Yes, those reasonable limits are called criminal codes. For the legally challenged, that means that, among other things, nobody is allowed to shoot you, hit you or burn your house down.JackANSI wrote:Reasonable limits need to be established to protect my freedom from idiots and those who charish their beliefs.
Was i insulting anyone??That wasn't my intention in the least.But it doesn't change how i feel Jon. So don't try and make me seem like an unreasonable rightwing nutjob when YOU KNOW far better than many that that is not the case.FYI i couldn't ask for a better home for my child to spend her days.Peace.shredder138 wrote:Ah, the right winger throwing around insults, there's a surprise. Do you keep that in mind when your daughter is in my unprotected home? No heat there but the hot summer sun.Sorry i tend to think if you have children you're doing a huge disservice to them if you're unprotected in your home.
False security??What the hell are you talkin about man? One is better than none,and ofcourse i must be a bloodthirsty nutjob then.Gimmie a break dude it's cats like you who either fear or don't understand the use of guns that try to make us that do look like over the line and trigger happy fools.If i wanna own a 100 guns it's my right.So blow it out your ass bro.fullthrottle666 wrote:How many till you feel safe? Really safe? 10? 20? 100??whitedevilone wrote:Ha as many as i can get my hands on brother.Sorry i tend to think if you have children you're doing a huge disservice to them if you're unprotected in your home.Sure dial 911 and cower in a closet while someone is kickin down your door.Not i my friend.So don't break into my house and you won't have to wonder how many is enough.Society continues to change for the worse, stay nervous or take control.Seems so simple to me.Peace.fullthrottle666 wrote:Yes, the Constitution is written with a lot of leeway for interpretation because our founding fathers were smart enough to know that as times change. the needs of society change. Future generations are to interpret the details in keeping with the changes and needs.
Gun sales are way up I hear. That's makes me nervous. Why do we need all these guns? How many is enough?
False security is not safety.
lonewolf wrote:Yes, those reasonable limits are called criminal codes. For the legally challenged, that means that, among other things, nobody is allowed to shoot you, hit you or burn your house down.JackANSI wrote:Reasonable limits need to be established to protect my freedom from idiots and those who charish their beliefs.
I'm afraid, however, that there is nothing I can think of that can protect you from yourself.
Those are the laws that we have that protect you from harm. Banning a scary looking semi-automatic rifle does absolutely nothing logically or legally to protect you from harm nor does it provide any support to the laws that we do have. If you think it does, then I must ask you:JackANSI wrote:lonewolf wrote:Yes, those reasonable limits are called criminal codes. For the legally challenged, that means that, among other things, nobody is allowed to shoot you, hit you or burn your house down.JackANSI wrote:Reasonable limits need to be established to protect my freedom from idiots and those who charish their beliefs.
I'm afraid, however, that there is nothing I can think of that can protect you from yourself.
Sure that works 100% of the time, no one is ever a victim.
You still have no point.
--->JMS
shredder138 wrote:
Quote:
Sorry i tend to think if you have children you're doing a huge disservice to them if you're unprotected in your home.
Ah, the right winger throwing around insults, there's a surprise. Do you keep that in mind when your daughter is in my unprotected home? No heat there but the hot summer sun.
Was i insulting anyone??That wasn't my intention in the least.But it doesn't change how i feel Jon. So don't try and make me seem like an unreasonable rightwing nutjob when YOU KNOW far better than many that that is not the case.FYI i couldn't ask for a better home for my child to spend her days.Peace.
Peace All right Johnny! Rendell is a little pissmonkey?songsmith wrote:The right-wingers ALL get hardons and act like one little pissmonkey equals the entire US government...
another insightful post by songsmith. you got it going on 'upstairs' mansongsmith wrote:I'm a gun-owner. I have a .22 I plink pop cans with, and may or may not have a little something extra for unwanted visitors, but guns never really thrilled me. I hunted for years, but I never got that gleam in my eye for them. I think some look at their gun as a handful of power... the potential to take a life or smite their enemies. It's a heady thought for those who have little control in their lives. I'm wary of people who talk excitedly about what they'd do if "someone broke in" the same way certain volunteer firefighters talk about fires. It speaks volumes.
It's just a gun, man.
I've been hearing the "they're taking away our guns" rhetoric for 30+ years, and I still have mine. Nobody's even asked for it. How it works generally is some left-winger gets a hardon because some kid gets shot. He sees an opportunity to get some press. The right-wingers ALL get hardons and act like one little pissmonkey equals the entire US government. They rant and rave for awhile, then it all dies down until the next kid gets innocent-bystandered in a gang shooting. Repeat.
So remember kids, Jimmy Carter's going to take away your guns. Eventually.
No one is taking your guns away. They are just saying weapons easily modified for full-auto serve no purpose other than to kill mass amounts of people. I know you can't argue that, unless you're that bad of a shot you need to put 30 rounds down range to kill one person. If you can't get the guy in 2 or 3 shots, full auto is just asking for innocent people to get hurt. (You shouldn't have a gun if it takes you more than 3 shots).lonewolf wrote:Those are the laws that we have that protect you from harm. Banning a scary looking semi-automatic rifle does absolutely nothing logically or legally to protect you from harm nor does it provide any support to the laws that we do have. If you think it does, then I must ask you:JackANSI wrote:lonewolf wrote: Yes, those reasonable limits are called criminal codes. For the legally challenged, that means that, among other things, nobody is allowed to shoot you, hit you or burn your house down.
I'm afraid, however, that there is nothing I can think of that can protect you from yourself.
Sure that works 100% of the time, no one is ever a victim.
You still have no point.
Would you rather be shot dead with a Saturday night special or an AK47?
another great post! great points right on man!JackANSI wrote:No one is taking your guns away. They are just saying weapons easily modified for full-auto serve no purpose other than to kill mass amounts of people. I know you can't argue that, unless you're that bad of a shot you need to put 30 rounds down range to kill one person. If you can't get the guy in 2 or 3 shots, full auto is just asking for innocent people to get hurt. (You shouldn't have a gun if it takes you more than 3 shots).lonewolf wrote:Those are the laws that we have that protect you from harm. Banning a scary looking semi-automatic rifle does absolutely nothing logically or legally to protect you from harm nor does it provide any support to the laws that we do have. If you think it does, then I must ask you:JackANSI wrote:
Sure that works 100% of the time, no one is ever a victim.
You still have no point.
Would you rather be shot dead with a Saturday night special or an AK47?
And from what I read of the actual proposal, you still get to keep them if you have your proper FFL anyway. If your shit's legit, you shouldn't have a problem.
Words don't protect anyone from harm. Putting someone in jail for 25-to-life didn't protect the person that already died by his hand.
Saying that owning an AK is going to prevent him from killing you is BS. You can't take your AK everywhere.
You still have no point. Just get your damn FFL if you want your assault weapons. Unless you have a reason to avoid the more involved legal route (and in which case, you shouldn't own a gun anyway).
none of these are DESIGNED to kill. each has a risk with use but that is a very different thing. do you see the difference??RobTheDrummer wrote:Well let's outlaw knives, cars, motorcycles, airplanes, crocodiles, doctors, snakes, occupations that could seriously effect the well being of a person, the sun, flamable liquids, certain medications, heights, bees, marriage (cuz they always end in murder-suicide) Christianity, Islam, boats, boiling water, mean dogs, dangerous roads, trains, tractor trailers, politicians, and guitar strings.
All these things kill, or have the potential to kill, so I think we should save the people from themselves and pass legislation to outlaw all of these things.
Sheep cannot and will not understand the point I was making. Good luck with your modern "enlightened" (roflmao) society. Don't worry. When your hopeful new socialist government goes belly up in a few years, guys like me will still be here to bail you all out...at 25% interest on the Yuan.fullthrottle666 wrote:another great post! great points right on man!JackANSI wrote:No one is taking your guns away. They are just saying weapons easily modified for full-auto serve no purpose other than to kill mass amounts of people. I know you can't argue that, unless you're that bad of a shot you need to put 30 rounds down range to kill one person. If you can't get the guy in 2 or 3 shots, full auto is just asking for innocent people to get hurt. (You shouldn't have a gun if it takes you more than 3 shots).lonewolf wrote: Those are the laws that we have that protect you from harm. Banning a scary looking semi-automatic rifle does absolutely nothing logically or legally to protect you from harm nor does it provide any support to the laws that we do have. If you think it does, then I must ask you:
Would you rather be shot dead with a Saturday night special or an AK47?
And from what I read of the actual proposal, you still get to keep them if you have your proper FFL anyway. If your shit's legit, you shouldn't have a problem.
Words don't protect anyone from harm. Putting someone in jail for 25-to-life didn't protect the person that already died by his hand.
Saying that owning an AK is going to prevent him from killing you is BS. You can't take your AK everywhere.
You still have no point. Just get your damn FFL if you want your assault weapons. Unless you have a reason to avoid the more involved legal route (and in which case, you shouldn't own a gun anyway).
I totally and completely agree.lonewolf wrote:
In summary: Let's NOT support any Rendell proposal except to help him move out of Harrisburg as soon as possible.
Actually, crocodiles were definitely designed to kill! Boiling water kills innocent lobsters! Snakes with venom? Yea, designed to kill!fullthrottle666 wrote:none of these are DESIGNED to kill. each has a risk with use but that is a very different thing. do you see the difference??RobTheDrummer wrote:Well let's outlaw knives, cars, motorcycles, airplanes, crocodiles, doctors, snakes, occupations that could seriously effect the well being of a person, the sun, flamable liquids, certain medications, heights, bees, marriage (cuz they always end in murder-suicide) Christianity, Islam, boats, boiling water, mean dogs, dangerous roads, trains, tractor trailers, politicians, and guitar strings.
All these things kill, or have the potential to kill, so I think we should save the people from themselves and pass legislation to outlaw all of these things.
you are pretty much a moronRobTheDrummer wrote:Actually, crocodiles were definitely designed to kill! Boiling water kills innocent lobsters! Snakes with venom? Yea, designed to kill!fullthrottle666 wrote:none of these are DESIGNED to kill. each has a risk with use but that is a very different thing. do you see the difference??RobTheDrummer wrote:Well let's outlaw knives, cars, motorcycles, airplanes, crocodiles, doctors, snakes, occupations that could seriously effect the well being of a person, the sun, flamable liquids, certain medications, heights, bees, marriage (cuz they always end in murder-suicide) Christianity, Islam, boats, boiling water, mean dogs, dangerous roads, trains, tractor trailers, politicians, and guitar strings.
All these things kill, or have the potential to kill, so I think we should save the people from themselves and pass legislation to outlaw all of these things.
Some guns are designed for recreation and some are designed as a deterrent. Some guns are designed to blow mofo's to hell, and some are designed as an art piece.
My argument is the same as yours, just as ridiculous.
Yea, you're right, if I had a gun, I would shoot people like you!fullthrottle666 wrote:you are pretty much a moronRobTheDrummer wrote:Actually, crocodiles were definitely designed to kill! Boiling water kills innocent lobsters! Snakes with venom? Yea, designed to kill!fullthrottle666 wrote: none of these are DESIGNED to kill. each has a risk with use but that is a very different thing. do you see the difference??
Some guns are designed for recreation and some are designed as a deterrent. Some guns are designed to blow mofo's to hell, and some are designed as an art piece.
My argument is the same as yours, just as ridiculous.
you are kind i DON'T want to own a gun
you can't tell the diff b/w a crok and a gun
nothing personal
And I did have a gun a few months ago, but I ended up getting rid of it, because it wasn't accurate enough. I will get another one, though, so you better watch yourself! haha I'm a dangerous person, lemme tell ya!Classic. "Its not enough, so lets not do it at all" with a side of "free association on the word 'kill'".RobTheDrummer wrote:Well let's outlaw knives, cars, motorcycles, airplanes, crocodiles, doctors, snakes, occupations that could seriously effect the well being of a person, the sun, flamable liquids, certain medications, heights, bees, marriage (cuz they always end in murder-suicide) Christianity, Islam, boats, boiling water, mean dogs, dangerous roads, trains, tractor trailers, politicians, and guitar strings.
All these things kill, or have the potential to kill, so I think we should save the people from themselves and pass legislation to outlaw all of these things.
I agree on Rendell. But you still did nothing to address what I said. Instead you went off on a tangent about 'needing' you and your "bailout" when the government does what it has already done.lonewolf wrote:
Sheep cannot and will not understand the point I was making. Good luck with your modern "enlightened" (roflmao) society. Don't worry. When your hopeful new socialist government goes belly up in a few years, guys like me will still be here to bail you all out...at 25% interest on the Yuan.
In keeping with the thread topic, I am in opposition to everything that Rendell proposes--not because an idea is bad, but because he is the biggest lying sack of shit to come down the pike since Milton J. Shaft. I simply cannot believe anything he says. Also, if there are any demonstrations to support gun control within reasonable riding distance, I will try to make it...as a voice of the opposition.
In summary: Let's NOT support any Rendell proposal except to help him move out of Harrisburg as soon as possible.
{translation}
B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a
I never did like Rendell. I don't think he's a pissmonkey, though. Monkeys are cute and entertaining. Rendell's more of what my dad used to call a "Fookin' Goombah." I met him once, and I was amazed he didn't wear a pinky-ring.lonewolf wrote:All right Johnny! Rendell is a little pissmonkey?songsmith wrote:The right-wingers ALL get hardons and act like one little pissmonkey equals the entire US government...
There may be hope for you yet!
On a side note: I am a NORTH winger. The left, right and south wingers will all lead us down the path to eventual fascism.
--->JMS
