The Firearms Industry Boycott Grows.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

1) I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. I said it is "entirely possible." Read first, type second.

2) I suppose we need to define the term "a lot."

3) Regardless, I would be perfectly fine with the same limitation on the ownership of machine guns also being placed on semi-automatic assault weapons. How's that for compromise?

4) You simply refuse to address the issue. One more time, we already limit the ability of citizens to defend themselves with machine guns, how is applying that same limitation to assault weapons any different?

1) It is entirely possible that your hypothetical is equally not true.

2) You can pull the ATF/Treasury statistics and define whatever you like.

3) I agree, you want them confiscated, but failing that, registered. I get it.

4) We regulate the ability of citizens to possess automatic firearms. We do not regulate the ability of citizens lawfully possessing them, from using those firearms to defend themselves. You know, just like the folks lawfully possessing your favorite firearm, the "assault weapon."

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

We still have a militia, it now called the National Guard. It serves a necessary role in our Nation. What's our point?

Wrong. The militia is the entire body of the people willing and able to take up arms in defense of self/country/constitution. NOT the national guard. There can be no other conclusion drawn rationally given what we know about the origins and history of the 2nd amendment.

I did and quite easily.

Were you a cook or something who has never fired the two?

[Minister_of_Information]

Even the Federally defined militia includes all able bodied men between 18 and 45 unless otherwise disqualified. But the people's militia goes beyond that.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Great argument. Make fun of/ridicule those who you disagree with rather than providing a cogent and logical argument as to why you think the scenario will never happen. You have some mad debate skills bro.

I am afraid I cannot debate crazy. If you want to build your bunker and wait, go ahead and I will continue to ridicule you.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

A detachable magazine absolutely makes a weapon more lethal, why else do you suppose every standard military issue rifle on the freaking planet has one? (hopefully you understand that that is a rhetorical question).

You asked for my definition and I gave it to you.

If you don't like it, tough.

You asked why we can't ban assault rifles. We gave you an answer. In fact several answers. If you don't like them, tough.

[Minister_of_Information]

Arms can be regulated, but regulation based on the theory that there is no militia function is not legitimate. Or, tyrannical.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I am afraid I cannot debate

Fixed it for you

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Wrong. The militia is the entire body of the people willing and able to take up arms in defense of self/country/constitution. NOT the national guard. There can be no other conclusion drawn rationally given what we know about the origins and history of the 2nd amendment.?

Learn some history and then come back to me.

Oh well, I feel a little sorry for you, so I will help you out a bit. Once upon a time, there once was a thing called the militia, they were the ones who, by and large, fought the wars back in the late 18th Century. They were essentially every able bodied male in a colony.

The idea that every male should be ready to grab his gun and show up on the battlefield was, however, no longer feasible after the Civil War. Technology and tactics had made it an obsolete concept.

Fast forward to the early 20th Century, Congress reorganized the militia into the National Guard, which is what we have today.

Originally Posted by helix139

Were you a cook or something who has never fired the two?

I was in the infantry, boy, did basic and AIT at Fort Benning, where do you serve, Rambo?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

I am sorry, Hudson, you are right. I need to quit reading Soldier of Fortune and playing Call of Duty on my X-box and actually become educated before I run my mouth again. Sorry.

Fixed it for you as well.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Times change, peoples' attitudes change.

Civil rights took 200 years, but we got there.

Gay rights took a couple of thousand years, be we are getting there.

A rational discussion on guns may in fact take another 20 years, but we are getting there.

Having someone like Mayor Bloomberg out in front of this issue certainly helps.

We'll get there, we'll get there...

Someone that puts laws like making it illegal for large soda's? or someone who hates guns in civillian hands, yet sells the police departments brass to a company in GA to reload?

Bloomberg is just a douchebag that talks out one side of his ahole and farts out the other.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I have, and the funny thing is that it doesn't mention assault weapons...

Since you obviously are the Constitutional scholar here, do you think perhaps that is because in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted the only firearms available were single shot muskets and rifles?

Tell you what, I will go along with that, every American should be able to own a single shot musket or rifle.

Happy now?

it does mention that rights shall not be infringed, however you neglected to remember that part.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by PIMking

it does mention that rights shall not be infringed, however you neglected to remember that part.

I answered his question. Now go back to sleep.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

You need to stop reading and/or listening to wherever you are getting your information, the NRA, Fox News, some gun freak website, etc. The truth is every one of those kids died as a result of a bullet from an assault weapon.



http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtown...th-4220548.php



Sorry, but your "right" to have an assault weapon is not worth more than one single child's life. You don't need an AR-15 to shoot deer and you certainly don't need one to defend yourself. Just as society has come to terms with the idea that people don't need machine guns, we need to accept that citizens don't need assault weapons.

Pistols, shotguns and standard hunting rifles should be more than sufficient to make you gun people happy.

Except the "assault rifle" was in his car after the shooting right? So why do you think people continue to bring up conspiracy theories with this thing because even the government cant get the information out correctly. The reason is because with muddy waters they can push their political agenda across and restrict the freedoms of Americans even more for their safety.

"when a government doesn't fear the people its tyranny, when the government fears it's people it's freedom" Thomas Jefferson.

I have yet to see anything saying that an actual .223 was used except a few people that say that the wounds had to come from a .223 rifle, yet no .223 was found in the school, how could that be? it was in his car right? so he ran back outside put the rilfe in the trunk and then ran in and off'ed himself? lol liberal gun grabbing nonsense

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing that. It is entirely possible that some of those kids would be alive today if he didn't have a weapon that could fire 30 rounds before it needed to be reloaded.




We already limit people's ability to defend themselves. That is nothing new.

I am sure there are lots of folks out there who would love to have a fully automatic assault weapon to "defend themselves."

Why do we limit the ability to own machine guns and atomic weapons if we, as a society, do not have a right to decide what is legitimately needed?

The fact is we have already made that decision, simply moving assault weapons across the line from legal to illegal is hardly an Earth shattering event.



Ah the old Mad Max scenario...can't really help you there. Go build your bunker and wait....

No because once you get one ban, others are following it. You even said it yourself that you want a gun ban completely and that this will speed up your process of doing so. History has shown that once registration gets passed, confiscation is soon to follow.

SAFETY!!!!

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

For someone that supposedly served in the military Hudson, you show an appalling lack of knowledge of firearms. And firearm laws.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I assume you asking me to describe an assault weapon?

To me it is easy, any rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine.

So for all you non-Mad Max wannabe survivalists out there, you can still have hunt, protect your home (although I would recommend a pistol in close quarters) and target shoot as much as you like.

Charles Whitman killed 14 with a Rem 700 bolt action rifle without a detachable magazine.... My bolt action rifle takes a detachable magazine so does that make it an "assault weapon"?

people are going to kill whether they have a detachable mag or fertilizer, but liberals don't see it that way, they would rather us be unarmed for their safety. Gun laws only protect the criminals, not the common civillian

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Except the "assault rifle" was in his car after the shooting right? So why do you think people continue to bring up conspiracy theories with this thing because even the government cant get the information out correctly. The reason is because with muddy waters they can push their political agenda across and restrict the freedoms of Americans even more for their safety.

"when a government doesn't fear the people its tyranny, when the government fears it's people it's freedom" Thomas Jefferson.

I have yet to see anything saying that an actual .223 was used except a few people that say that the wounds had to come from a .223 rifle, yet no .223 was found in the school, how could that be? it was in his car right? so he ran back outside put the rilfe in the trunk and then ran in and off'ed himself? lol liberal gun grabbing nonsense

I see you are one of those people (the conspiracy types).

Let's put this nonsense to bed right now. Every single one of those innocent kids was killed with an assault weapon. Sorry if that upsets your happy little make-believe world.

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

"It's all these conspiracy theorists (I think he is talking to you, PIM) that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

Multiple Second Amendment and gun owner websites have attempted to cast doubts on whether the Bushmaster XM-15, a type of AR-15 rifle that is currently legal, was used in the Dec. 14 carnage done by Lanza....

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtown...th-4220548.php

Maybe you need to rethink wherever it is that you get your information.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Charles Whitman killed 14 with a Rem 700 bolt action rifle without a detachable magazine....

Exactly the point. The man claims to have been in the military. But he knows little about weapons.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Learn some history and then come back to me.

Oh well, I feel a little sorry for you, so I will help you out a bit. Once upon a time, there once was a thing called the militia, they were the ones who, by and large, fought the wars back in the late 18th Century. They were essentially every able bodied male in a colony.

You're correct up until this point. Britain had the standing army. The colonists had a bunch of terrorist revolutionaries but no real standing army. Thus every able-bodied male took it to the redcoats guerrilla style.

The idea that every male should be ready to grab his gun and show up on the battlefield was, however, no longer feasible after the Civil War. Technology and tactics had made it an obsolete concept.

I wholeheartedly disagree. We have a standing army to fight wars. However, what happens when the standing army fails against a foreign invasion? What about if it disbands in whole or part or turns on the people due to tyranny? Who is the last line of defense then? What exactly is the "battlefield" at that point? The citizens have a God-given right to defend themselves, their family and neighbors, their country, and their constitution from the lawless with force and that is what the second amendment is about. It is NEVER obsolete.

Fast forward to the early 20th Century, Congress reorganized the militia into the National Guard, which is what we have today.

No, congress created the National Guard, but it does not replace the militia.

I was in the infantry, boy, did basic and AIT at Fort Benning, where do you serve, Rambo?

One does not have to serve to be able to recognize the clear differences in function between a select-fire and a semi-automatic weapon. Again, I thank you for your service, but you're being willfully ignorant here.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I see you are one of those people (the conspiracy types).

Let's put this nonsense to bed right now. Every single one of those innocent kids was killed with an assault weapon. Sorry if that upsets your happy little make-believe world.



http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtown...th-4220548.php

Maybe you need to rethink wherever it is that you get your information.

unlike you Im not trying to use a tragedy to press my political agenda. I believe these kids were killed by an idiot with a pistol. But unless they want to provide us with the actual assault rifle used (inside not his trunk) your basis is false and stupid