100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama - Gun Salesman Of the Year | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the cops in that video of katrina didn't look like zombies to me. dan, those cops didn't get in trouble, they did their job. they were given wide berth to do these attrocities. in fact, they had to sign, along with the national guard, a contract that stated that they would shoot a civilian if said civilian refused to relinquish any weapons stored in their home. that aside . the rate of fire of an ak-47 is 600 rounds per min. for the average citizen to own a weapon like that is hanous . most civilians who use there weapons for hunting and target shooting wouldnt even know how to handle a weapon like that and do more damage then good . in the millitary we had to train with these weapons on a regular basis , and requalify with them every year just to handle them . why does our average citizen need a weapon like that ? these WEAPONS are not like you see on rambo they are not that easy to controll . they are designed to kill as many people possible as quickly as possible There is no reason for the average citizen to need a weapon like that. We explained many reasons for this... I feel how I feel about this. I also feel that when it was all written, it was a different time and circumstance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to Dan,
Yes, full auto (selector: safe,burst,full). No, it is not hard to handle the weapon. I was alright using it at 14. No problem, slightly harder recoil than say, M-16. Most of the time, it is supposed to be used on 3 round burst setting. Quality made AK is only slightly less accurate than AR-15, or M-16. However, it is slightly more reliable and forgiving, because of looser tolerances, which make it less accurate. I was able to reliably hit beer cans from 100 yards with that, with only iron sights, from a shoulder. So, this is to say it is not that bad at accuracy, as some may wish to present it to be. No, again, you insist that no one should have "a weapon like that", except the government. I take it you do not support the constitution in full. O.K. I, on the other hand, do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the cops in that video of katrina didn't look like zombies to me. dan, those cops didn't get in trouble, they did their job. they were given wide berth to do these attrocities. in fact, they had to sign, along with the national guard, a contract that stated that they would shoot a civilian if said civilian refused to relinquish any weapons stored in their home. that aside . the rate of fire of an ak-47 is 600 rounds per min. for the average citizen to own a weapon like that is hanous . most civilians who use there weapons for hunting and target shooting wouldnt even know how to handle a weapon like that and do more damage then good . in the millitary we had to train with these weapons on a regular basis , and requalify with them every year just to handle them . why does our average citizen need a weapon like that ? these WEAPONS are not like you see on rambo they are not that easy to controll . they are designed to kill as many people possible as quickly as possible There is no reason for the average citizen to need a weapon like that. We explained many reasons for this... I feel how I feel about this. I also feel that when it was all written, it was a different time and circumstance. keep your groveling socialist gun grabbing paws off my constitution. it's not a "living document", its amendments not subject to your populist whims. it says what it says; it means what it means. what part of "shall not be infringed" needs to be further elucidated for you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
raider?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel how I feel about this. I also feel that when it was all written, it was a different time and circumstance. Yes, that is why in their desire to make the right clear and lasting through whatever the kinds of arms a future may bring, they have called them "arms", and not just "muskets". The idea was that the citizens should possess the same or greater firepower than that of the government. Whatever the "arms" the government has, would be the same "arms" that the people shall have the right to bear. Besides the new kinds of arms, what else has changed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the cops in that video of katrina didn't look like zombies to me. dan, those cops didn't get in trouble, they did their job. they were given wide berth to do these attrocities. in fact, they had to sign, along with the national guard, a contract that stated that they would shoot a civilian if said civilian refused to relinquish any weapons stored in their home. that aside . the rate of fire of an ak-47 is 600 rounds per min. for the average citizen to own a weapon like that is hanous . most civilians who use there weapons for hunting and target shooting wouldnt even know how to handle a weapon like that and do more damage then good . in the millitary we had to train with these weapons on a regular basis , and requalify with them every year just to handle them . why does our average citizen need a weapon like that ? these WEAPONS are not like you see on rambo they are not that easy to controll . they are designed to kill as many people possible as quickly as possible There is no reason for the average citizen to need a weapon like that. We explained many reasons for this... I feel how I feel about this. I also feel that when it was all written, it was a different time and circumstance. Under what different circumstance? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the cops in that video of katrina didn't look like zombies to me. dan, those cops didn't get in trouble, they did their job. they were given wide berth to do these attrocities. in fact, they had to sign, along with the national guard, a contract that stated that they would shoot a civilian if said civilian refused to relinquish any weapons stored in their home. that aside . the rate of fire of an ak-47 is 600 rounds per min. for the average citizen to own a weapon like that is hanous . most civilians who use there weapons for hunting and target shooting wouldnt even know how to handle a weapon like that and do more damage then good . in the millitary we had to train with these weapons on a regular basis , and requalify with them every year just to handle them . why does our average citizen need a weapon like that ? these WEAPONS are not like you see on rambo they are not that easy to controll . they are designed to kill as many people possible as quickly as possible There is no reason for the average citizen to need a weapon like that. We explained many reasons for this... I feel how I feel about this. I also feel that when it was all written, it was a different time and circumstance. keep your groveling socialist gun grabbing paws off my constitution. it's not a "living document", its amendments not subject to your populist whims. it says what it says; it means what it means. what part of "shall not be infringed" needs to be further elucidated for you? I'm not a socialist that is touching OUR constitution. I am allowed to have feelings about these topics though. Have you heard? That's what we do here...we share opinions and feelings with each other and do our best to not be rude. Sometimes we even learn from each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right By Ap June 26, 2008 The Supreme Court ruled today that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact. The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found." Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/27/nation/na-scotus27 Uninformed Paranoia! The ones who fell for the chit and then ran out and bought weapons should be ruled mentally unfit to own them! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Fri 03/06/09 09:01 AM
|
|
So, what Fanta is saying, is that the Obama administration in no way is trying to ban assault weapons, or push legislation to require registration for firearms....
I do hope you are correct Fanta. I want to believe you, i really do, but at the same time i am trying to keep my eyes open to as many possibilities i can... Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the right wing was just crazy and the lefties were all correct? I would be awsome to think that we can continue the country on a steady course and all have continually better lifes as a result of bigger government. It would be awsome, i could finish school, become a doctor, and live a great, rewarding life... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Fri 03/06/09 09:30 AM
|
|
So, what Fanta is saying, is that the Obama administration in no way is trying to ban assault weapons, or push legislation to require registration for firearms.... I do hope you are correct Fanta. I want to believe you, i really do, but at the same time i am trying to keep my eyes open to as many possibilities i can... Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the right wing was just crazy and the lefties were all correct? I would be awsome to think that we can continue the country on a steady course and all have continually better lifes as a result of bigger government. It would be awsome, i could finish school, become a doctor, and live a great, rewarding life... Im saying he doesnt have the power grunt. A President cant overturn a S.C. ruling, and this was the first time, since it was written, that the second Amendment was clearly defined. It doesnt take much to provoke paranoia in the uninformed minds of civilians. Now, who says an AK is accurate? LOL,, Follow Me!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the selector switch says burst, it is not that old.
Older models only had semi and auto modes for firing. A real Infantry soldier doesn't need burst. We fire enough, and are proficient enough, to fire three round burst on fully auto. Its called trigger control and familiarity with your weapon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, what Fanta is saying, is that the Obama administration in no way is trying to ban assault weapons, or push legislation to require registration for firearms.... I do hope you are correct Fanta. I want to believe you, i really do, but at the same time i am trying to keep my eyes open to as many possibilities i can... Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the right wing was just crazy and the lefties were all correct? I would be awsome to think that we can continue the country on a steady course and all have continually better lifes as a result of bigger government. It would be awsome, i could finish school, become a doctor, and live a great, rewarding life... ban on assault weapons and registration of firearms is not a bad thing . the problem with the united states is people think that changeing with the times is a bad thing . it is not . those who learn to adapt survive . plain and simple . what worked when the founding fathers formed this country does not work now . sorry to break it to you . the average citizen does not have to worry about defending his home and ommunity from an attack of a massive enemy force any more . unless your going to claim our own government is going to come after us with force . if so prove it . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"what worked when the founding fathers formed this country does not work now . sorry to break it to you".
Oh so we should tear up the entire bill of rights because they don't apply today? Sometimes I wonder what the hell you people are thinking. I suppose I really don't want to know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"what worked when the founding fathers formed this country does not work now . sorry to break it to you". Oh so we should tear up the entire bill of rights because they don't apply today? Sometimes I wonder what the hell you people are thinking. I suppose I really don't want to know. it has nothing to do with tearing up the bill of rights . it has to do with adapting to the changes in the world and the country . things that do not evolve over time go extinct . and nations that try to stay rigid against the winds of change brake and fall . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, what Fanta is saying, is that the Obama administration in no way is trying to ban assault weapons, or push legislation to require registration for firearms.... I do hope you are correct Fanta. I want to believe you, i really do, but at the same time i am trying to keep my eyes open to as many possibilities i can... Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the right wing was just crazy and the lefties were all correct? I would be awsome to think that we can continue the country on a steady course and all have continually better lifes as a result of bigger government. It would be awsome, i could finish school, become a doctor, and live a great, rewarding life... ban on assault weapons and registration of firearms is not a bad thing . the problem with the united states is people think that changeing with the times is a bad thing . it is not . those who learn to adapt survive . plain and simple . what worked when the founding fathers formed this country does not work now . sorry to break it to you . the average citizen does not have to worry about defending his home and ommunity from an attack of a massive enemy force any more . unless your going to claim our own government is going to come after us with force . if so prove it . If the government decides to go after us with force, there will be nothing to stop them if we only have bolt action rifles and muskets. I'm not saying they are coming after us. But they could. Thats why the rules are in place. And under an oath we took we are supposed to defend these rules with our very lives. Some will turn their backs on the responsibilites given to them, and some will fight to the death defending these responsibilities. That's all i am saying. You can't tell me the Constitution is Outdated and still preach about civil liberties, because there will be nothing protecting them... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"what worked when the founding fathers formed this country does not work now . sorry to break it to you". Oh so we should tear up the entire bill of rights because they don't apply today? Sometimes I wonder what the hell you people are thinking. I suppose I really don't want to know. it has nothing to do with tearing up the bill of rights . it has to do with adapting to the changes in the world and the country . things that do not evolve over time go extinct . and nations that try to stay rigid against the winds of change brake and fall . What you are saying is that the bill of rights no longer applies. That we need change to match the times. I question my friend... Why do you think times have changed so drastically in the last 100 years? What changed in 100 years that hasn't changed in 15,000 years before that? |
|
|
|
|
