Thanks alot Obama voters...

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

All this talk about the constitution... You have the right to own guns, you don't have a right to own automatic weapons. There is no need for it. You cannot prove that having an automatic weapon is going to save anyone's life.

You may be suprised to know that if Obama re-enacts the assault weapons ban, semi-auto weapons like ak's and ar's will be banned....but people will still be able to legally own full auto weapons with the appropriate paperwork and tax.

 

[Echo42987 10+ year member]

I hunt. A lot actually. Never needed an Ar to hunt as I do just fine with my rifles and my shotgun.
I can also protect myself just fine without an ar.

And nukes are arms so how is that not valid if all you are defending by what the constitution says?

A nuke isn't an arm and your stretching it a bit far. I do fine w/ a rifle and a shotgun as well. My AR-15 is a Rifle. Not some Fully Automatic gun like ya'll think it is.

 

[psych0ticnemes1 5,000+ posts]

Hunting. Just because you don't hunt doesn't mean you have to ban us from using a Semi-Auto rifle for it
And your nuke comparison is horrible. And they WHOLE reason for the constitution stating we should have guns is for PROTECTION.

Owning guns for protection is logical and necessary. However, 99% of gun owners don't use them for protection (this is obviously an estimate based on my knowledge of my own rural community), therefore that reason is null and void. Besides, you don't need an automatic weapon for protection purposes.

My analogy was so much better than the nuclear weapon analogy. Muahahaha!

 

[Tinted 10+ year member]

you know you are a stupid hick when you believe it is absolutely neccessary for you to posses a higher powered, automatic assault rifle.

in many countries a possession of any kind of a fire arm (except hunting rifles maybe) is totally prohibited and everyone is doing just dandy, no one is crying and *****ing about now being able to have a semi automatic 22 caliber pistol. But a stupid hick like you needs his assault rifle.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Owning guns for protection is logical and necessary. However, 99% of gun owners don't use them for protection (this is obviously an estimate based on my knowledge of my own rural community), therefore that reason is null and void. Besides, you don't need an automatic weapon for protection purposes.
My analogy was so much better than the nuclear weapon analogy. Muahahaha!

assault weapons in the ban would not be automatic weapons, those would still be legal...

 

[Echo42987 10+ year member]

Owning guns for protection is logical and necessary. However, 99% of gun owners don't use them for protection (this is obviously an estimate based on my knowledge of my own rural community), therefore that reason is null and void. Besides, you don't need an automatic weapon for protection purposes.
My analogy was so much better than the nuclear weapon analogy. Muahahaha!

I understand that. And it isn't 99%. There are A LOT of gun owners who only own one weapon for protection purposes. And no you do not need an automatic weapon for protection purposes. Like I said, an AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTO weapon like any other rifle on the market. But Obama wants to ban any gun that LOOKS like a Fully Automatic weapon. I don't need and wouldn't even use my AR-15 for protection. I use it for hunting. There is no reason WHAT-SO-EVER to ban me from owning a gun thats semi-auto.

 

[psych0ticnemes1 5,000+ posts]

You may be suprised to know that if Obama re-enacts the assault weapons ban, semi-auto weapons like ak's and ar's will be banned....but people will still be able to legally own full auto weapons with the appropriate paperwork and tax.

If that is the case than what is the point to this proposal?

I guess I'm not arguing the proposal, I'm arguing the logic behind owning automatic weapons.

Point blank, there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic weapon. Semi-auto sure. Most hunters use semi-auto unless you're hunting black powder, lol.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

A nuke isn't an arm and your stretching it a bit far. I do fine w/ a rifle and a shotgun as well. My AR-15 is a Rifle. Not some Fully Automatic gun like ya'll think it is.

The point is still valid.

I know exactly what an ar-15 is. I have shot a few.

My question is why do you choose to differentiate with full autos and semi autos?

If you can have your ar-15 do I get my Glock 18 back?

 

[Echo42987 10+ year member]

you know you are a stupid hick when you believe it is absolutely neccessary for you to posses a higher powered, automatic assault rifle.
in many countries a possession of any kind of a fire arm (except hunting rifles maybe) is totally prohibited and everyone is doing just dandy, no one is crying and *****ing about now being able to have a semi automatic 22 caliber pistol. But a stupid hick like you needs his assault rifle.

HAHAHA did you not just read my post a couple pages back about countries who aren't allowed to owns weapons. Wow you just screwed urself on that comment...If you didn't read it...

Jew were stripped of all right to own guns right before the Halocaust.

Australia recently put a ban on weapons and there crime right is SKY-Rocketing

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

If that is the case than what is the point to this proposal?
I guess I'm not arguing the proposal, I'm arguing the logic behind owning automatic weapons.

Point blank, there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic weapon. Semi-auto sure. Most hunters use semi-auto unless you're hunting black powder, lol.

all legally owned "assault rifles" today are semi-auto, thats what they want to ban

Fully auto weapons can and still still be able to be had with paperwork and paying a $200 tax

 

[Echo42987 10+ year member]

The point is still valid.
I know exactly what an ar-15 is. I have used it.

My question is why do you choose to differentiate with full autos and semi autos?

If you can have your ar-15 do I get my Glock 18 back?

What is your beef against a Semi-Auto AR-15 I don't get it? Do you own a semi-auto rifle and or hand gun?

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

Most hunters use semi-auto unless you're hunting black powder, lol.

That statement has no validity what so ever.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

What is your beef against a Semi-Auto AR-15 I don't get it? Do you own a semi-auto rifle and or hand gun?

I have no beef against any ars. I own lots of guns.

My point for you is to defend your argument with facts with well thought out and articulate responses.

You should be able to justify anything you believe in.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

all legally owned "assault rifles" today are semi-auto, thats what they want to ban
Fully auto weapons can and still still be able to be had with paperwork and paying a $200 tax

Not in all states nor can all people obtain them but yes full autos fall into this category.

Most likely semi-autos will soon fall into this category as well.

 

[Echo42987 10+ year member]

I have no beef against any ars. I own lots of guns.
My point for you is to defend your argument with facts with well thought out and articulate responses.

You should be able to justify anything you believe in.

I have on multiple accounts, have you not read any of my posts? Your not making any sense? You can keep saying well thats not good enough in your opinion and I'm not arguing the fact that FULL-AUTOS should be banned but not semi-autos as I can kill someone just as easily with a Bolt Action as I can with out one.