Punish Law Abiding Citizens and Ignore Criminals. Great Plan. Fucking Idiots.

MetalHead · Apr 9, 2013

superpunk said:
what facts man? I still haven't seen the argument made for necessity of assault weapons. debunked the whole "who needs a big tv argument" a while back.

Plus I'm not arguing for gun control I just want you guys to give something resembling a coherent argument here.

No,you are just trolling while getting destroyed.

iceberg · Apr 9, 2013

superpunk said:
what facts man? I still haven't seen the argument made for necessity of assault weapons. debunked the whole "who needs a big tv argument" a while back.

Plus I'm not arguing for gun control I just want you guys to give something resembling a coherent argument here.

and i've yet to see a valid argument as to why we CAN'T have them.

MetalHead · Apr 9, 2013

Bluenoser said:
Maybe if 88% of Americans didn't feel the need to own a handgun that number would be a lot lower. Canadians can own handguns yet the % is a lot lower.

In other news 14 people got stab wounds today in a college in TX.

iceberg · Apr 9, 2013

Bluenoser said:
Maybe if 88% of Americans didn't feel the need to own a handgun that number would be a lot lower. Canadians can own handguns yet the % is a lot lower.

why are you so worried about what other people want to have? it's a very liberal mindset that says "if i don't like it you shouldn't have it" but damn, it's out there.

peplaw06 · Apr 9, 2013

superpunk said:
you mean the graphs that say we're better at not getting shot than shit-hole countries in south america? lets compare apples to apples here.

No the graph that says countries with tight gun-control laws don't avoid gun-related crime. And the one that says in America gun related crime is declining when gun-control laws are being loosened.

Sharkinva · Apr 9, 2013

Hoofbite said:
Or because it'd be really fucking inconvenient to have all the military bases on the coasts.

Probably also pretty hard to recruit people to the reserve if they have to travel from bumfuck Kansas to the east coast or west coast just to get their couple weekends per year in.

Im going to guess you have never been in the military. The US Marines could care less where ou actually want to go, they send you where they need you. Unless things have really changed since I got out. But i know I did my two years active reserve based out of LeJeune which was a six hour drive from DC. But as I stated, the concept of an army base in the middle of bumfuck ( Not National Gaurd mind you) has no point in the actual protection of the country from external enemies. By the time a battalion from Kansas mobilized and got their asses to either coast, a dedicated and organized force would likely own every thing west of Vegas and east of the Blue Ridge.

superpunk · Apr 9, 2013

The double d's in the thread title are driving me insane.

MetalHead · Apr 9, 2013

iceberg said:
why are you so worried about what other people want to have? it's a very liberal mindset that says "if i don't like it you shouldn't have it" but damn, it's out there.

That's the thing with libturds and statists.
If they dislike something,they want ownership of it outlawed.

MetalHead · Apr 9, 2013

superpunk said:
The double d's in the thread title are driving me insane.

Son,you parked your ride in the insane lot long time ago.

Bluenoser · Apr 9, 2013

peplaw06 said:
I love how no one will acknowledge Scipio's graphs. I mean you don't even have to read much, it's pictures. I figure Dez for Prez would prefer pictures to books. Yet no response.

Doesn't appear that gun-control laws actually control gun-related crime. How bout you address that, instead of claiming we only want assault rifles so we can try to shoot down a stealth bomber.

Just because violent crime is down doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

About Australia, most likely criminals felt they had a better chance at these crimes now that they banned certain guns. Sexual assault rose, maybe if these women were carrying assault weapons this wouldn't have happened?

Bluenoser · Apr 9, 2013

iceberg said:
and i've yet to see a valid argument as to why we CAN'T have them.

And I have yet to hear a valid reason as to why you need them.

iceberg · Apr 9, 2013

Bluenoser said:
And I have yet to hear a valid reason as to why you need them.

why should i have to give one? why do *you* get to decide *needs* for everyone?

Iamtdg · Apr 9, 2013

iceberg said:
and i've yet to see a valid argument as to why we CAN'T have them.

BECAUSE OF THE CHILDREN, MAN!

Iamtdg · Apr 9, 2013

The issue isn't really the type of weapon on the bottom line. It's the fact that they are taking weapons away, and if we allow them to take one type of weapon away, they will just view this as an opening to go deeper. And they will. Then we will be shooting at tanks with pop-guns instead of real guns.

iceberg · Apr 9, 2013

Iamtdg said:
The issue isn't really the type of weapon on the bottom line. It's the fact that they are taking weapons away, and if we allow them to take one type of weapon away, they will just view this as an opening to go deeper. And they will. Then we will be shooting at tanks with pop-guns instead of real guns.

and the fact they keep lying in order to do it. i'd be all for a panel of experts to come together and create a plan to educate users before they can own guns and before going to class, a criminal background check done on you. a day in the classroom, 1/2 a day on the range, and you're certified to own any type of gun you wish - aside from fully auto.

but creating laws that ban "military style" can be anything from bolt action (as snipers love bolt action rifles) to those that look all nasty but are no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic gun. why so vague in the laws? oh, so you can interpret them any way you wish when the law is passed.

there's a 150 round mag for an AR-15 but can you imagine now heavy that would be fully loaded up?

Minimalist · Apr 9, 2013

MetalHead said:
I see we got new member...another jackass from OWN...

Coming from the new member who joined in March 2013. Lol Are you the same one who threatened to kill me?

:-*

I love you.

Minimalist · Apr 9, 2013

VTA said:
What's up min?

I know you!

VTA · Apr 9, 2013

Iamtdg said:
The issue isn't really the type of weapon on the bottom line. It's the fact that they are taking weapons away, and if we allow them to take one type of weapon away, they will just view this as an opening to go deeper. And they will. Then we will be shooting at tanks with pop-guns instead of real guns.

Keep the broader views out of this. I tried that angle... it resulted in a singular bout of drivel.

VTA · Apr 9, 2013

Minimalist said:
I know you!

Everybody knows me.

MetalHead · Apr 9, 2013

Minimalist said:
Coming from the new member who joined in March 2013. Lol Are you the same one who threatened to kill me?

I love you.

Your reading skills are very poor.
I don't make threats.
I gave you my address and invited you to try new ammo.
Oh...go suck casmith's cock.

In the Rotation

In the Rotation

In the Rotation

In the Rotation

2

Spectator

Pro Bowler

In the Rotation

In the Rotation

In the Rotation

In the Rotation

In the Rotation

2

2

In the Rotation

Practice Squad

Practice Squad

UDFA

UDFA

In the Rotation