Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't know. Maybe he either knocked it down or had a semi-auto and was a great shot.

50 000 nuclear weapons in the US and you want to ban assault rifles...

Shoot higher!

At 8/15/04 08:50 PM, Raistlin230 wrote:

At 8/15/04 08:17 PM, fatherjay wrote: i dont see what the big deal is any way. they're just guns.

(my reply is to civilian use)

Because frankly, they're unnecessary.

at the moment...let's see if bush declares martial law and suspends elections....

Situation: A pistol/shotgun toting lunatic is at the mall, and fires into a crowd. The weapons, being semi automatic, have to be squeezed again and again to fire, then reload,

Situation 2: An M-16 weilding maniac is at the mall, and fires into the crowd. He holds the trigger down and sprays the area,

And emptys his magazine in less than 5 seconds,mostly into the same area before recoil and muzzle climb point it at the ceiling...

(assuming both have a general knowledge of their weapon, e.g. a basic felon/thief/lunatic)

I refuse to live my life based around the fear that some lunatic or felon will happen to go bezerk.....

At 8/18/04 02:01 AM, Matty233 wrote: 50 000 nuclear weapons in the US and you want to ban assault rifles...

Shoot higher!

Yes! Go after the city destroyers before you try to ban my AK.

I don't think anyone needs a full auto rifle or handgun. Yeah, they're cool but we don't need them. Hell, the police and army rarely use them. Full auto is just a waste of ammo. I used to own an AK-47. Did owning that gun make me go on a killing spree? Nope and I worked for a TechSupport Center at the time I owned that rifle. Maybe I just have more self control.
The point is, there is no point to ban weapons that aren't full auto. The AK-47 you can buy right now is no different than the one you could buy before the ban. Except the full auto feature. Why don't we just ban full auto and 3 shot burst weapons?
"Assualt" rifles can be used for hunting and self defense but most are used for target shooting. I can tell you from experience that it's much more fun to shoot a semi-auto SKS or AK than it is to shoot a bolt action .308. Recently, in my hometown, a cop was killed by a nutcase armed to the teeth with everything from .44 mags to SKS's. The cause of the rampage was not the guns, it was his history of mental illness.
When you buy a gun, your history (medical, criminal etc) is checked by the ATF/FBI. Those checks should be done periodically after the purchase. You could have a computer search the medical database and compare names to check for possible dangers. It's not the gun or the manufacturer's fault that some a$$h0le went nuts with a gun. It's the a$$h0le's fault.
I spent a few months in the UK a few years ago. Yeah, no guns but boy do people have a taste for axe murders and bludgeoning . I'd rather be shot in the chest than have my head smashed with an axe. No amount of surgery can fix that (trust me, I'm an EMT).

Maybe we should just ban stupid people..... =)

At 8/23/04 04:11 AM, redrevolt wrote: bunchastuff pertaining to automatic weaponry

i believe that any conventional small arm or crew served weapon should be available for civillian purchase. in order to maintain parity, or at least stand a chance against home-based tyrrany that controls the military. arms have developed constantly, and in order to maintain a check and balance against martial law, civillians have to be able to keep up.

banning stupid people is a good idea though.

At 8/23/04 04:29 AM, Einzelgaenger wrote:

i believe that any conventional small arm or crew served weapon should be available for civillian purchase. in order to maintain parity, or at least stand a chance against home-based tyrrany that controls the military. arms have developed constantly, and in order to maintain a check and balance against martial law, civillians have to be able to keep up.

banning stupid people is a good idea though.

OMFG FINALLY someone who understands the second amendment!!!!!! The worst part is California is trying to push their views about guns on the rest of the country again...they sem to think what is good for Los Angeles inner-city is also good for rural Montanna!

At 8/17/04 09:36 PM, mabzie wrote: the assult weapons ban diddent even ban guns. it banned features, such as bayonet lugs.

now, when has a bayonet lug ever killd someone?

Do you want stats or was that a retorical question?

Bayanots have killed many thousands of people over the years. Don't take them lightly.

On another note this topic has been talked to death. Let it die!

At 8/23/04 11:12 AM, LeapOfFaith wrote:

now, when has a bayonet lug ever killd someone?

Do you want stats or was that a retorical question?

Bayanots have killed many thousands of people over the years. Don't take them lightly.

On another note this topic has been talked to death. Let it die!

1-you are just getting techinical....it's pretty obvious he meant it along the lines of "when has there ever been a drive-by-bayonetting?"
2-this is a very hot-button topic here in the USA as it involves what many consider to be one of our fundamental rights and what makes us Americans...without the assault-weapons and handguns how would you tell us apart from Canadians?(that's a little joke,for all you literal-minded people,so please don't start a big treatsie(sp) on the diffrences between USA and Canada)
This topic will never die here in the USA as many believe the second amendment is why we don't pay taxes to your queen!

At 6/23/04 06:50 PM, LeapOfFaith wrote:

At 6/23/04 06:34 PM, ReiperX wrote:

I really don't agree with you there Leap, but we can probally agree to disagree. I believe its a combination of the society, and the person that causes the crime, violent or non violent. Like has been said before, think its switzerland almost everyone has a gun, and violent crime is extremely low in that country (I'll find you some statistics if you want). But either way its not the lack of guns or the abundance of guns that cause the crime,

It's also worth mentioning that in Switzerland every adult is required by law to own and maintain a rifle (i think) they also have to do national service. I think this is due to the lack of any major standing army.

Nice place Switzerland (esepecially Gstaad)

It's also worth mentioning that in switzerland they require a period of months for training and a psychological analysis for said persons before giving them a gun to kill people with. In the US all you need is a week and an NRA membership.

At 8/23/04 01:37 PM, TheIneffable666 wrote:

. In the US all you need is a week and an NRA membership.

PLEASE....3 days(MAX) in some states and the NRA membership is optional! if NiCS comes back you get it THE SAME DAY!!!!
I was given a permit to carry a handgun with armor piercing bullets because I'd only spent ONE week in a mental institution!
You have to spend TWO weeks....in a row,before you can't get one!
But seriously...in that state,instead of storys in the paper about "gunmen terrorize family in home-invasion robery" the headlines tended twards"homeowner shoots/kills intruder"

At 8/23/04 01:51 PM, Lord_Humungus wrote:

I was given a permit to carry a handgun with armor piercing bullets because I'd only spent ONE week in a mental institution!

You have to spend TWO weeks....in a row,before you can't get one!

you spent a week in a mental institution? omg..

anyways, u shouldn't be able to buy guns AT ALL! use pepper sprays or that electro shock thing instead...

Whats with all this nonsense?

Antiklaus cries about the alleged striping away of our rights with the patriot act yet doesn't want people to own assault weapons?

It seems people against assault weapons want to limit rights for sure even when they complain about fictitiously losing rights.

Make up your mind. Do you want your rights protected or taken away, you can't have both.

At 8/23/04 03:57 PM, Zellie wrote:

you spent a week in a mental institution? omg..

anyways, u shouldn't be able to buy guns AT ALL! use pepper sprays or that electro shock thing instead...

that gun saved my life when I was ALMOST the victim of 4 chain and bat weilding skinheads...almost,but the gun made them re-consider.I have been hit with CS gas and pepper spray and stun guns....the gas is irritating...but I can handle it for a reasonable amount of time...and if the wind is against you...well hahaha! Stun guns have almost no effect on me.But here in the USA guns arnt just about self-defense!

Tasers and pepper spray have their downsides. We need firearms for many purposes which I have noticed, people tend to overlook. If you really want to see every argument read my earliest posts and the ones on this thread. To the poster who asked we don't we just ban FA and 3-shot burst... Look up the 1934 NFA act...

You can still get permits for practically any weapon you want if you know how to go about it and pay the fees...for $30,000 you can get a permit to own and deal in "weapons of mass destruction"I had applied for a FFL and they sent me the WMD paperwork too!!! I diddn't have the 30k but it was kinda cool to have the forms!
see...where Saddam went wrong is he just diddn't do the right PAPERWORK!

The local PD or some affiliate has to sign off on it too.

At 8/24/04 08:49 AM, Spookshow wrote: The local PD or some affiliate has to sign off on it too.

On the WMD dealers liscence? nope...thats strictly federal...
CPL..yes,the police precinct in which you live is responsible for checking to see if there is any reason why you should not get one.
Except in California...only special people like Diane Feinstein get a Concealed Carry permit....I guess because seanators get shot all the time...but people who have to ride the city bus home at nigt have no need of a carry permit...she's such a hypocrit!

If you can get a headshot (solid Headshot, not just a clip) then you should get an instant kill.

(Not talking about hunting)

Just because you can't kill a dear in one shot, is no reason to have assault weapons.

At 8/24/04 11:24 AM, BLUEleaf wrote:

Just because you can't kill a dear in one shot, is no reason to have assault weapons.

one more time...the right to bear arms is not about hunting!

one more time...the right to bear arms is not about hunting!

The winner is you!
:D Thanks.

BACK ON TOPIC PEOPLE

At 8/24/04 11:31 AM, BLUEleaf wrote:

BACK ON TOPIC PEOPLE

The topic is assault weapons ban....the right to bear arms would be ON TOPIC wouldn't it?

The local PD has to sign off on a class 3 transfer, I didn't mean a CCW.

At 8/27/04 09:25 PM, silencedintruder wrote: im laughing at all of this. i feel sorry for you people i know were i can walk into several gunstores and purchase full auto assult weapons, silencers for various calibers, and combat shotguns all 100 percent legal. so really there is no full auto ban, maybe where you guys live but not here.

south of the border?

I perchance think your blowing smoke my friend. There is no place in this country where you can buy a full-auto weapon with-out being liscensed by the BATF. Such liscenses are available after an extensive background check and many hundreds of dollars. The average person cannot do this. You either have no idea what your talking about or your full of crap, but either way your wrong.

I dont think its as easy as silence is making it out to be to get these weapons, but if you got the money, you can buy anything. If you want it you can have it. Dont need permits when you got connections and cash.

"I don't think anyone needs a full auto rifle or handgun. Yeah, they're cool but we don't need them. Hell, the police and army rarely use them. "

Where in Gods' name do you people get your information?? 20/20?? MTV?? Barbara Walters? Full-Auto means a weapon will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held down and the gun has ammo being fed to it. These have been banned since 1939 thanx to John Dillinger, et al. YOU CANNOT BUY A FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON, PERIOD. Not for over sixty years.

" I used to own an AK-47."

I am pretty sure you have never owned an AK-47. You may have owned a semi-automatic clone of an AK-47, but not a true AK-47, which is a selective fire weapon originally manufactured and developed in the Soviet Union. Note" Selective fire means you can switch between FULL AUTO fire, and SEMI-AUtO fire. If there is a person who does not know the difference by now, you don't belong in this debate.

" I worked for a TechSupport Center at the time I owned that rifle. Maybe I just have more self control."

What the hell does this mean and how does it fit into a gun debate? All normal-functioning adults have self-control, this is not a special trait that only you possess. But, on second thought, it may be rare among people working in a support center.

"The point is, there is no point to ban weapons that aren't full auto. The AK-47 you can buy right now is no different than the one you could buy before the ban. Except the full auto feature. Why don't we just ban full auto and 3 shot burst weapons?"

Look, one more time I'll say it again. I know you tech-support people need help with self control and all, but full auto weapons were NOT legal before this so-called AWB. They have not been legal since before you and I were born.

"When you buy a gun, your history (medical, criminal etc) is checked by the ATF/FBI. "

No, it's not. Your name is run through an FBI data-base for possible reasons why you should NOT be able to purchase a weapon, such as a prior felony conviction or having been declared mentally incompetent by a court of law. There is no search done of medical records. It is illegal.

"Those checks should be done periodically after the purchase. You could have a computer search the medical database and compare names to check for possible dangers."

My medical files, as well as yours, are your own private information. It is against federal law to divulge the contents. What medical database do you speak of?? Is there a central medical data-base clearing house, where someone can find out I had my hemmoroids cut off last year?? No, there is not. Nor should there be. How would you predict who a danger is anyway?? Whose judgement call should this be?? The government?? Some nameless individual sitting behind a desk?? Now your going to take away peoples rights because of what they "might" do?? What if I just take away your car, because you "might" break the law in the future. Let's just condemn the whole damn country because of what we "might" do in the future.

He wasn't talking about so-called "connections and cash". He was talking about being able to walk in a store or gun-shop and buy an automatic weapon and silencer. Which is hogwash.

WOOO! He just burned you bad mutha fucka. Nice rant btw.

My intent is not to "Burn" anyone. Rather, I would like to see people well-informed about this subject. There is too much bad information, rumors, and plain lies about this issue. The anti's are hell-bent for leather on taking our 2nd amendment rights away. These are the same people who tried to appease Nazi Germany and are today all for appeasing the terrorists who want to blow us all up. I say shine a little light called the Truth on them and they will scurry back to their dark, dank holes like the cockroaches they are.