Before the gun control nuts come out of the woodwork

desert dude · May 27, 2014

UncleBuck said:
then what did you mean when you said "i guess deese negroes don't know what the word 'infringe' means"?

kinda seems like you were hinting that the second amendment is absolute.

And you are saying that "infringe" means nothing and backing your argument by citing the Supreme Court's infringement on 2A.

darrellduaner · May 27, 2014

UncleBuck said:
then what did you mean when you said "i guess deese negroes don't know what the word 'infringe' means"?

kinda seems like you were hinting that the second amendment is absolute.

aww come on, you're gonna take me that seriously? a post like that one?
i mean no, i dont think we needed to alter our gun laws, and i stand by that claim, but there are no absolutes. i just havent seen a suitable cause for restricting gun laws. nations throughout history have tried to ban the latest weapon from short swords to high power machine guns, because of the number of people that can be killed with them. yet im sure we know now that we can kill a whole lot more people with a pistol than with a samurai sword.
congress didnt restrict gun freedom for anyone's protection. they did it so they begin to take away all of our forms of defense and then they can start to usher in hitler-esque policies and we wont be able to do shit. and when folks kill bunches of people with revolvers, we wont be able to have them anymore either. mark my words: they are coming for ALL of our guns. if we can get a ruling against machine guns, it wont be long before we are defending ourselves with air (and not air powered high caliber rifle rounds or anything like that)

UncleBuck · May 27, 2014

darrellduaner said:
aww come on, you're gonna take me that seriously? a post like that one?
i mean no, i dont think we needed to alter our gun laws, and i stand by that claim, but there are no absolutes. i just havent seen a suitable cause for restricting gun laws. nations throughout history have tried to ban the latest weapon from short swords to high power machine guns, because of the number of people that can be killed with them. yet im sure we know now that we can kill a whole lot more people with a pistol than with a samurai sword.
congress didnt restrict gun freedom for anyone's protection. they did it so they begin to take away all of our forms of defense and then they can start to usher in hitler-esque policies and we wont be able to do shit. and when folks kill bunches of people with revolvers, we wont be able to have them anymore either. mark my words: they are coming for ALL of our guns. if we can get a ruling against machine guns, it wont be long before we are defending ourselves with air (and not air powered high caliber rifle rounds or anything like that)

well, that's even dumber than the absolutism.

UncleBuck · May 27, 2014

desert dude said:
And you are saying that "infringe" means nothing and backing your argument by citing the Supreme Court's infringement on 2A.

i'm saying that the second amendment is not absolute, never has been seen that way by any SCOTUS.

thought even a simpleton like you would be able to get that one.

tightpockt · May 27, 2014

darrellduaner said:
remember that scene in the matrix, when everyone gets a gun pointed at their head? why does nobody shoot?

So you would support such a pill coming to market?

darrellduaner · May 28, 2014

tightpockt said:
So you would support such a pill coming to market?

i wouldnt 'support' but isnt that the idea behind a gun? you just aim and kill? seems to me like we already something very similar to said pill.

UncleBuck said:
well, that's even dumber than the absolutism.

well thats your opinion. if you hold the same opinion as a group of members of the BAR then thats fine, but my opinion isnt dumb just because i dont side with them/you

NoDrama · May 28, 2014

You ever notice that the gun control nuts don't want the guns that the authorities have to be controlled? Why is that?

Ceepea · May 28, 2014

NoDrama said:
You ever notice that the gun control nuts don't want the guns that the authorities have to be controlled? Why is that?

Was that supposed to make sense?

killemsoftly · May 28, 2014

Ceepea said:
Was that supposed to make sense?

Appeals to reason don't seem to work.
Hysteria, paranoia and delusions are the order of the day.

desert dude · May 28, 2014

Ceepea said:
Was that supposed to make sense?

Only to the literate.

kelly4 · May 28, 2014

Ceepea said:
Was that supposed to make sense?

Just because you don't understand things, doesn't mean that others are the idiot.

abandonconflict · May 28, 2014

Like I often say, fuck the police.

spandy · May 28, 2014

Ceepea said:
Was that supposed to make sense?

Everyone else but you got it.

Example. No guns in schools, cept where Obamas kids go to school has guns everywhere. Safe as little lambs.

My kids, and yours, and everyone else's kids here, are totally fucked if someone walks into their school with a gun.

DonAlejandroVega · May 28, 2014

abandonconflict said:
Like I often say, fuck the police.

down at Sal's Pizza?

Ceepea · May 28, 2014

Lets eat grandpa.

Mindmelted · May 28, 2014

spandy said:
Everyone else but you got it.

Example. No guns in schools, cept where Obamas kids go to school has guns everywhere. Safe as little lambs.

My kids, and yours, and everyone else's kids here, are totally fucked if someone walks into their school with a gun.

Don't forget that when he is done ruining this country he will have armed guards all the time at our expense!

NoDrama · May 28, 2014

Harrekin said:
One shot from a bow and youre dead, vest or not, from a considerable range at considerable accuracy.

Glock 19 is more of a "in the house" sort of a range, with multiple shots required for a guaranteed kill.

Not quite, its really more about shot placement. An arrow that misses its mark and hits a guy in the arm is way less lethal than a 9mm slug to the cranuim. I'll give you that a crossbow has much better penetration than a 9mm, but accuracy is what really counts with both arms.

NoDrama · May 28, 2014

UncleBuck said:
assault rifle ban.

In 2011 there were 12,664 Firearm murders, of these, only 334 were from assault rifles. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Less than 1% of firearm homicides are from assault rifles. CLEARLY assault rifles are not a problem and a ban on them did absolutely not a fucking thing to reduce killings by them.

Do you have a ounce of integrity in your entire body? Or were you born without any?

Ceepea · May 28, 2014

Harrekin said:
One shot from a bow and youre dead, vest or not, from a considerable range at considerable accuracy.

Glock 19 is more of a "in the house" sort of a range, with multiple shots required for a guaranteed kill.

Do I get to shoot lightning bolts from my fingers? If so, Im sold.

What the fuck are you talking about. lol

As a bow hunter, I say you're full of shit. The amount of skill required to place an arrow @ 30 yards with a bow, compared to a gun is exponential. Gun = one hand, multiple shots, easy. Bow = both hands, cumbersome reload, lots and lots of practice in order to be able to perform.

DonAlejandroVega · May 29, 2014

NoDrama said:
Not quite, its really more about shot placement. An arrow that misses its mark and hits a guy in the arm is way less lethal than a 9mm slug to the cranuim. I'll give you that a crossbow has much better penetration than a 9mm, but accuracy is what really counts with both arms.

a bolt easily passes through a bag of sand; a FMJ 9mm round penetrates about an inch and mushrooms...............I was bored.

Before the gun control nuts come out of the woodwork

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member