|
Guns (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
You're asking me to justify why I don't think the general public should be allowed to own military-grade weapons? Is that a serious question?
Assault weapons are impractical for target shooting and hunting...so what use is it to you? It looks cool? It makes you feel like a big man? Personal protection?
By all means, keep a pistol (like a nice SIG P226/229)locked up in your house for protection if you sleep better. By all means keep a rifle for hunting or sport shooting, but it's okay for everyone on the block to sit home watching America's Most Wanted while polishing thier AUG or Galil?
Honestly, who needs a Browning .50 cal machine gun in thier home?
I said 'needs', not 'wants'.
You guys seem perfectly willing to comprimise in human rights, so why not give up the Mill St. Militia? |
I'm not saying YOU are the problem, but I'm sure you know a few people you wouldn't want with that kind of heat. |
|
|
| KiNeTiC ENeRgY |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Give me a valid reason for why I shouldn't be able to own one? If I just wanted to kill a bunch of people I could do far more damage with my car on city streets crowded with pedestrians. Here in the US we don't just give up rights for no good reason. |
dude, wake up. Theres no practical use for a stupid civilian to own a gun that powerful. Its designed for one purpose, and thats killing humans. Its not for shooting sporting clays, paper targets, beer cans, or a deer. |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY
dude, wake up. Theres no practical use for a stupid civilian to own a gun that powerful. Its designed for one purpose, and thats killing humans. Its not for shooting sporting clays, paper targets, beer cans, or a deer. |
It's for the feeling you get when owning it, holding it, maybe shooting it. It's exhilarating. It's like collecting sports cars or whatever the impractical things are that people like to collect.
Also,
:wtf: |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
It's for the feeling you get when owning it, holding it, maybe shooting it. It's exhilarating. It's like collecting sports cars or whatever the impractical things are that people like to collect.
|
What possible reason is there for a civilian to own a sports car?
Sports cars are impractical for commuting...so what use is it to you? It looks cool? It makes you feel like a big man? Coke whores?
Honestly, who needs a sports car in their home?
I said 'needs', not 'wants'.
Am I doing it right? |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
You're asking me to justify why I don't think the general public should be allowed to own military-grade weapons? Is that a serious question?
Assault weapons are impractical for target shooting and hunting...so what use is it to you? It looks cool? It makes you feel like a big man? Personal protection?
By all means, keep a pistol (like a nice SIG P226/229)locked up in your house for protection if you sleep better. By all means keep a rifle for hunting or sport shooting, but it's okay for everyone on the block to sit home watching America's Most Wanted while polishing thier AUG or Galil?
Honestly, who needs a Browning .50 cal machine gun in thier home?
I said 'needs', not 'wants'.
You guys seem perfectly willing to comprimise in human rights, so why not give up the Mill St. Militia? |
Yes, it is ok for the general public to own military grade weapons. In fact, the forefathers of my country not only felt it was ok, they wanted to guarantee that we would be able to so they created an amendment to our Constitution. And before you start with "but they never imagined AK-47s" remember the mindset of the people who were writing the Bill of Rights. They had just successfully used an army of the people to overthrow a tyranical government. So yes, it was their every intention for the average citizen to have weapons on par with the military both for national defense as well as to keep the government in check. So no, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning military style weapons. Do you know the statistics on what percentage of gun crimes involve military style weapons? Nope? You never hear that from the anti-gun people, and that is because it is such a small number that if they ever publicized it people would think they were idiots for spending so much time and energy to ban that class of weapon. And the general public has not been able to purchase fully automatic weapons here in the US for quite some time so everyone doesn't have an M2 Browning. Here in the US it isn't a question of need, it is a right.
| quote: | Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY
dude, wake up. Theres no practical use for a stupid civilian to own a gun that powerful. Its designed for one purpose, and thats killing humans. Its not for shooting sporting clays, paper targets, beer cans, or a deer. |
Actually, my M4 is quite fun to use for target shooting and is as accurate as most hunting rifles. And for personal home defense for a woman against multiple attackers a military style weapon is ideal. Light weight, low recoil, lots of ammunition. If your mother/wife/daughter/sister was in her home being attacked by an intruder what would you rather she have, an M4 or a .22 caliber pistol? Or maybe you would rather she have no weapon, she could always call the police, it would only take them 5-15 minutes to arrive. Fortunately for us, the forefathers of our country were wise enough to leave out nonsense like "practical use" or "need" out of the 2nd Amendment. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
You cannot survive to my:
*lightning bolts
*lightning bolts
*lightning bolts
*lightning bolts |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
. And for personal home defense for a woman against multiple attackers a military style weapon is ideal. Light weight, low recoil, lots of ammunition. If your mother/wife/daughter/sister was in her home being attacked by an intruder what would you rather she have, an M4 or a .22 caliber pistol? |
No its not and neither. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
If your mother/wife/daughter/sister was in her home being attacked by an intruder what would you rather she have, an M4 or a .22 caliber pistol? |
What the ? :stongue: I'm pretty sure that someone can do an adequate amount of damage to a couple of intruders with a .22 caliber. No need to have them go spraying the entire house down. That's a huge ing excess, not to mention the fact that during said spraying you could accidentally hit something you don't intend to (see: other family members). I mean sure, you're still able to hit another family member with a .22, however I see the chances of that being lower when all that you have to do is point and fire once or twice with it. |
|
|
| Alex |
Yes XaNaX as if a morbidly obese redneck could use his AK-47 or his home-made flamethrower to stop the evil gov. and their tanks and attack helicopters.
What a ing joke the whole "keeping the gov. in check" argument is, spend a little less time on gun websites and maybe more time in the voting booth making an informed decision so that you wont have guys like Nixon and Bush trying to take your rights away one by one.
But yes, your option is much better upon second consideration. If the army comes to evict you from your house you could always just shoot them, how many rounds in the clip of an M4? 30? How many does it take to blow up a tank? Say, 30 thousand before the tank needs to go to MIDAS for dent repair? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
So yes, it was their every intention for the average citizen to have weapons on par with the military both for national defense as well as to keep the government in check. |
Great; where can I pick up my nukes? Gotta keep the government in check by means of mutually assured destruction. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
Also,
:wtf: |
IDGAF
chicks and guns = HOT |
|
|
| Krypton |
| How can we the people form a militia if we have no weapons? Think about it!! |
|
|
|
|
