Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Assault Weapons Ban being introduced Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 8
 
 
2012-12-28 9:34 AM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Regular
1023
1000
Madrid
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 


2012-12-28 9:36 AM
in reply to: #4551420

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 9:23 AM
Puppetmaster - 2012-12-27 4:23 PM

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

 I am the NRA!

What about England, which isn't under any sort of totalitarian regime, yet restricts gun ownership? Or Germany post-WWII? What about Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Italy post-WWII, Finland or one of a hundred other countries that have strong governments and freedom but restrict gun ownership? Those countries have very strict gun-control laws yet the people aren't being oppressed by their governments. Heck even the oft-mentioned Israel has much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. What Hitler failed to understand, and what you fail to understand, apparently, is that conquerors aren't overthrown because they allow the conquered to have weapons, they're overthrown because conquerors are, by definition, oppressive. And people will not stand for oppression, regardless of whether they're allowed to own guns or not.

What you fail to understand is that our constitution grants us the right to bear arms.....and we do....and you need to get over it.  Laughing

The ship has sailed. 

2012-12-28 9:39 AM
in reply to: #4551420

User image

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 7:23 AM
Puppetmaster - 2012-12-27 4:23 PM

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

 I am the NRA!

What about England, which isn't under any sort of totalitarian regime, yet restricts gun ownership? Or Germany post-WWII? What about Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Italy post-WWII, Finland or one of a hundred other countries that have strong governments and freedom but restrict gun ownership? Those countries have very strict gun-control laws yet the people aren't being oppressed by their governments. Heck even the oft-mentioned Israel has much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. What Hitler failed to understand, and what you fail to understand, apparently, is that conquerors aren't overthrown because they allow the conquered to have weapons, they're overthrown because conquerors are, by definition, oppressive. And people will not stand for oppression, regardless of whether they're allowed to own guns or not.

Good points Tony.

Two other things, I believe I do owe you an apology for when I said you made a bigoted statement. I should have used the word "stereotyping".

2nd I would encourage you to look at the violent crimes and rape statistics for the UK & Australia 5 years before and 5 years after the weapons ban.

2012-12-28 9:40 AM
in reply to: #4551452

User image

Pro
4313
20002000100100100
McKinney, TX
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
gr33n - 2012-12-28 9:34 AM

I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 


Replace the word "gun" in your last sentence with the following:

Bikes
Shoes
Hats
Watches

The simple answer is "becase I can" I can afford it, I like having different guns for different uses, and truthfully, it's no ones business what I own and why I own it.



2012-12-28 9:42 AM
in reply to: #4551452

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

gr33n - 2012-12-28 9:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

Different guns have different purposes - handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.  Within those broad categories are endless subcategories based upon gauge, caliber, barrel length, size (ability to conceal), action (pump, semi-auto, O/U, bolt action, etc.),...

If I had guns, which I'm not saying I do, I would hunt ducks with a different shotgun than dove; shoot skeet with a different shotgun than hunting ducks or dove; shoot rabbits with a different gun than deer; etc.

2012-12-28 9:49 AM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Regular
1023
1000
Madrid
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
I see. Thanks. I am not a gun owner so really didn't know. Bikes I could see. Different uses. Shoes, hats, watches, ditto- different uses, fashion, etc etc. I am not trying to infringe on anyone's rights or take anything away from anyone. Same token I wouldn't want my right to life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness threatened by a random act of gun violence to be threatened. Seriosuly just trying to understand....  


2012-12-28 9:51 AM
in reply to: #4551452

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

gr33n - 2012-12-28 9:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

By the time I die, I will likely own over 50 guns....a few bought by me, but mostly passed to me by my Grandpa, my Father, and an Uncle.  I don't even have ammo for 75% of the guns I own now....and I've never shot them, and likely won't ever.  

I know a bit about each gun.....they are part of my family's history.  When I watch my son hunt with the shotgun my Grandma gave my Grandpa, I feel the connection to my ancestors.....and so does my son.  Even though he never met his Great Grandpa, he clearly understands that he holds an item that was carried in the same manner, many times in the same places, as HIS ancestors. I have a Grandson now......when he is of age I will give him the .410 shotgun that my Grandpa gave me when I was 8.  That gun was given to him by his father, my Great-Grandpa who I never met. 

It is my hope and dream that those kinds of connections will carry my children and grandchildren, and those I will never meet, through their lives, and help them understand that they didn't get here alone, and that there is a responsibility to themselves and future generations to remain accountable.

You can't have any of them.

2012-12-28 9:53 AM
in reply to: #4551420

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM
Puppetmaster - 2012-12-27 4:23 PM

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

 I am the NRA!

What about England, which isn't under any sort of totalitarian regime, yet restricts gun ownership? Or Germany post-WWII? What about Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Italy post-WWII, Finland or one of a hundred other countries that have strong governments and freedom but restrict gun ownership? Those countries have very strict gun-control laws yet the people aren't being oppressed by their governments. Heck even the oft-mentioned Israel has much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. What Hitler failed to understand, and what you fail to understand, apparently, is that conquerors aren't overthrown because they allow the conquered to have weapons, they're overthrown because conquerors are, by definition, oppressive. And people will not stand for oppression, regardless of whether they're allowed to own guns or not.

This is a red herring, because any discussion of "gun control" or "gun restrictions" or "gun laws" Must, start with the idea that there is a Constitutional Right, a personal right to own and possess firearms in the United States.  Like it or not, that is the law.  Thus, you're not comparing apples to apples, unless those countries with stricter gun control laws also have some sort of "right" to own and posses firearms.

Again, if you don't like the fact that there is a right to own and posses firearms, change the Constitution. 

2012-12-28 9:55 AM
in reply to: #4551501

User image

Pro
4313
20002000100100100
McKinney, TX
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Left Brain - 2012-12-28 9:51 AM

You can't have any of them.



But you'll galdly sell your AR clips for $100 each.

2012-12-28 9:59 AM
in reply to: #4551458

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Left Brain - 2012-12-28 9:36 AM

mr2tony - 2012-12-28 9:23 AM
Puppetmaster - 2012-12-27 4:23 PM

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

 I am the NRA!

What about England, which isn't under any sort of totalitarian regime, yet restricts gun ownership? Or Germany post-WWII? What about Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Italy post-WWII, Finland or one of a hundred other countries that have strong governments and freedom but restrict gun ownership? Those countries have very strict gun-control laws yet the people aren't being oppressed by their governments. Heck even the oft-mentioned Israel has much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. What Hitler failed to understand, and what you fail to understand, apparently, is that conquerors aren't overthrown because they allow the conquered to have weapons, they're overthrown because conquerors are, by definition, oppressive. And people will not stand for oppression, regardless of whether they're allowed to own guns or not.

What you fail to understand is that our constitution grants us the right to bear arms.....and we do....and you need to get over it.  Laughing

The ship has sailed. 



Hey hey HEY NOW! I wasn't the one who invoked Hitler to try to prove my point.

Besides, you KNOW I didn't mention the second amendment nor make any implications toward such. Now you're just `takin' the .'
2012-12-28 10:00 AM
in reply to: #4551452

User image

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

gr33n - 2012-12-28 7:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

Forget home defense and lets just focus on hunting.

22 rifle for small game

Shotgun for birds, and there certainly can be a justification for more than one shotgun depending on the bird you are hunting.

Small caliber rifle for varmint hunting something like the feared and soon to be banned .223 in a variety of styles aka the AR15. While it can be configured in a variety of calibers the .223/5.56 is the most common.

30x06 or 308 for larger game such as deer.

300 Magnum for large bears.

I'm unfamiliar with what you would use for Elephants and I doubt many people actually hunt them but I don't think a 300 Magnum would be adequate for the job.

If you do hunt for bear or in an area where bears are, a lot of people will carry a 357 Mag or a 44 as a backup gun.

I didn't count those up, but I hope this gives you an idea on why some people have multiple weapons.

This was just an exercise on some hunting, not all, not any self defense, not any recreational shooting, just tools for putting meat in the freezer.

Most police I think and LB can speak to this better than I but I believe an officer in a cruiser has access to an M16 or similar, a shotgun, service side arm and a backup weapon. That's what I've seen in my local community anyway.

Basically as of now anyway with the 2nd amendment, we don't need a "reason", just the ability to clear the hurdles that are currently in place.



2012-12-28 10:05 AM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Regular
1023
1000
Madrid
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Sorry another question- Are there zoning laws with respect to gun ownership? Isn't there or at least used to be a restriction on certain types of guns inside some city limits ? I think Chicago does or used to have something like this. I have a friend that moved out of the city specifically for that reason. Again thanks in advance.
2012-12-28 10:10 AM
in reply to: #4551537

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:05 AM Sorry another question- Are there zoning laws with respect to gun ownership? Isn't there or at least used to be a restriction on certain types of guns inside some city limits ? I think Chicago does or used to have something like this. I have a friend that moved out of the city specifically for that reason. Again thanks in advance.

State and local governments have different laws concerning gun ownership, but they cannot violate the Second Amendment.  The Supreme Court recently struck down regulations in Chicago and Washington D.C. as violative of the Second Amendment.

2012-12-28 10:15 AM
in reply to: #4551507

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Brock Samson - 2012-12-28 9:53 AM

mr2tony - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM
Puppetmaster - 2012-12-27 4:23 PM

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

 I am the NRA!

What about England, which isn't under any sort of totalitarian regime, yet restricts gun ownership? Or Germany post-WWII? What about Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Italy post-WWII, Finland or one of a hundred other countries that have strong governments and freedom but restrict gun ownership? Those countries have very strict gun-control laws yet the people aren't being oppressed by their governments. Heck even the oft-mentioned Israel has much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. What Hitler failed to understand, and what you fail to understand, apparently, is that conquerors aren't overthrown because they allow the conquered to have weapons, they're overthrown because conquerors are, by definition, oppressive. And people will not stand for oppression, regardless of whether they're allowed to own guns or not.

This is a red herring, because any discussion of "gun control" or "gun restrictions" or "gun laws" Must, start with the idea that there is a Constitutional Right, a personal right to own and possess firearms in the United States.  Like it or not, that is the law.  Thus, you're not comparing apples to apples, unless those countries with stricter gun control laws also have some sort of "right" to own and posses firearms.

Again, if you don't like the fact that there is a right to own and posses firearms, change the Constitution. 



So, you don't have a problem with a Hitler quote that doesn't mention the second amendment, yet you have a problem with my rebuttal that also doesn't mention the second amendment?

I am trying to make a point that there's no correlation between what Hitler said and the success of conquerors in winning over their conquered subjects. Where did I say to ban guns in the U.S.???

This is why there's no way to have a civil discussion because you turn `Hitler was a conqueror and conquerors aren't successful because people don't like to be conquered.' into `BAN ALL GUNS IN THE U.S.!!!'

2012-12-28 10:17 AM
in reply to: #4551501

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Left Brain - 2012-12-28 9:51 AM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 9:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

By the time I die, I will likely own over 50 guns....a few bought by me, but mostly passed to me by my Grandpa, my Father, and an Uncle.  I don't even have ammo for 75% of the guns I own now....and I've never shot them, and likely won't ever.  

I know a bit about each gun.....they are part of my family's history.  When I watch my son hunt with the shotgun my Grandma gave my Grandpa, I feel the connection to my ancestors .....and so does my son.  Even though he never met his Great Grandpa, he clearly understands that he holds an item that was carried in the same manner, many times in the same places, as HIS ancestors. I have a Grandson now......when he is of age I will give him the .410 shotgun that my Grandpa gave me when I was 8.  That gun was given to him by his father, my Great-Grandpa who I never met. 

It is my hope and dream that those kinds of connections will carry my children and grandchildren, and those I will never meet, through their lives, and help them understand that they didn't get here alone, and that there is a responsibility to themselves and future generations to remain accountable.

You can't have any of them.



I'm half German-half Japanese. Do you REALLY want me to feel a connection to my ancestors?
2012-12-28 10:19 AM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Elite
4435
2000200010010010010025
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Are t there strict gun laws in Norway? Wasn't there a massacre there?


2012-12-28 10:19 AM
in reply to: #4551524

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
crusevegas - 2012-12-28 10:00 AM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 7:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

Forget home defense and lets just focus on hunting.

22 rifle for small game

Shotgun for birds, and there certainly can be a justification for more than one shotgun depending on the bird you are hunting.

Small caliber rifle for varmint hunting something like the feared and soon to be banned .223 in a variety of styles aka the AR15. While it can be configured in a variety of calibers the .223/5.56 is the most common.

30x06 or 308 for larger game such as deer.

300 Magnum for large bears.

I'm unfamiliar with what you would use for Elephants and I doubt many people actually hunt them but I don't think a 300 Magnum would be adequate for the job.

If you do hunt for bear or in an area where bears are, a lot of people will carry a 357 Mag or a 44 as a backup gun.

I didn't count those up, but I hope this gives you an idea on why some people have multiple weapons.

This was just an exercise on some hunting, not all, not any self defense, not any recreational shooting, just tools for putting meat in the freezer.

Most police I think and LB can speak to this better than I but I believe an officer in a cruiser has access to an M16 or similar, a shotgun, service side arm and a backup weapon. That's what I've seen in my local community anyway.

Basically as of now anyway with the 2nd amendment, we don't need a "reason", just the ability to clear the hurdles that are currently in place.



So the AR-15 is used for hunting? Take a deep breath-- I'm not advocating taking them away, I'm just asking. I didn't think that those types of guns were commonly used for hunting. What's the difference between varmints and small game?
2012-12-28 10:20 AM
in reply to: #4551569

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 10:15 AM
Brock Samson - 2012-12-28 9:53 AM
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM
Puppetmaster - 2012-12-27 4:23 PM

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

 I am the NRA!

What about England, which isn't under any sort of totalitarian regime, yet restricts gun ownership? Or Germany post-WWII? What about Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Italy post-WWII, Finland or one of a hundred other countries that have strong governments and freedom but restrict gun ownership? Those countries have very strict gun-control laws yet the people aren't being oppressed by their governments. Heck even the oft-mentioned Israel has much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. What Hitler failed to understand, and what you fail to understand, apparently, is that conquerors aren't overthrown because they allow the conquered to have weapons, they're overthrown because conquerors are, by definition, oppressive. And people will not stand for oppression, regardless of whether they're allowed to own guns or not.

This is a red herring, because any discussion of "gun control" or "gun restrictions" or "gun laws" Must, start with the idea that there is a Constitutional Right, a personal right to own and possess firearms in the United States.  Like it or not, that is the law.  Thus, you're not comparing apples to apples, unless those countries with stricter gun control laws also have some sort of "right" to own and posses firearms.

Again, if you don't like the fact that there is a right to own and posses firearms, change the Constitution. 

So, you don't have a problem with a Hitler quote that doesn't mention the second amendment, yet you have a problem with my rebuttal that also doesn't mention the second amendment? I am trying to make a point that there's no correlation between what Hitler said and the success of conquerors in winning over their conquered subjects. Where did I say to ban guns in the U.S.??? This is why there's no way to have a civil discussion because you turn `Hitler was a conqueror and conquerors aren't successful because people don't like to be conquered.' into `BAN ALL GUNS IN THE U.S.!!!'

Which is why it will never happen.....see how we do that?  Laughing 

It's not that we don't care what you think.....it's just that we don't ca......well, you get it. LOL

2012-12-28 10:23 AM
in reply to: #4551582

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 10:19 AM 
So the AR-15 is used for hunting? Take a deep breath-- I'm not advocating taking them away, I'm just asking. I didn't think that those types of guns were commonly used for hunting. What's the difference between varmints and small game?

There are many people in Texas that use "assault weapons" to eradicate feral hogs.  The more shots the better when you are trying to kill a marauding bunch of pigs.  

2012-12-28 10:23 AM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Regular
1023
1000
Madrid
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.
2012-12-28 10:24 AM
in reply to: #4551594

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM

Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.


Hippie commie pinko. Love it or leave it man!

Oh, wait ...


2012-12-28 10:25 AM
in reply to: #4551594

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.

I don't ever feel that way.

2012-12-28 10:29 AM
in reply to: #4551593

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Hook'em - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 10:19 AM 
So the AR-15 is used for hunting? Take a deep breath-- I'm not advocating taking them away, I'm just asking. I didn't think that those types of guns were commonly used for hunting. What's the difference between varmints and small game?

There are many people in Texas that use "assault weapons" to eradicate feral hogs.  The more shots the better when you are trying to kill a marauding bunch of pigs.  



My buddy in TX hunts them from his tree stand with a deer rifle, but that makes sense too. I don't guess a .22 would have much effect on them.
2012-12-28 10:34 AM
in reply to: #4551601

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Left Brain - 2012-12-28 10:25 AM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.

I don't ever feel that way.



Me neither. It can certainly seem that way, but I think that the majority of people are pretty much in agreement on the majority of issues. Most people just want to live their lives, take care of their families, etc. and are fine with everyone else doing the same thing.
2012-12-28 10:34 AM
in reply to: #4551594

User image

Elite
4435
2000200010010010010025
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
gr33n - 2012-12-29 3:23 AMInteresting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.
so everyone leaving in droves then? I don't see it
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Assault Weapons Ban being introduced Rss Feed  
 
 
of 8