Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America - Page 8
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 162

Thread: Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    I wasn't aware I was responding to you, but in any case, I'd prefer it if you'd just put me back on your ignore list.
    Nah...I'd just as soon be enlightened by your wit and wisdom.

  2.   
  3. #72
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    You might consider properly attributing these words of wisdom.

    Sorry, but the idea of unfettered arms and narcotics sales doesn't exactly inspire feelings of great safety with me.

  5. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    To all you guys who wish to qualify the 2A, I challenge you to specifically list the firearms which YOU feel that a citizen has the right to keep/carry. This oughta be fun...
    I'd agree to anything that is not a crew served weapon as being legal for the individual and those would be allowed for militias.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  6. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rogers, AR
    Posts
    63
    Ok, what if the entire citizenry of the United States WAS the military? Instead of signing up to be in the armed forces, you signed up as "willing to go to foreign shores." Those who choose not to go abroad would be Homeland Security. Then we could all keep what we should be able to own anyway, and get the training some people consider to be necessary. How much tyranny do you think the government would be able to get away with then?
    The mighty oak was once a little nut who held it's ground.


  7. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Durendal View Post
    Ok, what if the entire citizenry of the United States WAS the military? Instead of signing up to be in the armed forces, you signed up as "willing to go to foreign shores." Those who choose not to go abroad would be Homeland Security. Then we could all keep what we should be able to own anyway, and get the training some people consider to be necessary. How much tyranny do you think the government would be able to get away with then?
    Similar to Switzerland. I could entertain that.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    Sorry, but the idea of unfettered arms and narcotics sales doesn't exactly inspire feelings of great safety with me.
    Your fears alone shouldn't limit the rights of others. There are plenty of people out there who are afraid of scary men with concealed handguns, for example. Yet when you look at the legal record in this country, allowing citizens to purchase or carry arms of any type has never led to an increase in crime.

    Do you use safety as a standard for what should be legal? Like I said before, there's no getting rid of stupid people. We hear about "accidental" (negligent) shootings all the time, but I doubt most of the people on this site would agree to ban all semi-auto handguns because they are the most often negligently discharged class of firearm. Automatic weapons are no more inherently unsafe than any other firearm, as long as you follow those 4 rules everyone keeps talking about.

    How about practicality as a standard? Should assault rifles be illegal because they aren't the best choice for home defense? There are very few circumstances when I would use an assault rifle outside of a shooting range, but the same goes for any number of currently legal guns. I wouldn't use a T/C Contender for home defense either, but I still wouldn't mind owning one.

    So where do you draw the line? At weapons of mass destruction? The USA goes out of its way to keep them out of the hands of third-world dictators, so I'd say that's a reasonable one. What about crew-served weapons? Rocket launchers? Do you really think gangs are going to bring those on home invasions, for example? I doubt it; if it was practical or useful, they'd already be doing it. Criminals will always find a way to do or get what they want. I'd bet there are gangs in every major American city who have access to illegal automatic weapons. Do you think they would hesitate to use them if they had some major crime planned? It's certainly happened before.

  9. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceFrank View Post
    Your fears alone shouldn't limit the rights of others. There are plenty of people out there who are afraid of scary men with concealed handguns, for example. Yet when you look at the legal record in this country, allowing citizens to purchase or carry arms of any type has never led to an increase in crime.

    Do you use safety as a standard for what should be legal? Like I said before, there's no getting rid of stupid people. We hear about "accidental" (negligent) shootings all the time, but I doubt most of the people on this site would agree to ban all semi-auto handguns because they are the most often negligently discharged class of firearm. Automatic weapons are no more inherently unsafe than any other firearm, as long as you follow those 4 rules everyone keeps talking about.

    How about practicality as a standard? Should assault rifles be illegal because they aren't the best choice for home defense? There are very few circumstances when I would use an assault rifle outside of a shooting range, but the same goes for any number of currently legal guns. I wouldn't use a T/C Contender for home defense either, but I still wouldn't mind owning one.

    So where do you draw the line? At weapons of mass destruction? The USA goes out of its way to keep them out of the hands of third-world dictators, so I'd say that's a reasonable one. What about crew-served weapons? Rocket launchers? Do you really think gangs are going to bring those on home invasions, for example? I doubt it; if it was practical or useful, they'd already be doing it. Criminals will always find a way to do or get what they want. I'd bet there are gangs in every major American city who have access to illegal automatic weapons. Do you think they would hesitate to use them if they had some major crime planned? It's certainly happened before.
    A majority of the Justices of the SCOTUS presently seem satisfied leaving the line drawing to the political process, based on the Heller decision and the Justices comments in the oral argument of McDonald.

    There will three groups emerging from this process - one each on the extremes (the "no guns" and the "all guns") and the great majority in the middle.

    The "no guns" and "all guns" will spend their time flapping the lips on forums and in front of Starbucks about their extremist views. The rest of us will participate in the political process trying to secure the best possible outcome for our respective views.

    Now ask yourself, which group are you going to participate in?

  10. #79

    There will three groups emerging from this process - one each on the extremes (the "no guns" and the "all guns") and the great majority in the middle.

    The "no guns" and "all guns" will spend their time flapping the lips on forums and in front of Starbucks about their extremist views. The rest of us will participate in the political process trying to secure the best possible outcome for our respective views.


    The group that believes the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  11. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    The group that believes the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says.[/I]
    And as accurately characterized by nogods, HK4U runs directly to the far right, flapping away here, as is his normal custom.

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. America as the Last Man Standing Against Islam
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 02:37 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 05:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 07:32 PM
  4. The Communist Takeover of America
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 10:05 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast