CBlev65252
|
posted on September 13, 2004 01:18:07 PM new
It's not the guns, it's the number of rounds they are capable of firing on one magazine. Our police are not allowed to carry them so why should anyone else be.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 13, 2004 02:01:32 PM new
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on September 13, 2004 04:16:55 PM new
CBlev65252:
So your saying If we went out and bought 5 round magazines/clips for our assault rifles, that's less than the cops have.
You would pick up your picket signs and march in our favor?
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on September 13, 2004 04:20:05 PM new
Just wondering!
If Kerry received a weapon he would BAN.
WHY did he accept it?
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on September 13, 2004 04:34:40 PM new
KIMLITTLE:
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all my guns ever will!!
You gotta Love It!!!
But:
You have to watch what you say here, they'll eat you a new Assho*e!
After All.
Ted:
Can't be held responsible for what he did he was Drunk at the time!!
After all, look what it did, it secured him a life long carrier of making laws telling people the (correct)way to live!
|
Bear1949
|
posted on September 13, 2004 05:19:27 PM new
Our police are not allowed to carry them so why should anyone else be.
Cops have been allowed to carry hi cap pistol mags.
All it took for them to purchase the mags was a letter of authorization from the police department. These mags were stamped L.E., meaning for law enforcement only.
When or if the officer left the department, they were forced to "give" the mag back to the department.
But it all makes no difference now, THE BAN IS DEAD AS KERRY'S CHANCE OF BEING PRESIDENT.
Hey, hey
Ho, ho
Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
|
twig125silver
|
posted on September 13, 2004 05:49:51 PM new
Kim-
I, too, am an expert shot. I, however, now only hunt. We only shoot what we will eat, usually just for venison. I don't believe in "killing for pleasure" only. Can't eat horns, so I shoot whatever comes first.
I don't need an assault weapon to hunt.
HOWEVER, I agree this would be but a "stepping stone" to further bans. THAT is what bothers me.
terryann
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on September 14, 2004 06:06:13 AM new
In response to your question kimlittle, I have shot many different weapons up to and including 50cal... so yes I have shot an assult rifle...
Doesn't mean I need one for hunting...
However I am amused that you would confuse me as a liberal... Hey did you hear that I am a liberal... LOL
I do not think legitimate hunting weapons will ever be banned, however now that congress has decided to let the ban expire, everyone can have their high capacity mags back...and own the gun of their choice.
What do you hunt with a tec 9 or an ak47 kimlittle?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
Re-Elect President Bush... the only true choice.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 14, 2004 06:43:18 AM new
However I am amused that you would confuse me as a liberal[/b]... [i]Hey did you hear that I am a liberal... LOL
That IS funny. Maybe they read our 'reverse political sides - roles' thread and [I can't remember if you posted in there as a liberal or not] that's where they 'pegged' you as a liberal.  And now...with this weapons thread...they've really got your number. lol
|
KIMLITTLE
|
posted on September 14, 2004 07:20:27 AM new
95 percent of guns sold are not used for hunting. I do not see why every one thinks if you buy a gun you have to be able to hunt with it. What about handguns. Should we ban them because they are not for hunting? The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. I use a shotgun for hunting. We can not use rifles in Indiana for any kind of hunting. But I still have several dozen of them.
If guns kill people, then spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on September 14, 2004 07:22:50 AM new
I am not for a gun ban... where do you see that? Can you read?
I see no need for assult weapons... handguns are not inclueded in that...
You sure your name isn't chicken little?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Re-Elect President Bush... the only true choice.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 14, 2004 07:37:24 AM new
I agree with kimlittle - the second amendment doesn't limit which 'arms' we can bare.
We've allowed the anti-gun side to limit too much of our Constitutional rights already. As someone else said here, give them an inch, they take a mile...than then keep on pushing for more and more limits.
After a one year period to establish residency, here in my area of AR, we can get a permit to carry handguns. I like that - feels like freedom. And, of course, rifles are used all the time here for hunting.
LOL @ the Rosie comment.
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on September 14, 2004 07:47:48 AM new
In: PA.
You Can hunt with a Hand Gun.
Maybe in other states also.
PA. is the only one I'm sure of.
|
KIMLITTLE
|
posted on September 14, 2004 08:22:37 AM new
“I am not for a gun ban... where do you see that? Can you read?”
How about you’re opening line
“As much as I enjoy guns, I can see no reason for this not to be renewed... last time I checked I didn't need an AK47 to go deer hunting”
Are you just for an assault rifle ban? You say there is no need for them. Many people may say the same thing about handguns. Sure they are used on a limited basis for hunting, but not very much. The 2nd amendment was written to protect ourselves from threats foreign & domestic. What better gun for the job than an assault rifle
If guns kill people then pencils misspell words
[ edited by KIMLITTLE on Sep 14, 2004 08:27 AM ]
|
yellowstone
|
posted on September 14, 2004 09:31:39 AM new
I think what Twelvepole was trying to say in his OP was that there has to be a line drawn as to what constitutes "the right to keep and bear arms" and HE believes that line should be at assault rifles.
I agree that a line has to be drawn otherwise we would be walking around and bearing Bazookas and RPG's like citizens do in other countries.
|
logansdad
|
posted on September 14, 2004 10:18:00 AM new
Linda: I agree with kimlittle - the second amendment doesn't limit which 'arms' we can bare.
How far are you willing to carry this argument. According to your theory you should be able to have WMD in your house. Are you building a nuclear missle so you can defend yourself against an attack from a terrorist?
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 14, 2004 10:48:13 AM new
Sometimes I wonder about the statements you make, logansdad. Are you under the impression that when our Founders wrote and signed our Constitution that they were speaking about womd? Hint - they weren't.
|
crowfarm
|
posted on September 14, 2004 10:56:09 AM new
I want and demand to have a great big giant gun....like a cannon only with nuclear power .....I'm a lousy shot and thought if I just aim at my garden I'll get 'bout 6-8 deer.
If the neighbors are "collateral" damage well, tough ship....I want my cannon!
Boy, do I feel POWERFUL with a BIG gun and when those Al-Qaeda guys start coming up the drive I'll be ready!
I have a RIGHT to defend myself!
|
crowfarm
|
posted on September 14, 2004 10:56:57 AM new
I want and demand to have a great big giant gun....like a cannon only with nuclear power .....I'm a lousy shot and thought if I just aim at my garden I'll get 'bout 6-8 deer.
If the neighbors are "collateral" damage well, tough ship....I want my cannon!
Boy, do I feel POWERFUL with a BIG gun and when those Al-Qaeda guys start coming up the drive I'll be ready!
I have a RIGHT to defend myself!
|
ChristianCoffee
|
posted on September 14, 2004 11:01:41 AM new
I live in New Hampshire, and I hunt (though not much anymore). I use an old Mossberg 12 gage pump for birds and such, and either my .303 British or my .44 Mag handgun for deer. I too only hunt and shoot what I need.
The ban on assault weapons has expired, and I say "Good riddance.". There is no use in having a ban on these things when anyone could get them anyway (if you know someone and have some $$). I think it needs to be modified, no for a ban, but for much harsher sentences for people who use these types of weapons to commit crimes.
JMHO.
In Christ,
Rick
Luke 12:48
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on September 14, 2004 11:45:42 AM new
That's how you do it. Instead of taking rights away from law abiding citizens, double the sentences for criminals who use assault rifles.
"Assault rifles" aren't practical for crimes anyway. You can't conceal one, they're heavy, expensive, and they aren't the best weapon for close combat. "Assault rifles" are overrated in my opinion.
I won't confirm or deny that I own an AR15 (I live in CA), but if someone breaks into my house, I'd choose my Glock 21 handgun.
|
desquirrel
|
posted on September 14, 2004 01:41:33 PM new
OH NO!!!! That would make people responsible for their own actions. This is anathema to liberals. Suppose you sent every murderer away for life. If the Columbine duo didn't kill themselves, they'd be doing life, and the real crime was that their mommies and daddies didn't love them enough. Buying them BMWs instead of affection.
|
logansdad
|
posted on September 14, 2004 02:03:54 PM new
Sometimes I wonder about the statements you make, logansdad. Are you under the impression that when our Founders wrote and signed our Constitution that they were speaking about womd? Hint - they weren't.
No kidding Linda, but guess what times change and there are people out there would agree with my statement. "The right to bare arms" will mean different things to different people...at what point do you draw the line. I am sure the Founding Fathers did not see semi-automatic assult rifels either.
Besides if the terrorists out there have WMD's why can't I have one to protect myself against them. A gun will not stop a WMD.
And no Linda I am not suggesting the average American own a WMD. I made my statement as a joke, but like I said I am sure there are people out there would agree with me.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
[ edited by logansdad on Sep 14, 2004 02:14 PM ]
|
Bear1949
|
posted on September 14, 2004 03:47:52 PM new
A gun will not stop a WMD.
But it will stop the idiot from detonating it
Hey, hey
Ho, ho
Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
|
KIMLITTLE
|
posted on September 14, 2004 04:02:51 PM new
"I want and demand to have a great big giant gun....like a cannon only with nuclear power .....I'm a lousy shot and thought if I just aim at my garden I'll get 'bout 6-8 deer. "
crowfarm
You only prove how little you know about assault rifles! The very nature of their design dictates that are a small round. Other that a .22 rifle these are the least powerful caliper guns you can by! Every other style rifle out there is more powerful. Try to know at least what you are taking about before to speak. An AR-15 is not even big enough to deer hunt with. I would rather be shot 4 times with a .223 than once with my .338 mag elk gun.
|
ChristianCoffee
|
posted on September 14, 2004 04:03:36 PM new
We had a rash of B&E's last year in my area. One was next door to my house. The police came and took a statement from my wife (she witnessed it) and then asked me a few questions. One of them was:
"Do you have any fear of something happening at your home while you are at work?"
My answer:
"Between the alarm system, my dogs and my wife being an excellent shot, I have no fear."
He gave me a big grin.
The kids were caught 3 nights later, attempting to get into an older woman's house. She shot one of them with her late husbands .25. One of them was carrying a .38.
I think anyone who uses a weapon to commit a crime should go away for a long time. There is no two ways around it. By making more restrictions like the one that expired, all it does is drive up the cost of the weapon. Nothing more.
In Christ,
Rick
John 3:16
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
|
KIMLITTLE
|
posted on September 14, 2004 04:13:06 PM new
I would also like to ad the no one is advocating to make explosives, bazookas or WMDs legal. Even I do not want to see this. Full autos have been illegal since the 1930s. I also agree with that. But when a gun is not used in many crimes & is not a threat why stomp on our rights? I don't know if you have been to a gun show lately but none of these guns were banned. I have bought several assault riffles since the so-called ban. They just did not have a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug on them. That is the only thing this ban stopped. I think allot of you are missing that point. You could still be AK-47s as well. So what good did it do anyway?
[ edited by KIMLITTLE on Sep 14, 2004 04:15 PM ]
|
logansdad
|
posted on September 14, 2004 04:23:39 PM new
A gun will not stop a WMD.
But it will stop the idiot from detonating it
You are assuming the person firing the gun has good aim and is quick to react 
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
|
twig125silver
|
posted on September 14, 2004 04:51:32 PM new
kim-
lol @ the Rosie comment!
and I agree about the .223.
helen-
roflmho!
terryann
|
logansdad
|
posted on September 14, 2004 06:18:04 PM new
If guns kill people, then spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat
If spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat, then Bush's car made him get a DUI.
Where are the lawyers. I smell a lawsuit coming on
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
|
