant wipe his ass with it.

What are you unable to do with a 10 round clip vs a 15 round clip?
What are you unable to shoot with a rifle or shotgun, that you can with an assault style weapon?
Just saying it's unacceptable doesn't really convince people that you know what the discussion is about, when the executive orders do not prohibit any firearms.

BTW - If you really wanted to own an assault weapon, you could apply to get a Class 3 dealer license and FFL and have pretty much anything you want.

[Sinfix_15]

What are you unable to do with a 10 round clip vs a 15 round clip?
What are you unable to shoot with a rifle or shotgun, that you can with an assault style weapon?
Just saying it's unacceptable doesn't really convince people that you know what the discussion is about, when the executive orders do not prohibit any firearms.

BTW - If you really wanted to own an assault weapon, you could apply to get a Class 3 dealer license and FFL and have pretty much anything you want.

I cant shoot 11 things with a 10 round clip. Them picking 10 is no accident, theyre more than aware the percentage of guns that would be effected by that. It's clearly a strategy of lets impose the most restriction possible while still trying to gift wrap it in a manner that it appears acceptable and ultimately the end result is a gun free america.

Give me clarification on what distinguishes a rifle from an assault rifle.

I already own "assault weapons". I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. What is the problem with it?

Also, i dont like this description..... let's pick a title more accurate to their purpose. "anti-assault weapons"

[bu villain]

How would you respond if they forced this measure through with executive order even though the majority of americans voted against it?

But they didn't so why bother with such hypotheticals? Let's stick to what Obama and congress are actually doing, not what you think is their secret master plan. David posted the executive orders. Which ones do you have a problem with specifically?

I would also like to add that i enjoyed being met with such hostility when pretty much all i did was read some Obama dialog and add the word "cars"

When you take someone's words and apply it to a completely different topic, you are going to get push back from some. Personally, I see a lot of corallaries when thinking about regulation for both cars and guns but that doesn't mean I think they should be regulated the same either. Most people intuitively understand the differences so they react rather than articulating how they are different.

[Sinfix_15]

But they didn't so why bother with such hypotheticals? Let's stick to what Obama and congress are actually doing, not what you think is their secret master plan. David posted the executive orders. Which ones do you have a problem with specifically?



When you take someone's words and apply it to a completely different topic, you are going to get push back from some. Personally, I see a lot of corallaries when thinking about regulation for both cars and guns but that doesn't mean I think they should be regulated the same either. Most people intuitively understand the differences so they react rather than articulating how they are different.

Theoretically speaking, step 1 of any "secret master plan" would be to not reveal the "secret master plan". So saying " he hasnt actually done it yet " doesnt really carry much weight.

I guarantee that Obama seeks an assault weapons ban.

What do i have a problem with specifically? Banning anything under false pretenses.

What purpose does the UN arms treaty serve? What purpose does UN healthcare serve? why is gun control linked to healthcare in any way? During a financial crisis, why are we talking about gun magazines?

Certainly looks like this to me.......

[David88vert]

I cant shoot 11 things with a 10 round clip. Them picking 10 is no accident, theyre more than aware the percentage of guns that would be effected by that. It's clearly a strategy of lets impose the most restriction possible while still trying to gift wrap it in a manner that it appears acceptable and ultimately the end result is a gun free america.

Give me clarification on what distinguishes a rifle from an assault rifle.

I already own "assault weapons". I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. What is the problem with it?

Also, i dont like this description..... let's pick a title more accurate to their purpose. "anti-assault weapons"

You can shoot 11 rounds with a 10 round clip. You just have to reload the clip. It would simply take slightly more time.
I'm not sure how you figure than only having 10 rounds per clip with no limit on the amount of clips that you can have, nor a limit on guns suddenly makes America "gun free".

The difference between the assault style rifles and hunting rifles is simple:
Semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock, Pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons.
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
Beretta AR-70 and
SC-70
Colt AR-15
Fabriqué National FN FAL
FN LAR and
FNC
MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10
MAC-11
MAC 11/9 and
MAC-12
Steyr AUG
INTRATEC TEC-9
TEC-DC9 and
TEC-22
Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

[David88vert]

Theoretically speaking, step 1 of any "secret master plan" would be to not reveal the "secret master plan". So saying " he hasnt actually done it yet " doesnt really carry much weight.

Step 1: Collect the underpants.

Ummm... sprinkles......

[Sinfix_15]

You can shoot 11 rounds with a 10 round clip. You just have to reload the clip. It would simply take slightly more time.
I'm not sure how you figure than only having 10 rounds per clip with no limit on the amount of clips that you can have, nor a limit on guns suddenly makes America "gun free".

The difference between the assault style rifles and hunting rifles is simple:
Semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock, Pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons.
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
Beretta AR-70 and
SC-70
Colt AR-15
Fabriqué National FN FAL
FN LAR and
FNC
MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10
MAC-11
MAC 11/9 and
MAC-12
Steyr AUG
INTRATEC TEC-9
TEC-DC9 and
TEC-22
Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

just because they dont take your freedom in 1 swoop does not mean theyre not trying to take it. You said it.... clip ban accomplishes nothing.... so why do it? A: because its a foot in the door. theyre not seeking the weapons that are most likely to put citizens in danger, theyre seeking the weapons most likely to put THEM in danger. The government should fear its people, not the other way around. Point to any example in history where handing over complete power to a government ever worked out for it's citizens? My guard is rightfully up because im being lied to by the most dishonest, secretive and sketchy president our country has ever known.

[Sinfix_15]

is this an assault rifle?


this? can you tell me which ones are and are not assault rifles and why?

[Sinfix_15]

i mean come on... is this an assault rifle too? (lol)

[David88vert]

I gave you the list above. Its pretty clear in definition.
Since they already passed it once, and for 10 years - did it lead to a complete ban as you feared?

[Echonova]

[Sinfix_15]

I gave you the list above. Its pretty clear in definition.
Since they already passed it once, and for 10 years - did it lead to a complete ban as you feared?

The modern day liberal is much worse than any who have sought to ban guns before them. King Obama has emboldened them. Feinsteins proposals are the biggest assault on the 2nd amendment in history and it has absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings or safety. This isnt "business as usual". This is the left making their run at the finish line. Liberals believe americans should be disarmed, the same way this president believes, despite what his teleprompter says.

[David88vert]

The modern day liberal is much worse than any who have sought to ban guns before them. King Obama has emboldened them. Feinsteins proposals are the biggest assault on the 2nd amendment in history and it has absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings or safety. This isnt "business as usual". This is the left making their run at the finish line. Liberals believe americans should be disarmed, the same way this president believes, despite what his teleprompter says.

I want you to re-read this statement and re-think it.

Feinstein was the author of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004. Same liberal, so far, same legislation. I'm no fan of Feinstein or Pelosi, the facts do not agree with your speculation.

Obama has publically stated that he does not want to ban all guns. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I personally do not want the ban on assault style weapons, but I do not believe that it is a complete ban on firearms. Registration of all firearms is a more slippery slope than assault style weapons.

[David88vert]

I have a question for you that is really a discussion that needs to be broken out from the rest of this, so I have created it's own post.

When you say that assault style weapons protect us from the government, what do you envision as their purpose in a conflict with the government?
Do you think that having a rifle that will fire more than 30 rounds without reloading suddenly empowers the people to fight against the US Army?

The Taliban fought the Soviet Army for 10 years, and collected a huge supply of weapons, including millions of AK's. They had 20 years to establish themselves with communications, infrastructure, planning, etc. None of that was a match for our Army. Repeatedly, their fully automatic AK's have been outclassed by our Army's armor and training. Our Army does not have to match them on a man-to-man basis. The battlefield is not level.
The people in the US do not have the leadership structure, communications, etc, to even match the Taliban's efforts. Do you think that Columbus metro area civilians, population approximately 180K, is a match for Ft Benning's armor and infantry (population approx 120K, with half of it Army)?

No one is going to stand up and play Rambo with an assault style rifle. IF there was a conflict, the only way that the US citizens could fight back against the Army is through guerilla warfare - against their own people (Army). If they succeeded, the US would be crippled politically and ecomically, and would be in danger of falling prey to other nations.

What holds back the government from being able to lock down the people is the leaders of our Armed Forces, as traditionally, they have not generally favored ordering troops to fire on US citizens. assault style rifles are no match for tanks and trained troops.

[Sinfix_15]

I want you to re-read this statement and re-think it.

Feinstein was the author of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004. Same liberal, so far, same legislation. I'm no fan of Feinstein or Pelosi, the facts do not agree with your speculation.

Obama has publically stated that he does not want to ban all guns. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I personally do not want the ban on assault style weapons, but I do not believe that it is a complete ban on firearms. Registration of all firearms is a more slippery slope than assault style weapons.

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite. You're gonna need to pull your head out of the sand if this conversation is going to get anywhere.

[.blank cd]

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite. You're gonna need to pull your head out of the sand if this conversation is going to get anywhere.

So when you say "Obama is a socialist communist tyrant bent on circumventing the constitution to collect America's guns", I should expect the opposite? What weight does what you say carry?

If we've got to rely on evidence, how many guns has Obama forcibly collected so far?

[Sinfix_15]

I have a question for you that is really a discussion that needs to be broken out from the rest of this, so I have created it's own post.

When you say that assault style weapons protect us from the government, what do you envision as their purpose in a conflict with the government?
Do you think that having a rifle that will fire more than 30 rounds without reloading suddenly empowers the people to fight against the US Army?

The Taliban fought the Soviet Army for 10 years, and collected a huge supply of weapons, including millions of AK's. They had 20 years to establish themselves with communications, infrastructure, planning, etc. None of that was a match for our Army. Repeatedly, their fully automatic AK's have been outclassed by our Army's armor and training. Our Army does not have to match them on a man-to-man basis. The battlefield is not level.
The people in the US do not have the leadership structure, communications, etc, to even match the Taliban's efforts. Do you think that Columbus metro area civilians, population approximately 180K, is a match for Ft Benning's armor and infantry (population approx 120K, with half of it Army)?

No one is going to stand up and play Rambo with an assault style rifle. IF there was a conflict, the only way that the US citizens could fight back against the Army is through guerilla warfare - against their own people (Army). If they succeeded, the US would be crippled politically and ecomically, and would be in danger of falling prey to other nations.

What holds back the government from being able to lock down the people is the leaders of our Armed Forces, as traditionally, they have not generally favored ordering troops to fire on US citizens. assault style rifles are no match for tanks and trained troops.

Why do people always interpret it as a US Army vs People pick up game..... like we're gonna break off and pick sides... and Neighborhood C is gonna square off against FT Bennings armory or something. People have the right to be prepared for anything. It's not as cut and dry as "if the gobberment steps out of line we round the troops and march on the white house".....

Just to entertain your curiosity of a scenario in which something more than a 12gauge would be needed.

If someone ever attacked us on our own soil. Things would probably be pretty grim prior to this ever happening to begin with and it would no doubt follow some type of economic collapse. Police/military would be overwhelmed and would probably not be able to adequately maintain their normal duties. Anytime in history that the police are "distracted" or incapacitated in any measure, criminals take advantage. In the event pillagers were roaming around taking advantage of it, i want more than a revolver and shotgun to defend my house.

California is supposedly one of our most prosperous states and it's on the verge of being bankrupt. We already heard about all government employees having their pay reduced to min wage. In this circumstance, those employees were good enough to continue doing their work while protesting it... but what if they went on strike? Same thing as i said before.... hell, our police cant control a city like Chicago when theyre actually trying to.... you think things would control themselves in the absence of police?

If the dollar collapsed or there was any shortage or rationing of supplies. Really, we're conditioned to believe this isnt possible and our world is perfectly unbreakable... the same way any other supreme power from the past felt about themselves, but the reality is... other countries control this fate. If China dumped it's US treasuries that would trigger economic chaos. Something as simple as gas prices could cripple the world as we know it. What if oil import stopped tomorrow. How many things would that effect? farmers, grocery stores, cars, police, fire trucks, hospitals.... ect ect... people arent going to sit around and go hungry, you house is going to turn into a grocery store. If you think in that scenario people are going to unite and help each other.... well, then jesus bless your little heart.



We live in a country that has already gone to war with itself. That once allowed us to own other people....... yet i keep hearing that things like this are impossible. If you want examples of why anyone would want arms, all you have to do is flip through a history book. People who defend the 2nd amendment arent just defending it for tomorrow's "fight", they preserving it for 50 years from now, 100 years from now... 200 years from now. You cant predict what the future brings and you have no right to restrict anyone's ability to adequately defend themselves.

Not to mention, this request comes with no merit. Rifles are the gun used the LEAST in crime and the MOST in sport. Taking them away serves no purpose other than to prove you can take them away. A government that deserved to be trusted would not seek to take them away. Keep saying it will never happen...... good, i hope youre right. But in the event of chaos im not going to sit in and my living room and wonder where David88vert or BlankCD is so that i can say "i told you so". That's the kicker of being prepared for the worst...... if you're right and it never happens.... we're both happy and i have a really expensive paper weight collection. What happens if you're wrong?


Irony.... a country that has constant reminders of why it needs to protect itself, seems so prepared to forfeit that ability.

[Sinfix_15]

So when you say "Obama is a socialist communist tyrant bent on circumventing the constitution to collect America's guns", I should expect the opposite? What weight does what you say carry?

If we've got to rely on evidence, how many guns has Obama forcibly collected so far?

You can expect whatever you want from your King.