you will find powder in our mountains, but no virgins in our valleys.
close enough
So says the guy who participated in a brutal invasion to forcibly change the politics of a country which had done nothing to deserve being attacked.Jay wrote:
Would everyone who does not possess the right to vote in America please shut the fuck up already? Jesus fucking christ, we don't involve ourselves in your political bullshit. You haven't convinced a single person in this thread to change their views. Just shut the fuck up. Thank you.
Well done.
America meddles in the politics of many countries, and always has, the only reason they're not involved in meddling in GB and Aus is that they're supine 'allies'.
Anyway, its a discussion forum, calm down.
Fuck Israel
Bitch Feinstein just released her list of weapons she wants banned.
TL:DR - Anything that looks scary.
Oh and for those saying you don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself, I refer you to the LA riots.
TL:DR - Anything that looks scary.
Oh and for those saying you don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself, I refer you to the LA riots.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
There's nothing more worth killing people for than groceries.
Who are you calling 'bitch' anyway?
Who are you calling 'bitch' anyway?
Fuck Israel
Argument against prohibition #1: "There are only a few massacres a year, it doesn't happen often enough to warrant it"-Sh1fty- wrote:
Bitch Feinstein just released her list of weapons she wants banned.
TL:DR - Anything that looks scary.
Oh and for those saying you don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself, I refer you to the LA riots.
Argument against prohibition #2: "If something like the LA riots happens again we need to be armed and ready. It doesn't matter that it was more than 20 years ago"
It doesn't matter your stance, this is confused logic at best.
Wait those are assault rifles? lawl...-Sh1fty- wrote:
Bitch Feinstein just released her list of weapons she wants banned.
TL:DR - Anything that looks scary.
Oh and for those saying you don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself, I refer you to the LA riots.
Also, you still haven't addressed my previous question.
Isn't #1 an argument for prohibition? Also, the last part of #2 doesn't take into account other riots and events like Katrina. However, I'm still pistol/shotgun for self defense and pistol/shotgun/rifle for sportsman's hobbies. Why I'd want to go hunting with a fully-auto AK-47, I'd never know.Jaekus wrote:
Argument against prohibition #1: "There are only a few massacres a year, it doesn't happen often enough to warrant it"
Argument against prohibition #2: "If something like the LA riots happens again we need to be armed and ready. It doesn't matter that it was more than 20 years ago"
It doesn't matter your stance, this is confused logic at best.
Ah dil inadvertently makes a great argument for the Second Amendment and goes back to it's basic genesis. Don't trust your government. I'm surprised that he doesn't attempt to incite others in the US to armed revolt.Dilbert_X wrote:
So says the guy who participated in a brutal invasion to forcibly change the politics of a country which had done nothing to deserve being attacked.Jay wrote:
Would everyone who does not possess the right to vote in America please shut the fuck up already? Jesus fucking christ, we don't involve ourselves in your political bullshit. You haven't convinced a single person in this thread to change their views. Just shut the fuck up. Thank you.
Well done.
America meddles in the politics of many countries, and always has, the only reason they're not involved in meddling in GB and Aus is that they're supine 'allies'.
Anyway, its a discussion forum, calm down.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
If people are going to volunteer to do the govts dirty work for peanuts I don't think an armed revolt by a few libertards will really get very far.
Military, Police etc never have any trouble firing on their fellow citizens.
Military, Police etc never have any trouble firing on their fellow citizens.
Fuck Israel
Or on other military or police during revolution.
Sorry, it was poorly written on my part, and I used an incorrect example. I was thinking more along the lines of how the amount of guns to the amount of homicides is considered to be a negligible ratio statistic for gun control, yet a much rarer event (read: negligible statistic) is considered to be a shining example of gun control is bad.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't #1 an argument for prohibition?
(That may read poorly too. I'm tired and can't focus properly).
OK, but I still think shifty believes the Koreans in that pic have M-16's or something.
So does the person who added the text, assuming shifty pulled it from the net.
Those Koreans will only need assault rifles when they get to wave 8.Jaekus wrote:
So does the person who added the text, assuming shifty pulled it from the net.
That's after they've used all five rugers*
*(not pictured)
*(not pictured)
The PSG-1 is an "AR type rifle"?
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
That has to be one of the sloppiest douments I've ever seen. "AK-47-types?"
ROFL
ROFL
Reminds me of my christmas wish list.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
IZHMASH
What the fuck is that Korean or something?
What the fuck is that Korean or something?
So if we ban all these guns and people are suddenly safer can we expect all of the militarized SWAT teams to vanish? Not a day goes by anymore where there isn't a report of a SWAT team in some podunk town kicking down doors in no-knock raids, killing peoples dogs etc.
The SWAT teams are not a response civilian firearms, they exist because cops get a hardon thinking they are Rambo or liken themselves to infantrymen pounding down doors and getting the bad guys. Wait, that's the exact same reason that the civilians are buying these weapons, and yet we put more faith in people who have all the power in the world to abuse the law for their own purposes... Makes sense.
There are a lot of good cops in this country, but there are enough bad ones that I can't stomach giving them a monopoly on force.
The SWAT teams are not a response civilian firearms, they exist because cops get a hardon thinking they are Rambo or liken themselves to infantrymen pounding down doors and getting the bad guys. Wait, that's the exact same reason that the civilians are buying these weapons, and yet we put more faith in people who have all the power in the world to abuse the law for their own purposes... Makes sense.
There are a lot of good cops in this country, but there are enough bad ones that I can't stomach giving them a monopoly on force.
Last edited by Jay (2013-01-25 07:47:04)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Manufacturer of most Russian firearms.Spearhead wrote:
IZHMASH
What the fuck is that Korean or something?
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Its a tyranny of SWAT!
There was a news article yesterday about a 38,000 person 'city' in Iowa that hasn't had a murder in years, but possesses a 12 man SWAT team. The patrol cops are now requesting to be allowed to carry AR-15s in their squad cars because they're afraid of being 'outgunned'. Seriously, the militarization of our police is more concerning to me than private citizens having semi-automatic rifles.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Its a tyranny of SWAT!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Also:
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … z2J0Lep5FwAccording to a survey conducted in 2010 for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 90 percent of the owners of modern sporting rifles use them for target shooting, 80 percent for home defense and 60 percent for hunting.
About 44 percent of owners are former military or law enforcement, who enjoy using a familiar rifle. The typical owner is over 35 years old, married and has some college education. These good Americans are the ones who will be affected by a ban, not the criminals who will continue to use whatever they want.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I want an AR-15 but NJ has some retarded laws.