This is a discussion on Trying to use an analogy on my liberal friends within the Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; We all must be careful we don't over do this. If we convince the antis that assault weapon looking firearms are the same as other ...
We all must be careful we don't over do this. If we convince the antis that assault weapon looking firearms are the same as other firearms that are not part of a ban, they will agree (thank you mr. "gun nut" for making me realize we need to make it bigger) and start banning them all ;)
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
It doesn't pay to get into the anti-gun people over the "evil assault" weapons or questions like why do you need one. Those type question do not and should not be addressed other than be cause the 2nd amendment allows it. period. That type rhetoric justifies their agenda of banning all weapons(guns)........ Maybe the best argument one can make is to reverse their rethoric of these "evil" weapons of today were not available and the founding fathers did not envision them. They actually did because they wrote that language so that the people(us) would be able to have the same basic arms as what the standing government military has. Since they obviously did envision America being around a long time they were not so naive to believe that arms(weapons) would not change.
This message sent via my "Ma Bell" rotatory phone..........
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
Following that logic, there should be a police officer on station at every single place that there might be more than 50 people gathered.
The average US citizens attention span of a gnat, and inability to look at the big picture astounds me.
First responder on station time to the CT was around 20 minuets. Lanza could have done as much or more damage with a double barreled shotgun and his pockets full of loose 00 or 000 buckshot in that time - seeing 20 bodies killed with a rifle is one thing. 20 done in by a shotgun....that would be trauma for everyone who sees it.
We do absolutely need to stand our ground, no compromise or reasonable restrictions. This is all going to boil down to how fast can one reload a weapon, and that will become academic as all an individual intent on this kind of evil is to carry multiple weapons. Fire till empty, drop, grab the next one.
What then? 1 firearm per household is the max? That will get the hunters on board 100% against new legislation. Every firearm must be modified so that it takes a minimum of 3 minuets to reload? Now we are just getting stupid - right in line with the antis line of thinking.
Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
See also Sheep
The coalition of citizens who attempt to modify these decisions with AR-15s, grenades, or IEDs will be seen as nutbars. That's all my opinion, obviously.
Yeah, that's why I think it's a proxy fight. It's like Larry Flynt's fight. Him fighting for the right to publish nasty satire and obnoxious porn delayed gov't infringement on other free-speech issues.The oppression that we are fighting against has nothing to do with the issues before stated; rather it has everything to do with all of our eroding rights. We are resisting measures by our benevolent leaders to strip us of our rights of free speech, free religion, freedom to keep & bear arms, freedom of privacy, the right to due process, etc & etc.
Ballistically speaking, the average rifle is a lot more powerful than the average handgun. In the eyes of the anti, the handgun is already awful in regards to its power to kill, which is what it was designed to do. They simply don't understand why anyone would need or want a weapon that "is designed to shoot all those bullets, very fast" (this is how my mother described an "assault rifle"). Why do people want semi auto rfiles? Aside from being familiar with them from military or law enforcement duty, and "cool" factor (e.g. same reason people choose cars), one reason is for the day, time, and place, where a handgun simply won't do. This reality scares the bejeezus out of the anti who is in complete denial that such a day could come and even if they realize it could they fail to understand why you would do anything other than peacefully do what your told.
Just do what I do... if they are liberal idiots, I delete them from my facebook and phone book and no longer associate or converse with them. Problem solved!!
Lifetime NRA member
Look at hair. Long hair could mean a rock n roller OR our founding Fathers.
You can't fix stupid...
US Air Force, 1986 - 2007
"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." George Mason
The whole bunch of you make some outstanding arguments, pro, con, etc,... I've found this entire thread very enlightening and wish I could collect and present my thoughts as well as you folks have. Am glad to be a member (although newbie) on this forum.