Would our troops fire on citizens if ordered to do so? (Page 2): In general to all the comments in this post A gun is like a parachute! If you need one and don't have one the likely...

The Dutchman

In general to all the comments in this post
A gun is like a parachute! If you need one and don't have one the likely hood is you'll never need one again!
Participating in a gun buy back program because you believe that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids!
And anyone that believes that criminals will obey gun control laws is just a special kind of stupid.
Hell why not just outlaw crime? I'm certain the criminals will obey! S**t the bed! While we're at it why not outlaw heroin, cocaine and p********a. Why not?
The bleeding heart liberals have got to be the stupidest people on the face of this earth!! They think that punishing law abiding citizens is that is needed!

Now hoodmik, I didn't post this as a reply to anyone in particular just to ALL the liberal i***ts that can't wake up to reality

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

The Dutchman wrote:

In general to all the comments in this post br A ... (show quote)

Just think of all the money and lives that could have been saved if only congress had outlawed hurricanes and tornadoes!

silverfox52

The capacity of the magazine has nothing to do with whether a rifle is an assault weapon or not. The military definition of an assault weapon is a weapon capable of full automatic fire. An AR15 is not an assault weapon because it is only capable of semi auto fire. You could put a hundred round magazine on it and it still won't be an assault rifle.

silverfox52

You don't need a lot of guns, you just to be well trained with the gun you have. Make sure you can make every shot count. When and if it hits the fan, don't forget to pick up their ammo and arms. They will have more ammo than we will. We can supply ourselves by picking up their ammo.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

kattaustin wrote:

I will gladly stand up and be shot with you! I eould like to think.our troops wouldnt shoot citizens, but then I remember Kent State and the way national guard troops fired on, and k**led
fleeing student protesters of the Vietnam war, and I just dont know. What does every one else think about this?

I missed your post the other day and have been busy watching the NCAA tournament, but would like to comment on what you said.

I wonder what those 26 or 27 young men that were the National Guard contingent at Kent State thought day when they were being menaced by 10,000 wild eyed demonstrators who had burned buildings the day before and the NGs thought they heard a gun shot. I am thinking they really were scared to death. After all they were so few in number and only about as old as the students r**ting.

Richard94611

Pardon my ignorance about the "proper" definition of "assault weapon." However, I would accept Senator Feinstein's definition, wh**ever it might have been, in the provision that was recently not allowed to be part of a new gun bill.

silverfox52 wrote:

The capacity of the magazine has nothing to do with whether a rifle is an assault weapon or not. The military definition of an assault weapon is a weapon capable of full automatic fire. An AR15 is not an assault weapon because it is only capable of semi auto fire. You could put a hundred round magazine on it and it still won't be an assault rifle.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Richard94611 wrote:

Pardon my ignorance about the "proper" definition of "assault weapon." However, I would accept Senator Feinstein's definition, wh**ever it might have been, in the provision that was recently not allowed to be part of a new gun bill.

ROTFLMAO!! Do you progressive liberal morons ever think before you type? You're willing to accept somebody's definition without even knowing what it is. Can you say groupthink?

Also, the reason it was not allowed was because of Harry Reid. He's the DEMOCRAT Senate majority lead.

Richard94611

I heard a description of the definition a few days ago but did not remember the details. Also, the bill was modeled after one passed about a decade ago which lapsed a while ago, and it was Senator Feinstein who got it passed originally. I think the initials you included should be changed to ROTFLMBO, with B standing for brain.

Voice of Reason wrote:

ROTFLMAO!! Do you progressive liberal morons ever think before you type? You're willing to accept somebody's definition without even knowing what it is. Can you say groupthink?

Also, the reason it was not allowed was because of Harry Reid. He's the DEMOCRAT Senate majority lead.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Richard94611 wrote:

I heard a description of the definition a few days ago but did not remember the details. Also, the bill was modeled after one passed about a decade ago which lapsed a while ago, and it was Senator Feinstein who got it passed originally. I think the initials you included should be changed to ROTFLMBO, with B standing for brain.

Basically, DiFi defines assault weapons as "scary-looking rifles". Why, specifically, do you think they should be outlawed?

Richard94611

That is NOT how Di Fi defines them. The bill they just shelved had an extensive list of makes and models in it. You demean a very intelligent woman when you post crap like that.

I think I have mad it clear why I would like them banned, but let me give it another try.

1. The local police are tired of being outgunned by thugs with assault weapons.

2. The Second Amendment was written at a time when assault weapons were not even conceived of, and it was surely not the intention of the writers and signers of the Constitution to allow them.

3. Were assault weapons AND large 30-round magazines not available, recent k*****gs at the school in Connecticut and also the movie theater in (where was it ?) Colorado would not have taken nearly as large a toll.

4. Nobody needs this type of weapon to go hunting. If it takes you 30 rounds to shoot a deer, then you better take up basket weaving instead.

5. I am a school teacher and I don't want any gunman at all to come into my school, and certainly not some insane i***t with an assault weapon.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Basically, DiFi defines assault weapons as "scary-looking rifles". Why, specifically, do you think they should be outlawed?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

That is NOT how Di Fi defines them. The bill they just shelved had an extensive list of makes and models in it. You demean a very intelligent woman when you post crap like that.

Isn't she the elitist of "please call me senator" fame?

I think I have mad it clear why I would like them banned, but let me give it another try.

1. The local police are tired of being outgunned by thugs with assault weapons.

If that were true then police and sheriff departments all over the country would not be refusing to enforce gun bans if passed.

2. The Second Amendment was written at a time when assault weapons were not even conceived of, and it was surely not the intention of the writers and signers of the Constitution to allow them.

Wrong. The framers clearly meant for the citizenry to be able to possess weapons comparable to current military standards.

3. Were assault weapons AND large 30-round magazines not available, recent k*****gs at the school in Connecticut and also the movie theater in (where was it ?) Colorado would not have taken nearly as large a toll.

You clearly know nothing about guns. All semi-auto handguns use clips which can be changed out in about one second. If you have a Glock (for instance) with a 10-round clip, and two spare clips, you can shoot 30 rounds very quickly.

4. Nobody needs this type of weapon to go hunting. If it takes you 30 rounds to shoot a deer, then you better take up basket weaving instead.

In a free society, what one can own is not based on need.

5. I am a school teacher and I don't want any gunman at all to come into my school, and certainly not some insane i***t with an assault weapon.

But isn't your school a gun-free zone? Doesn't that mean a gunman cannot enter? Or have you finally realized the abject stupidity of gun-free zones?

How about this for a solution? Instead of preventing law-abiding citizens from owning weapons which they will never use to harm an innocent person, we instead go back to executing criminals who use assault weapons or any other weapon to commit violent crimes?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

I have a modest proposal for all the progressive l*****ts who favor gun-free zones.

I propose you declare your home to be a burgle-free zone. Remove all your locks and put a large sign in your front yard and another on your front door declaring you have no locks and that your home is a burgle-free zone, so burglars should go elsewhere.

See how that works out.

Richard94611

Are you sure you aren't Swift and about to write a proposal that the way to have effective population control in Ireland is to eat the children ?

Voice of Reason wrote:

I have a modest proposal for all the progressive l*****ts who favor gun-free zones.

I propose you declare your home to be a burgle-free zone. Remove all your locks and put a large sign in your front yard and another on your front door declaring you have no locks and that your home is a burgle-free zone, so burglars should go elsewhere.

See how that works out.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Richard94611 wrote:

Are you sure you aren't Swift and about to write a proposal that the way to have effective population control in Ireland is to eat the children ?

I love children, especially with mustard and ketchup.

Richard94611

Have you found any particular age group that is most tender ?

Voice of Reason wrote:

I love children, especially with mustard and ketchup.