willie pete is one bad ass mo foFEOS wrote:
I heard teh joos burned children with white phosphorus there.usmarine wrote:
hard to tell really. its like a warzone there.FEOS wrote:
I thought he "organized" it.
or is that the same thing?
Last edited by usmarine (2009-02-26 21:24:38)
Time out.usmarine wrote:
hard to tell really. its like a warzone there.FEOS wrote:
I thought he "organized" it.usmarine wrote:
maybe he should clean up the guns in his old neighborhood he used to "lead."
or is that the same thing?
"When gun ownership is illegal, only criminals will own guns."DBBrinson1 wrote:
Time out.usmarine wrote:
hard to tell really. its like a warzone there.FEOS wrote:
I thought he "organized" it.
or is that the same thing?
Isn't there a handgun ban in Chicago?
The title is a bit misleading. Thanks for the clarification, Reaper.AussieReaper wrote:
Outtakes from the talked about shooting episode, in the TV series "Gay Army"
Last edited by imortal (2009-02-26 22:18:29)
Jesus god.imortal wrote:
I just found this in another forum. Don't ask how. It is almost embarrasing. Now, if you look at it from another point of view, this videon shows how a lot of people think and feel about firearms (some of them in this forum). Should be good for a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM
That was kind of my point. Mostly, I was going for simply explaining what the ban was, but if you look at the wording of the law it's mostly a bunch of pointless arbitrary definitions.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Who cares how much a semi auto mag holds? If I'm going through the trouble to shoot someone, who cares how many times I shot him/her?mcgid1 wrote:
While I am against gun control to this extent, if he wants to go back to the old ban then things shouldn't be too bad. Basically under the old ban, anything pre-ban could be bought and sold without any problems. No new "assault weapons" (basically any semi-auto rifle with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, as well as a couple other odds and ends such as name changes for certain guns and the removal of bayonet fixtures) could be produced for civilians or imported.
On a lighter note, one of the more laughable reasons given in the article for this ban was that "grenades and automatic weapons" were turning up in the hands of the drug cartels. Now then, I'm reasonably sure that grenades and automatic weapons were either completely illegal or highly controlled before, during, and after the ban and that the ban had no effect on these devices. The only possible link to this would be that some of the weapons covered in the ban were being bought and modified for full auto. However, this could be done with any semi-auto rifle, not just the ones covered under the ban.
The whole term 'assault weapon' is Clintoon speak. Has a bayonet? Are you kidding me? A knife on the end of the gun makes it more lethal?
Outtakes from the talked about shooting episode, in the TV series "Gay Army"imortal wrote:
I just found this in another forum. Don't ask how. It is almost embarrasing. Now, if you look at it from another point of view, this videon shows how a lot of people think and feel about firearms (some of them in this forum). Should be good for a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM
Holy shit. My mom doesn't scream and cry like a baby when she shoots my AR-15.imortal wrote:
I just found this in another forum. Don't ask how. It is almost embarrasing. Now, if you look at it from another point of view, this videon shows how a lot of people think and feel about firearms (some of them in this forum). Should be good for a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-02-27 05:56:05)
It's your 'right' (which in any sense, is bullshit anyway) to own 'arms' there is no specification they are 'firearms'. Also the restriction of some firearms still does not infringe on your 'right' to own 'arms'. They could ban all but 1 'arms' and your constitutional right to own it would not be infringed.RAIMIUS wrote:
It is my right to own a firearm.
If it is legalized and taxed, people will still buy the illegally grown stuff if it's cheaper, which it will be. The amount of illegally grown Marijuana will greatly increase, because police will stop wasting time trying to shut down marijuana growers. The type of government he is trying to push will be weakened by the legalization of marijuana. Some money would be made from taxes, but not enough to make up for the cost of medical care and the jobless potheads this would create.ATG wrote:
Marijuanna is the biggest cash crop grown in california. Fucking douchebag politicians. I hate them all.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I thought the cartels were into harder stuffATG wrote:
At least he will likely legalize and tax reefer.
That'd be the fastest way to fuck over the mexicunt cartels.
have you ever heard someone say "i'd spend my life in a weed induced daze were it only legal"? i've never heard thatDeadmonkiefart wrote:
Some money would be made from taxes, but not enough to make up for the cost of medical care and the jobless potheads this would create.
Yes I have heard someone say that.Reciprocity wrote:
have you ever heard someone say "i'd spend my life in a weed induced daze were it only legal"? i've never heard thatDeadmonkiefart wrote:
Some money would be made from taxes, but not enough to make up for the cost of medical care and the jobless potheads this would create.
When you're done making up your own definitions for things, go read some of the writings by the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson is particularly clear on the 2nd amendment. Much ink was spilled debating & discussing the US Constitution, both before and after ratification.DrunkFace wrote:
It's your 'right' (which in any sense, is bullshit anyway) to own 'arms' there is no specification they are 'firearms'. Also the restriction of some firearms still does not infringe on your 'right' to own 'arms'. They could ban all but 1 'arms' and your constitutional right to own it would not be infringed.RAIMIUS wrote:
It is my right to own a firearm.
OR...
you take meaning to encompass your right to own all 'arms' in which case there should be no restrictions on your ability to own anything. Machine guns, RPGs, Javelins, Tanks, JDAMs, Nuclear devices etc.
If you accept the restrictions on these things then why not on assault rifles or pistols or shotguns? You're only arguing the what level of regulation and restrictions not what is constitutional.
that doesn't change the fact that there's no need for civilians to own an automatic weapon...Reciprocity wrote:
civilians don't carry around automatic weapons. Current laws make automatic weapons very expensive to procure. legally owned automatic weapons exist, but they aren't used to commit crimes. Poor people commit crimes and the generally use poor people weapons.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
There is no reason for a civilian to carry around an automatic weapon
Whatever ... like any of you have the guts to label yourself a terrorist ...{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The government. That is the whole point of the second amendment was to protect citizens against a tyrannical government.AussieReaper wrote:
Weaker against who, the British?DBBrinson1 wrote:
No. This is BS. The reason for it is so that Mexican police can have an easier time against their criminals. Let's make our counrty weaker to help another country's police force.
They all thought my rally against Chicago politicians was crazy.Varegg wrote:
Whatever ... like any of you have the guts to label yourself a terrorist ...{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The government. That is the whole point of the second amendment was to protect citizens against a tyrannical government.AussieReaper wrote:
Weaker against who, the British?
Stand up to the government my ass, just a petty excuse to continue a non regulated gun nut culture that causes more problems than it solves.
Actually I agree somewhat.Varegg wrote:
Whatever ... like any of you have the guts to label yourself a terrorist ...{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The government. That is the whole point of the second amendment was to protect citizens against a tyrannical government.AussieReaper wrote:
Weaker against who, the British?
Stand up to the government my ass, just a petty excuse to continue a non regulated gun nut culture that causes more problems than it solves.
The important difference here is that a 22inch monitor cant blow large holes in numerous people in quick succession.Ramius wrote:
I don't NEED a 22" monitor either...get my drift?
The right to bear arms wasn't considerate of a placid civilian population.lowing wrote:
Actually I agree somewhat.Varegg wrote:
Whatever ... like any of you have the guts to label yourself a terrorist ...{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The government. That is the whole point of the second amendment was to protect citizens against a tyrannical government.
Stand up to the government my ass, just a petty excuse to continue a non regulated gun nut culture that causes more problems than it solves.
We are complacent and growing more and more dependant and expectant on govt. control over our lives. Now it would be too inconvenient to do anything about our power hungry govt. The citizens have lost control, or more appropriately, we have given it up.
According to the constitution you can shoot his ass if he tries to take your guns. "A well maintained Militia........." This particular act may not warrant over throwing the government. Perhaps the government is disarming the Militia so they can do what they want? Knowing there is an army of Randy Weavers out there must be unsettling to government, specially in a time of turmoil. Ive heard a few posters on here call for Revolution against Obama and he hasn't even started yet!DBBrinson1 wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
Looks like Obama is going after guns.
I watched a documentary the other night. Guys out in Nevada desert with something similar as the pic on the back of a truck, only with 4 mini guns mounted on it shooting at drone gliders. All perfectly legal. Perhaps they use it for shooting deer, lol.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
imo, owning an assault rifle is as ridiculous as having this thing in your front yard
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3199/sdkfzflak.jpg
if you want to look like a real man, if your penis is too short, if you have no self-esteem, do what europeans do, buy a porsche...
Kind of reminds me of my cousin. I gave him instructions on the shotgun, how to fire and keep safe etc. I then went off to let off a clay for him to shoot at. He backed back until his heels where up against my parents back door threshold. Fired the gun, the recoil pushed him back (stance was feet together, contrary to what I had told him) into the house, he fell on his back and emptied the second barrel into my mums ceiling. He cried for about 3 hours, I'm not joking. Scared the shit outta him. He is a fucking disaster to this day. And yes, I think he is gay.ATG wrote:
Jesus god.imortal wrote:
I just found this in another forum. Don't ask how. It is almost embarrasing. Now, if you look at it from another point of view, this videon shows how a lot of people think and feel about firearms (some of them in this forum). Should be good for a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM
That was the most pathetic bunch of wankers I have Eva seen.
