(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

(07-24-2012 02:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

You had an orgasm when you saw that picture didn't you?

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

For what may be the second time, we agree. I see no need for individuals to own large caliber fully automatic weapons. I dislike a lot of gun regualtions and bans, but can support the ban on fully automatic weapons, suppressors, and true assault weapons. I do think it should be legal to own a weapon such as an M-16 or M-4 that will fire in 3 to 5 round bursts though.

As far as my comment about far left libs wanting all guns banned, its a generalization, but I think the percentages in favor of an all out ban would support my statement.

I don't know anything about guns but I'm sure that their is an official, legal definition because they used to be banned. Therefore, gun shops had to know which of these weapons that they could not sell.

Personally, I don't know why anyone would need a rapid firing weapon for hunting. I mean, if you get to fire off multiple shots is it really hunting? That doesn't sound like sport to me.

I personally don't think we should go so far as to ban guns but when our local police departments are out gunned, maybe we should re think this.

If the Dark Knight shooter had wanted to go up against the cops, how much damage could he have done?

(07-25-2012 10:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't know anything about guns but I'm sure that their is an official, legal definition because they used to be banned. Therefore, gun shops had to know which of these weapons that they could not sell.

Personally, I don't know why anyone would need a rapid firing weapon for hunting. I mean, if you get to fire off multiple shots is it really hunting? That doesn't sound like sport to me.

I personally don't think we should go so far as to ban guns but when our local police departments are out gunned, maybe we should re think this.

If the Dark Knight shooter had wanted to go up against the cops, how much damage could he have done?

The legal definition is murky because it includes a lot of guns that aren't military style assault weapons. Magazine sizes, attachments, and I think some optics are banned but I'm not sure.

If you mean fully automatic when you say rapid-fire, then there isn't any practical hunting application. If you include semi-automatic weapons that fire each time the trigger is pulled, then there is certainly a practical hunting application. Generally when hunting if the first shot misses there may be an opportunity for a second, but the thrid will be a wasted shot in most cases. However there is the safety and defense side of the arguement as well. A hunter may be after mule deer when he is charged by a large bear. In that instance it may be necessary to fire rapidly to defend yourself. In the same manner it is sometimes necessary to defend oneself against multiple people.

Most PD's have automatic weapons available. Any person with a semi-automatic gun isn't going to 'out-gun' the police. In this case the shooter wouldn't have stood much of a chance against a number of cops since his magazie jammed on his AR-15. Even if it hadn't he was limited to a single shot each time he pulled the trigger. He would have been left with two close-quarters defensive weapons in the shotgun and pistol.

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

Whether a weapon is used to hunt or not has no bearing on the rights provided by the 2nd amendment.

(07-25-2012 11:15 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

Whether a weapon is used to hunt or not has no bearing on the rights provided by the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, I know. THe Second Amendment is so Americans can outgun the gubment when they come after you.

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

(07-25-2012 12:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 11:15 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

Whether a weapon is used to hunt or not has no bearing on the rights provided by the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, I know. THe Second Amendment is so Americans can outgun the gubment when they come after you.

Well you're getting there. But replace "come after you" with become so tyrannical and corrupt that revolution is needed. Are we there? No we are not. Could it happen? Yes, and if it happens during my lifetime (which I do not think it will) I want the same weapons the government is going to use to put down the insurrection.

(07-25-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

did they have AK-47's with banana clips in 1776?

(07-25-2012 04:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

did they have AK-47's with banana clips in 1776?

Nope, but the people and the government had access to the same weapons. Why should that change now?

(07-25-2012 04:13 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

did they have AK-47's with banana clips in 1776?

Nope, but the people and the government had access to the same weapons. Why should that change now?

so since the government has Nukes...I should be able to go to the local pawn shop and buy a ICBM, right?

(07-25-2012 04:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:13 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

did they have AK-47's with banana clips in 1776?

Nope, but the people and the government had access to the same weapons. Why should that change now?

so since the government has Nukes...I should be able to go to the local pawn shop and buy a ICBM, right?

I'm torn. The part of me that understands what the framers meant says yes, the part of me that doesn't want Occupy owning a nuke says no.

(07-25-2012 04:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:13 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

did they have AK-47's with banana clips in 1776?

Nope, but the people and the government had access to the same weapons. Why should that change now?

so since the government has Nukes...I should be able to go to the local pawn shop and buy a ICBM, right?

No. It's illogical to assume that the citizens are able to posses the same sophisticated weapons as the military. Now I do believe that citizens should be allowed to posses equitable defensive weapons including short burst automatic rifles.

(07-24-2012 01:21 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  State YOUR definition, and whether you consider yourself liberal, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian, anarchist, totalitarian, Democrat, Republican, what have you. I'm curious to see how people define these weapons that many think should be illegal.

It has to look scary... DUH.

(07-25-2012 04:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Fail. So is Rebel going to go hunting(I mean outside humans) with that gun he showed?

How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

did they have AK-47's with banana clips in 1776?

They had cannons in 1776 and were authorized to man self funded warships on behalf of the nation.

(07-25-2012 04:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:13 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

did they have AK-47's with banana clips in 1776?

Nope, but the people and the government had access to the same weapons. Why should that change now?

so since the government has Nukes...I should be able to go to the local pawn shop and buy a ICBM, right?

Compared to what the Framers were armed with, does it bother at all that today's government has vastly superior firepower that mere civilians could never fight against?

First liberals say we should never trust the government then they willingly give them absolute control over themselves. Do you see a train wreck coming?

(07-25-2012 08:53 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 10:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  How Fail? Rebel correctly identified an assault weapon. My point is valid as well.

THat far left "libs" want to ban all guns. I would agree that it is an assult weapon. I don't agree that an individual should be allowed to own one since the only purpose of such a weapon is to kill a lot of humans and not for hunting(outside of humans).

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, numbnuts.

did they have AK-47's with banana clips in 1776?

They had cannons in 1776 and were authorized to man self funded warships on behalf of the nation.

I was going to tell that to these idiots here yesterday but got sidetracked. Many of the warships used by the US Navy during the revolutionary war were armed commerce ships belonging to private citizens.