[Survivalism]

Since when do Americans have to prove that we absolutely need something before we can have it?

The gun ban crowd should have to prove that responsible gun owners shouldn't be allowed to have high-capacity magazines before they can take them away.

[kbd512]

Ordinary American citizens "need" assault weapons because our government insists on pissing off all of our allies and invading every piddly third world country with a resource that an American company would like to safely steal, I mean purchase.

Unfortunately, our enlightened liberal politicians have already limited us to weapons that merely look like assault weapons. Apparently banning actual assault weapons didn't go far enough and now they want to ban semi-automatic rifles that look like fully automatic assault rifles.

I honestly believe that the government should seriously consider issuing people who have a truck, like me, .50 caliber machine guns and perhaps a SMAW or two if we're going to continue to give other nations as much grief as we have in the recent past. My wife told me I can't have a tank until she gets her dream home and an A-10 is out of the question, so I settled on a fifty.

Sooner or later, all the other countries are gonna get smart to our ways and gang up on us. I can't say I'd blame them if they did, but I still want to shoot back at any foreign invading army with something equivalent to what they might bring with them. Since our army is scattered across the globe in lightly defended outposts, I think having a substantially armed civilian force would negate the need to leave much of our army at home.

That's why Americans "need" assault rifles. I don't know if I speak for other Americans or not, but I think fighting our own military is rather pointless, highly unlikely to happen, too costly given our current debt level, and the military has plenty of bigger fish to fry before concerning itself with trading pot shots with the townies.

[2manyhobbies]

Originally Posted by Survivalism

Since when do Americans have to prove that we absolutely need something before we can have it?

The gun ban crowd should have to prove that responsible gun owners shouldn't be allowed to have high-capacity magazines before they can take them away.

You see that is precisely what is at issue here, the anti gunners blazenly lie, spread fallacy's, juggle the statistic's to fit their twisted ideal, all the while ignoring th facts and the truth.

They only want to attempt to prove that maybe one life could have been saved, while we point out that it would have cost thousands of lives to save the one.... THEY DON'T CARE WHO THEY HURT OR GET KILLED AS LONG AS THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT!!

[Tackleberry1]

Originally Posted by 2manyhobbies

You see that is precisely what is at issue here, the anti gunners blazenly lie, spread fallacy's, juggle the statistic's to fit their twisted ideal, all the while ignoring th facts and the truth.

They only want to attempt to prove that maybe one life could have been saved, while we point out that it would have cost thousands of lives to save the one.... THEY DON'T CARE WHO THEY HURT OR GET KILLED AS LONG AS THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT!!

You are absolutely correct...

My concern is that ignorant comments from the administration about what they "think" they can do will lead to violent reaction and thereby give them the justification they are looking for.
How many of our fellow citizens would support a brown shirt crackdown on gun owners if say...a handful of cops were shot by a 2A advocate?

I honestly think the administration is hoping some unhinged gun nut takes action and gives them an excuse to EO everything they want so they can parade more corpses in front of anyone who opposes them.

I emplore everyone to remain calm and NOT fall into this trap. Not because we can't win a "hot" conflict over 2A rights ... but because we all hope to avoid one.

Tack

[chloeshooter]

nice touch, adding the little kids. Here's a suggestion: add the Mom and kids who lived in GA last week because she shot the perp., and maybe a few more like her. not everybody is a victim when it comes to guns, many people are NOT victims because of guns.

[InDefenseofLiberty]

Originally Posted by chloeshooter

nice touch, adding the little kids. Here's a suggestion: add the Mom and kids who lived in GA last week because she shot the perp., and maybe a few more like her. not everybody is a victim when it comes to guns, many people are NOT victims because of guns.

And if she would have had something besides a pithy .38 revolver that SOB would be dead instead of sucking up tax dollars to make him well so we can prosecute his worthless ass. Perfect example of why we need hi cap weapons. She hit him 5 of 6 shots and he still lived and remained conscious begging her not to shoot him more.
She couldn't she was out of bullets. Had he been able to fight through the pain she would be injured or dead.
This is one of the reasons i hate to see 38 revolvers touted as the perfect woman's gun. Wanna really give her a gun top carry try an XDm 3.8 compact 9mm. 13 + 1 will save you the cost of prosecution. Especially since my wife carries +p+

[chloeshooter]

Originally Posted by InDefenseofLiberty

And if she would have had something besides a pithy .38 revolver that SOB would be dead instead of sucking up tax dollars to make him well so we can prosecute his worthless ass. Perfect example of why we need hi cap weapons. She hit him 5 of 6 shots and he still lived and remained conscious begging her not to shoot him more.
She couldn't she was out of bullets. Had he been able to fight through the pain she would be injured or dead.
This is one of the reasons i hate to see 38 revolvers touted as the perfect woman's gun. Wanna really give her a gun top carry try an XDm 3.8 compact 9mm. 13 + 1 will save you the cost of prosecution. Especially since my wife carries +p+

Ha! that was her husbands decision really, he went with .38. Maybe he grew up watching Barnaby Jones? I agree, volume speaks volumes when it comes to self defense

[Car54]

I think we should go back to the term "muskets" and confuse the liberals to the point they'll be talking to themselves.

[trip286]

Originally Posted by Popeye77

My vote is ban the 30 rnd. Either make em 20 rnd or 40 rnd. That way you don't have to split the boxes up. You either load one box or two. Dang, tin hat fell off AGAIN

Post of the day, IMO.

[OEFvet10072001]

Originally Posted by 2manyhobbies

First off let me say I am personally offended by the us of the term "assault weapon" as it implies anyone that owns one of these miss classified guns will go forth and assault someone.

So I demand the they discontinue of the use of that terminology. Call it what it is, a semi automatic riffle that looks like a military firearm!

Now for the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fiu8jp4MC9A#!

You spelt rifle wrong. There's only one f not two.