Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6930

13urnzz wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Plenty of people in bad neighbourhoods own guns for self defence.
in America, plenty of people own guns. they say "for self-defence" but if they're honest about it, they own guns because it makes them feel like a bad motherfucker. i own three, two of them are Rugers, and according to the experts on this forum that makes me 2/3's redneck trash.

brb, picking up 3 more Rugers . . .
only 3 guns? that makes you a member of the gang of liberal faggots.

there are people who own guns for self defence, but it is true the motherfucker who has a .50 cal isn't doing much for self defence. it just makes him feel cool or he wants to shoot down government helicopters.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5603|Fuck this.
.50 cals are ridiculously expensive to shoot, and cost around 5-10 grand. I prefer:



Much cheaper, while retaining 2,000 m effective range and a bullet that packs quite a punch.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6930
But you can't shoot down helicopters.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5603|Fuck this.
Maybe not armored ones.

http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68424

a 91/30 is a hellavu lot easier to aim than a .50 too.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5687|Ventura, California
If you look at every gun related death in the U.S. you will find that assault rifles (If you say assault weapon you are among the most elite members of the dumbfuck party) account for 0.6 percent of those deaths.

Yet it is "Assault weapons" AKA assault rifles that they are trying to ban.

Please refer to the "common sense" section of your brain when trying to argue.

edit: Not too sure how accurate these statistics are but they do put things into perspective.

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2013-01-19 01:14:33)

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5392|Sydney
I'm still yet to see a valid argument as to why assault rifles need to be available to the general population.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5687|Ventura, California
Check out www.assaultweapon.info

A handgun is semi-automatic, for the most part, you pull the trigger and even if you hold it only one bullet comes out. An assault rifle is the same thing. You pull the trigger of an AR-15 and one bullet comes out. The difference? One gun shoots farther. You can get really high cap mags for handguns too. Why should we limit assault rifles just because they can shoot further?

Also, the Second Amendment. Think it was written so hunters could keep their Remington 700?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6367|what

Shifty, do you really think there is a threat from the US government and tyranny?


Secondly, do you think Obama is going after your guns?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5687|Ventura, California
Either way I answer that first question, it doesn't change the fact I'm allowed to own a damn assault rifle of my choosing.

and yes, yes he is. I can't even put a pistol grip and high cap magazine on my mini 14 because then I'll be a serial killer. I don't want to reload every five damn shots.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6836|Little Bentcock

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Either way I answer that first question, it doesn't change the fact I'm allowed to own a damn assault rifle of my choosing.

and yes, yes he is. I can't even put a pistol grip and high cap magazine on my mini 14 because then I'll be a serial killer. I don't want to reload every five damn shots.
I uh.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6367|what

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Either way I answer that first question, it doesn't change the fact I'm allowed to own a damn assault rifle of my choosing.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you would be able to argue that your right to bear arms because it is stated in the constituion could be followed up with why the second amendement should apply in todays society.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

and yes, yes he is. I can't even put a pistol grip and high cap magazine on my mini 14 because then I'll be a serial killer. I don't want to reload every five damn shots.
Oh, so he isn't going after your guns. Just making you reload more often. What an intringment on your freedoms!
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6320|eXtreme to the maX

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jeakus I don't like that you own a gun, even if you live in a bad neighborhood. I'm going to take away your best means of defending yourself. You should tolerate what I said because you're Christian, even if there's nothing about Christianity that says you should just let yourself get killed, but that won't stop me from trying to use your religion against you in a way that doesn't make any sense.

It's one thing if they think that way, it's another if they impose it on other people. You're saying Christians shouldn't impose their beliefs on others, so why should I let these people impose theirs on me?
No-one is taking away your ability to defend yourself - unless you're expecting 30 people to attack you simultaneously.
Fuck Israel
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6836|Little Bentcock
and black helicopters.
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6689|Foothills of S. Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jeakus I don't like that you own a gun, even if you live in a bad neighborhood. I'm going to take away your best means of defending yourself. You should tolerate what I said because you're Christian, even if there's nothing about Christianity that says you should just let yourself get killed, but that won't stop me from trying to use your religion against you in a way that doesn't make any sense.

It's one thing if they think that way, it's another if they impose it on other people. You're saying Christians shouldn't impose their beliefs on others, so why should I let these people impose theirs on me?
No-one is taking away your ability to defend yourself - unless you're expecting 30 people to attack you simultaneously.
You must be like the most skilled marksman in the world if you can take down 30 people with one 30 round magazine while trying to defend yourself. Most people are not that accurate when scared and trying to save thier life.
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6689|Foothills of S. Carolina

Adams_BJ wrote:

and black helicopters.
I saw 5 little bird style black helicopters flying in formation yesterday afternoon, near my airport.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6320|eXtreme to the maX
If Sh1fty thinks he needs an AR15 and a 30rnd magazine for home defence he's more delusional than I thought.

Honestly, would it be a good thing to be loosing off dozens of rounds in a residential area?
Fuck Israel
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6689|Foothills of S. Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

If Sh1fty thinks he needs an AR15 and a 30rnd magazine for home defence he's more delusional than I thought.

Honestly, would it be a good thing to be loosing off dozens of rounds in a residential area?
My response was to you, not Sh1fty.

Why would you fire 30 rounds? Just because you have them? There have been cases, even recently, where 4 rounds or more did not stop a single assailant. I bet those people defending themselves and thier loved ones would have liked to have more than thier 6 round revolver at that point. Assailants that do home invasions are usually hopped up on drugs and dont respond to bullet wounds like a normal person would.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4468

Canin wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If Sh1fty thinks he needs an AR15 and a 30rnd magazine for home defence he's more delusional than I thought.

Honestly, would it be a good thing to be loosing off dozens of rounds in a residential area?
My response was to you, not Sh1fty.

Why would you fire 30 rounds? Just because you have them? There have been cases, even recently, where 4 rounds or more did not stop a single assailant. I bet those people defending themselves and thier loved ones would have liked to have more than thier 6 round revolver at that point. Assailants that do home invasions are usually hopped up on drugs and dont respond to bullet wounds like a normal person would.
jesus... what is it with the pro-gun lobby piling layer upon layer of crazy stereotype and nightmare-fantasy on their 'home invasion' scenarios? first of all, we're told that a "large number" of home invasions are for the purpose of "expressly hurting, raping, or murdering a family member". now we're told that invaders are "USUALLY" hopped up on drugs? lol what the fuck? are they zombies, too? sure you don't want uranium rounds for that AR-15? a silver-tipped bullet, just so they stay down? garlic rubbed on your bedroom door-knob?

and what sort of drugs do you think people take that make their internal organs immune to massive trauma or puncture wounds? here's a little medical tip, straight from a hopped-up drug user: none. people on speed and various forms of tranq may not feel pain, but a bullet to a vital is going to put them down, hard, whether or not they are consciously aware of the fact that their nerve-endings are screaming for mercy. if you kneecap an assailant, he won't be able to walk, regardless of whether he is on drugs or drunk, because he has no fucking kneecaps.

honestly, it would be so much easier to swallow some of the semi-rational points that (some of the more eloquent) pro-gun lobbyists put forward, if it wasn't always couched in this paranoiac, easily parodied far-right nutjob stance. i'm willing to go with you on the "to prevent against the tyranny of our government" line - it seems very alien and very whiffy to a louche-liberal european, but i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, in the better interests of my liberal historical/cultural relativism - but when you start saying all this crap about hordes of jumped-up drug-users, like nazi zombies on hitler's amphets crawling back out of hell's trenches themselves, then i know you're talking more out of fear and dumb ignorance than you are talking of anything rationally. a south carolinian meth-head will drop if you shoot to incapacitate them. the meth isn't an invulnerability potion. you don't need a tommy gun with a drum mag, and seven molotov cocktails.

all-in-all this is why people frequently lump in the pro-gun lobby or the NRA with far-right nutjobism, and relegate it to a form of extremism or, even, domestic terrorism. it's because pro-gun lobbyists seem completely indoctrinated with this 'heightened state of fear' all the time, which is textbook neo-con homeland policy. the reds aren't under your bed, vagabond drug zombies aren't wandering the night, black men aren't coming to rape your wives... etc. put the  .50 cal down.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-19 06:41:29)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6986|PNW

Legalize white phosphorous rounds.
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5250|Massachusetts, USA
There is no good reason to ban them, just as much as there is not good reason to have them. People want them because they look cool, they hold a good amount of ammo and they're fun to fire. People who own them for home defense are complete morons and shouldn't have them, people who own them because they want to take it to the range every once and a while should be allowed to have them.

When was the actual last time someone used an AR in a mass shooting. Or even in gang related violence.

The firearms used at Sandy Hook were handguns, the only instance i can think of that used an assault weapon was the theater shooting. One instance in the past two decades. Even columbine featured handguns and machine pistols only.

If you look at the 2011 crime stats for the US on a state by state basis. You will see that more people were killed in CA by handguns, than by shotguns and rifles combined. (Not combined in CA, but combined for the entire country.)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … s/table-20

Last edited by UnkleRukus (2013-01-19 06:53:52)

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6437|Escea

Is it just me, or are the old guys in charge of the NRA a bunch of childish dumbasses? They seem to show little knowledge about firearms. I mean, who the hell can swap out the mag of an AR-15 in 'less than a second'? You've got to eject it, grab the next and get it in place, maybe loose the bolt, all whilst under the effects of adrenalin.

The only people I imagine coming close to that are the SF types who run drills constantly and even then I'm doubtful they could achieve it in less than a second, not exactly your average nutjob shooter. Your average shooter won't be trained to be calm doing all of that either. He's going to fumble. Must have sleight of hand. That's apparently justification for not restricting rounds from 30 to 10 btw. Yes, we won't reduce the capacity because he can still change mags quickly. We won't try and you know, limit the problem as best we can.
eusgen
Nugget
+402|7006|Jupiter
pew pew robbers
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5687|Ventura, California
The amount of stupidity in this thread arguing for gun control is ridiculous.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4468
shifty you are this forum's patron saint of fuckin' stupidity.
Mutantbear
Semi Constructive Criticism
+1,431|6179|London, England

shifty dont call other people stupid please
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ https://i.imgur.com/Xj4f2.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard