brief and to the point. Why don't we severely limit any hand gun or weapon that doesn't tie in with hunting. I totally understand the bonding between a father and child when it comes to hunting, but I don't understand the need for semi-automatic AK-47's. What do you want to give the bird a heart attack if you don't kill it. We need common sense gun laws. But that's the problem with the right, common sense sometimes evades them. They want to have Teflon coated bullets on the market. It makes no sense.

Quote:Why don't we severely limit any hand gun or weapon that doesn't tie in with hunting.

Because it is not just about hunting. It is also about protecting the rights of the people, from their own government if need be.

I seriously question the need for anyone that believes the 2nd Amendment is about hunting to vote.

Machiavelli Wrote:brief and to the point. Why don't we severely limit any hand gun or weapon that doesn't tie in with hunting. I totally understand the bonding between a father and child when it comes to hunting, but I don't understand the need for semi-automatic AK-47's. What do you want to give the bird a heart attack if you don't kill it. We need common sense gun laws. But that's the problem with the right, common sense sometimes evades them. They want to have Teflon coated bullets on the market. It makes no sense.

I don't own a gun, but I do want and believe in the option. It's a helluva lot harder to beat out-of-control government forces back with phone books and string cheese than bullets.

Sooo, we want Teflon coated bullets to attack the govt. when they try to git our guns. Jesus, you guys are far far right.

Quote:It is also about protecting the rights of the people, from their own government if need be.

"our moderate moderator" We need common sense gun laws.[/i]

Machiavelli Wrote:Sooo, we want Teflon coated bullets to attack the govt. when they try to git our guns. Jesus, you guys are far far right.

Yeah, look at us. Taking the same stance as the Founding Fathers. Bunch of whackos we are.

And no, we don't need guns to protect ourselves from the government when they come to take said guns away (EDIT: Upon further reflection...maybe we do). We may need guns, however, when the government decides that eminent domain for a public purpose now means that the cozy 2-bedroom shack on an acre of land is a waste of space and that property is better served under ownership of the collective.

Or that privacy extends only to the outside of your skull.

When those types of things happen, it's the responsibility of the citizenry to stand up and scream change. When such things cannot be changed peaceably, other alternatives may be necessary.

It sounds extremely radical, but that is the purpose of the second amendment.

I swear to God. Hand on the bible variety I never thought about guns this way. I've always thought about the government as us. Government of the people, for the people, by the people. I always thought of the NRA as an offshoot of the KKK. Seriously. Never in my wildest imagination could I think the way you guys are thinking. Eye opener.

The government is the people. This is one fallacy in the liberals' arguments, that there is no need for guns because the people couldn't defeat tanks, Stykers, etc. Well, those troops that drive the tanks, Bradleys, Strykers, etc., ....they are the government as well. They are citizens as well. Don't assume that just because someone orders them to go into a US City and take it over that they will comply.

Machiavelli Wrote:I swear to God. Hand on the bible variety I never thought about guns this way.

Yet you call us narrow-minded.

Machiavelli Wrote:I've always thought about the government as us. Government of the people, for the people, by the people.

You and your ilk scream and cry about the Bush Administration's power grabs and yet you never once considered the idea of an out of control government existing far outside the boundaries set for it by the people?

Machiavelli Wrote:I always thought of the NRA as an offshoot of the KKK.

I was a member of the NRA for a few years (during Clinton). I must've missed the memo about cleaning the earth of minorities.

I think you're not allowed to lecture us about beliefs. Ever, ever again. Ever.

Machiavelli Wrote:"our moderate moderator" We need common sense gun laws.

Who claimed that I was moderate? I'm a libertarian.

Machiavelli Wrote:I always thought of the NRA as an offshoot of the KKK. Seriously. Never in my wildest imagination could I think the way you guys are thinking. Eye opener.

The fact the you think that ways goes a long way in explaining why you don't trust the NRA, but the fact is that the NRA is not an offshoot of the KKK. That's what you get for getting your facts from Micheal Moore. Throw that notion away and then think about the issue.

The NRA may not be an offshoot of the KKK, but it is definitely racist.

How so?

uhmump95 Wrote:The NRA may not be an offshoot of the KKK, but it is definitely racist.

Yeah, how Al?

uhmump95 Wrote:The NRA may not be an offshoot of the KKK, but it is definitely racist.

Really? Please explain, as I am not a member nore do I keep up with their practices.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:How so?

Because I said so ;-)

I have no problems with an organization that wants to protect our rights, but the NRA uses fear(ie. The drug dealers, pimps, and gang bangers have their guns so us good people need to keep ours as well). Might as well change that to "The niggas and wetbacks have guns so us white people need to join NRA to protect ourselves from them.

uhmump95 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:How so?

Because I said so ;-)

I have no problems with an organization that wants to protect our rights, but the NRA uses fear(ie. The drug dealers, pimps, and gang bangers have their guns so us good people need to keep ours as well). Might as well change that to "The niggas and wetbacks have guns so us white people need to join NRA to protect ourselves from them.

That is a stretch. Now, can you give us some actual proof, or are you just going to continue with your constant stereotyping of any group that you have issues with.

uhmump95 Wrote:Might as well change that to "The niggas and wetbacks have guns so us white people need to join NRA to protect ourselves from them.

But they didn't, you did.

uhmump95 Wrote:I have no problems with an organization that wants to protect our rights, but the NRA uses fear(ie. The drug dealers, pimps, and gang bangers have their guns so us good people need to keep ours as well). Might as well change that to "The niggas and wetbacks have guns so us white people need to join NRA to protect ourselves from them.

I look at that as the criminals have their guns so we should arm ourselves. Surely you don't think all "niggas and wetbacks" are drug dealers, pimps, and gang bangers, do you? I also have never seen them say, "white criminals, yur ok wit us".

GOD people, why is it that when an argument is lost, generalization is just around the damn corner?

Machiavelli Wrote:Sooo, we want Teflon coated bullets to attack the govt.

One more thing, and a piece of info readily available from sources not named Michael Moore:

[quote]Although a myth persists that the Teflon is there to either penetrate "bullet-proof" vests more effectively, or protect the bore of the firearm that fires it, Dr. Kopsch himself has testified that the Teflon actually reduces these bullets' penetration in Kevlar
...
No law enforcement personnel have yet been killed by this type of armor piercing round when wearing appropriate body armor, making the nickname