Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/4/04 09:42 PM, Slewfoot wrote: His excelent rant.

Nicley written and well crafted. (a little too much puncation however)

Sir/Madam I salute you!

WHAT ON EARTH DO PEOPLE NEED ASSUALT WEAPONS FOR??? WHAT??? There is NO reason to own these weapons, as for 'self defense', try using a tazer or pepper spray, you don't need to shoot someone to defend your home. You certainly don't need an M-16 Semi-Auto.

At 9/5/04 04:17 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: WHAT ON EARTH DO PEOPLE NEED ASSUALT WEAPONS FOR??? WHAT??? There is NO reason to own these weapons, as for 'self defense', try using a tazer or pepper spray, you don't need to shoot someone to defend your home. You certainly don't need an M-16 Semi-Auto.

What business is it of yours why I want to own an "assualt" weapon?? Since when do I need to justify why I want to own something? When??? Why do you care? Don't you have enough of your own concerns to worry about me? Why do you want to own a refrigerator??? Or a new car?? Or a new pair of shoes?? Aren't the old ones good enough for you?? What if you take that new car and run over a group of children waiting for the bus??? You certainly don't need that car. Too dangerous.

Stay the hell out of my business.

Stressing the right to own assault weapons means there is a motive to have that kind of weapon performance. Why? Are the malls that annoying?

At 9/6/04 12:40 AM, Slewfoot wrote: What business is it of yours why I want to own an "assualt" weapon?? Since when do I need to justify why I want to own something? When??? Why do you care? Don't you have enough of your own concerns to worry about me? Why do you want to own a refrigerator??? Or a new car?? Or a new pair of shoes?? Aren't the old ones good enough for you?? What if you take that new car and run over a group of children waiting for the bus??? You certainly don't need that car. Too dangerous.

Well, when you buy something that is capable of and made to kill things/people I think it's the concern of everyone in your range that you're not going to murder them or rob them or mame them, the list goes on. IW is right, there are certain kind of guns only nessecary for crime (full autos, suppresors), so I think it's fair enough for people to be concerned when you buy one.

At 9/6/04 12:47 AM, witeshark wrote: Stressing the right to own assault weapons means there is a motive to have that kind of weapon performance. Why? Are the malls that annoying?

I think all the Anti's stressing on "assualt weapons" says something about them. Why are you so worried about what I might do??Or anyone else, for that matter. What does it mean if I want to collect stamps or womens underwear, and does it really metter to you what I "might" do with them??

At 9/6/04 12:55 AM, KirbyMan wrote:

At 9/6/04 12:40 AM, Slewfoot wrote:

Well, when you buy something that is capable of and made to kill things/people I think it's the concern of everyone in your range that you're not going to murder them or rob them or mame them, the list goes on. IW is right, there are certain kind of guns only nessecary for crime (full autos, suppresors), so I think it's fair enough for people to be concerned when you buy one.

I could kill a lot more people with a few pounds of fertilizer and some diesel fuel than with an "assualt" weapon, or a plain 'ol shotgun, if I had the desire. You continue to assume that I have evil intent and try to predict what I might do with my evil guns. A gun is an inanimate object that has no thoughts or intent of it's own. It is not going to leap up, go down to the local day care, and spray little children with bullets. Evil resides within men, and any attempt to label an inan,mate object as evil is an attempt to re-assign blame. Liberals and socialists are full of reasons why someone can't possibly be responsible for their actions.

If you have the power to predict who is going to go out and commit harm, , please go save the people who need saving this very moment, otherwise you have no idea about me or anyone like me. I can murder, rob and maim with a ball bat. Possession of a certain (inanimate) object does not turn one into a killer or criminal. If you cared enough to study who commits crime and not just regurgitate what u hear on 20/20 then you would know who the threat is to us all. Please, get educated and quit repeating campaign slogans.

Try to stay with me on this, OK? Full-autos are illegal, as are silencers. Try to comprehend this before you reply so we can have an intelligent conversation.

Here's another thought to chew on. The Ten Commandments, as translated from the original hebrew language, does not say "thou shall not kill'. It says "thou shall not commit murder" A big difference. There are legitimate reasons for killing someone. If you can't stomach the thought of living like an animal and being fed like one, then mayne you ought never own a firearm. Or any other means of defending yourself.

At 9/6/04 10:19 PM, Slewfoot wrote: I could kill a lot more people with a few pounds of fertilizer and some diesel fuel than with an "assualt" weapon, or a plain 'ol shotgun, if I had the desire. You continue to assume that I have evil intent and try to predict what I might do with my evil guns. A gun is an inanimate object that has no thoughts or intent of it's own(I say this knowing you never said that also). It is not going to leap up, go down to the local day care, and spray little children with bullets. Evil resides within men, and any attempt to label an inanimate object as evil is an attempt to re-assign blame. Liberals and socialists are full of reasons why someone can't possibly be responsible for their actions.(Dumb generalization)

Yeah, that's not relevent! Because there are legal reasons to want fertalizer, or a baseball bat, neither of those would arise suspision, in fact neither does buying a shot-gun. The two examples I wrote have no other reasons, so it's very reasonable for that to arouse suspision. Not only of any observers, but also of the government. Since logic points out that you want that for a bad reason, why shouldn't the government curb it to save lives?

If you have the power to predict who is going to go out and commit harm, , please go save the people who need saving this very moment, otherwise you have no idea about me or anyone like me. I can murder, rob and maim with a ball bat. Possession of a certain (inanimate) (man do I saound like a broken record)object does not turn one into a killer or criminal. If you cared enough to study who commits crime and not just regurgitate what u hear on 20/20 then you would know who the threat is to us all. (Even though I wont identify it)Please, get educated and quit repeating campaign slogans.(Whose I don't know)

You just reworded the first paragraph so nevermind.

Try to stay with me on this, OK? Full-autos are illegal, as are silencers. Try to comprehend this before you reply so we can have an intelligent conversation.

I never said or infered that, if you weren't too busy being a condescending ass, you would've read my post more carefully.

Here's another thought to chew on. The Ten Commandments, as translated from the original hebrew language, does not say "thou shall not kill'. It says "thou shall not commit murder" A big difference. There are legitimate reasons for killing someone. If you can't stomach the thought of living like an animal and being fed like one, then mayne you ought never own a firearm. Or any other means of defending yourself.

When the hell did I say there was no such thing as justified homicide, WHEN? Seriously, did you really have to waste that much time putting words in my mouth?

Kirby

All of the rhetoric you sling can never hide the fact that you are scared of people who choose to live free. The "government" cannot and will not shield you from those who choose to commit evil acts upon you and I. What they will do is take a little bit more of your freedom and self-determination because you are scared of the boogey man, and promise you that bit of security you crave. Clue: there is no security in this world. The majority of us will leave it the sane way we came into it, kicking and screaming.

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.

Fucking Liar.

Silencers/Suppressers (sp?) are so hard to come by.
They cost a shit-load.

At 6/21/04 04:55 PM, mabzie wrote: its pointless.

NOOOOO WHAT AM I GOING TO DO WITHOUT MY M4A1!!?!?! *curls into feotal position and weeps*

So many weapons, sooo much ammo, too little time.......

The preamble of the Constitution grants that the government will protect our right for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That first one is life. Since it's no real sacrifice of anyone's to not be able to hold down the trigger to shoot more. Why not curb it. Even though it wont stop crimes altogether it could certainly cut down on crime effeciency and amount of deaths. If that is so ridiculous, it wouldn't be a law.

P.S. Rhetoric is just a radical of my real argument not the whole thing. If I was afraid of individual liberty I wouldn't be a liberal or an American for that fact, nor did I ever infer that I was.*try arguing without putting words in my mouth.*

The preamble to the constitution states that our CREATOR, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, grants us certain rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the government who gives us our rights. This is what some people want everyone to think, so that the government can then turn around and take away our rights (among them the right ot bear arms). This may come as a shock to many, but the government is not the fountain of happiness, granting us our rights as it see fits and taking them away at a whim. God gave me my rights, and only God can take them away.

Now, come back with some more rhetoric on that one, but first get out your constitution and read it. I have my copy right here.

A little tidbit of info, I never said the government granted us rights, I said it was their job to protect them. Anyone with a brain would think life is more important then how fast your gun shoots. If you really think that rights should never be curbed for any reason at all, I'd say you are a staunch naive libertarian who needs to straighten out priorities.
Nonetheless, it doesn't matter, I'm backing out of this one, you're not worth it, your argument has broken down to putting words in my mouth and fighting them. So See Ya.

P.S. Respond if you want, but I'm not coming back to this topic. The best you can do now is embellish your ego trip.

There are far more satisfying ways to embellsih my ego then explaing to you what you should already know, like making lots of holes in things. Yes, it makes me excited sexually, justs so you know. Now, pick up your toys and run home to mommy, she'll protect you.

Why in the hell would you want to spend $7,500 on a piece of shit MP-2? Also, youre no better than them when you declare that youve "owned" them. That term is so lame.

As for myself, I want to get an AR-15 sometime, but that would just be for match shooting. As for home defense, I think that a fully automatic isnt necessary because:
1) Over penetration issues with rifle caliper ammunition;
2) Recoil and collateral damage;
3) Accuracy.

I think that I would rather use my .40S&W or a .45ACP instead of an auto because of the reasons ive just stated. Even a tactical shotgun in my opinon would work out better. Unless youre a member of your state militia, you really would find no use for it. Its not like your house is going to get robbed by 37 people at once.

But whatever. I hate this forum so you probably wont get a response if you choose to reply.

At 9/9/04 09:15 AM, silencedintruder wrote: NO you people were wrong and bullshit. in fact people were even saying that i got burned. HA shut the fuck up.

Why do you care what they think about you? Why are you out to prove something to people that will probably never meet you? It seems like youre really going out of your way to paint an image...which leads one to believe certain things.

Such hatful words, oh my.

The original point, I believe , was that you can walk into a store and buy automatic weapons and silencers. Sure you can, but that's not the complete truth, only half of it. The average citizen, meaning 99.999% of the 300 million or so people in this country cannot walk into a store and buy such a weapon. It takes a special liscense from the BATF, which means, for all practical intents and purposes, that they are ILLEGAL for the vast majority of the citizenry to own.

Shoot some holes in that.

Jesus Spookshow. I feel for you. These people are idiots. Do any of you know what this law does????? You can still go into any gun shop right now and buy an AK-47. I have never read a thread that has more bad info on it than this one. In fact I just signed up for a username right now so that I could post this!

Guys - before you post do some research!!!!!

This ban limits
"cosmetic" changes to rifles - note that an AK-47's action and firepower is still the same after the ban.

Also limits round capacity for handguns and rifles.

Again CA is more limited than any other state after the ban and that bank robbery still happened.

Also just to let you know, a 9mm will leave just as big a hole in your plasma tv. In fact it would probably leave a bigger one seeing as an AK-47 shoots a 7.62mm. The only assult round that would be the exception is the .223

At 9/9/04 02:08 PM, Slewfoot wrote: Such hatful words, oh my.

The original point, I believe , was that you can walk into a store and buy automatic weapons and silencers. Sure you can, but that's not the complete truth, only half of it. The average citizen, meaning 99.999% of the 300 million or so people in this country cannot walk into a store and buy such a weapon. It takes a special liscense from the BATF, which means, for all practical intents and purposes, that they are ILLEGAL for the vast majority of the citizenry to own.

Shoot some holes in that.

Slewfoot

Thats not entirely true. Most people can own those items. You just have to justify why to your local police and fill out tons of paper work for the federal government and pay a 200$ license fee. Then wait for about 6 months to get your weapon or silencer.
:)

First off,

Michael Moore will never be a reliable source of information when trying to oppose gun ownership of any kind. Mr. Moore distorts information to prey upon the misinformed citizens of America. Using buzzwords such as "AK-47, UZI, and Tec 9" has been the most popular and least effective means of correctly informing the general public. These buzzwords are usually followed with equally inaccurate terms like fully automatic and machine guns. When, infact, the currently banned "lead-spraying UZIs and Intratec 9mms" function no differently than your standard Glock handgun. One trigger pull, one round fired.

At 9/9/04 07:08 PM, mofomojo wrote: watch Michael Moores " Bowling for Columbine" movie
that should teach you about assault weapons

Why would somebody need an assault weapon , i dunno
Honestly who needs an AK-47 or a Tek-9 for something else than killing a fellow human being

We hear this all the time; how many murders yearly are the direct result of "assault weapons"?

I think hand guns are the limit as far as defence goes and should only be allowed to one 2 as a maximum and it is never allowed to leave your house.

I'm still trying to piece together the syntax of this statement. How exactly do you expect the overworked, underpaid law enforcement agencies to assure that no one leaves their humble abode with a handgun?

Shotguns and rifles are okay

But not assault rifles , huh? Did you know that the 30-06 rifle (a common hunting rifle that can be purchased in a semi-automatic configuration) fires a much larger projectile than the AK-47 (7.62X39mm)? SO what I'm gathering is that its a okay to own a semi-auto rifle that fires a bigger round, as long as it does not have the ability to affix a bayonet to the end of the rifle (or possess any of the other purely cosmetic features banned for the past decade)

Who carrys an assault rife around with them....

Believe it or not, I completely agree that in Middle eastern countries it is common practice to brandish fully automatic weapons in public. In the US, select states have the ability to allow their citizens to legally carry handguns. I guess I'm having trouble following your logic.

Hmm... I dunno...

And finally............

Since "assault weapons" are deadly and should be banned..........why not ban sports cars as well. Statistically speaking I am more likely to be killed by a supercharged automobile than a crazed gunman. And don't forget that more people are killed in autombile accidents (whether theyre operating the car or just an innocent bystander waiting for public transportation) than people killed by firearms.

Or better yet lets propose a ban that limits the engine size, gas tank capacity, and weight of these death traps that plague the society of pedestrians. At least this ban would severely cripple the automobile's destructive ability. Whereas the assault weapons ban merely makes these weapons more politically correct(while keeping their semi-auto configurations).

Even better, lets ban cigarettes! These little wonders kill thousands, if not millions, more of our loved ones than do firearms.

It all comes down to responsible use and/or ownership.

At 9/9/04 07:08 PM, mofomojo wrote: watch Michael Moores " Bowling for Columbine" movie
that should teach you about assault weapons

Why would somebody need an assault weapon , i dunno
Honestly who needs an AK-47 or a Tek-9 for something else than killing a fellow human being

Since when do I need to justify something to you or anyone else in order to own it? Is there some sort of test that I need to pass before I purchase something??

I think hand guns are the limit as far as defence goes and should only be allowed to one 2 as a maximum and it is never allowed to leave your house.

Thats ok that you think that. It's your opinion, but it's not the law. Personally, I think you should be limited to two Barbie dolls per month, and only when you get permission from the local Barbie Committee.

Shotguns and rifles are okay

Yes, they are, aren't they??

Who carrys an assault rife around with them....
Hmm... I dunno...

It doesn't matter that you don't know, no more than it matters if I know you carry around a rubber chicken. Who cares????

At 9/9/04 07:14 PM, mofomojo wrote: BTW there are 10 000 Gun murders in the U.S. every year
Does america really need more guns?
A domestic gun ban would be nice
Only paintball guns are allowed (Fun to shoot, virtually harmless)
If america cracked down on guns like they did drugs... wow it would be a shit load safer
there are on average 300 gun deaths every year in canada
200 in the UK
150 in Austrailia

(I could go on like this all day...)

Yes, you could, and you would be just as full of misinformation. Go start a soup kitchen in Canada if you want to de safe and you think it's so glorious.

At 9/10/04 09:08 AM, silencedintruder wrote:

yes anybody who is 21 and knows a class 3 with a clean record of no felonies and no history of assult can purchase full autos and silencers. you have to pay a BATF tax of 200

NO. Your state must allow to possess such firearms. States such as Illinois do not allow their citizens to own fully automatic weapons.

NRA Illinois state gun laws

and also one more thing some fuckfuck said that you can only buy semi uzi's that fire like pistols..... WRONG DUMBASS im truely feel sorry for you misinformed son of a bitch.

NO Again. What I said was that the Uzis and Tec 9mms banned by the 1994 AWB operate like a standard Glock. In case you didn't take time from your incoherent rambling.......the subject of this thread is the assault wepons ban..........we are discussing weapons that are covered by the soon to expire ban. Go start your own thread about weapons covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act which regulates the purchase and possession of fully automatic weapons, sound suppressors, destructive devices and short barrelled shotguns and rifles. You're childish name calling will never substiute for your lack of knowledge.

oh wait maybe its just that you cant and the rest of us normal intelligence people can. What a ass!!!!!

Yes and I'm sure that indeed all of you "normal intelligence people" have all the answers. If this kind of off topic malarkey qualifies as an intelligent discussion, then maybe I should find a different BBS.

Thats not entirely true. Most people can own those items. You just have to justify why to your local police and fill out tons of paper work for the federal government and pay a 200$ license fee. Then wait for about 6 months to get your weapon or silencer.

)

yes anybody who is 21 and knows a class 3 with a clean record of no felonies and no history of assult can purchase full autos and silencers. you have to pay a BATF tax of 200 and also one more thing some fuckfuck said that you can only buy semi uzi's that fire like pistols..... WRONG DUMBASS im truely feel sorry for you misinformed son of a bitch. oh wait maybe its just that you cant and the rest of us normal intelligence people can. What a ass!!!!!

Your choice of unsavory language leads me to believe you have unresolved issues, perhaps from your childhood. So, as long as we're at the child level, lets go over this again. Yes, you CAN obtain such a liscense, but the VAST MAJORITY of people do not have one. So, then, if the average person does not have one, this means they cannot LEGALLY walk into a store and purchase an automatic weapon, yadda yadda yadda. Try to stay on track, please. Oh, and maybe you might check out an anger management class, before you hurt yourself.

BTW!!! I hear from a usually reliable source that there is already another, much more restrictive ban in the works, and that it will be attached as a rider to a social security bill that will be taken up by congress in Feb. We all know how much attention social security draws, so if it turns out to be a popular bill with lots of support, we may be doomed. I'll use Bill Clintons words against himself: If a rider can't stand alone as a bill, then it should be vetoed.

Good Lord...... I have never seen so many ridiculous comments on one thread. We really have some mis-informed people in our country. I'm so sick of the buzz words that people use that don't know anything about guns laws in our country. They watch a documentary about what happened in Colorado and they think they are an expert on what happened and what the cause of it was. I own an AK-47 that was manufactured in 2001 and sold to me over the internet. Did any of you people on this boards with the exception of slew and centerfire even know that was even possible???? It doesnt sound like it. Everyone seems to think this ban actually changed these weapons (AK-47 AR-15 Or Any Assult Rifle Really). No all it did was not allow me to have a muzzle break on the end of my ak. Thats it. If you need explanation those are holes at the end of the barrel. The only thing to ban will effect are gun economics. All those people who paid for pre-ban ar's or ak's. People like myself who have pre ban HK mags for my USP. These people are the ones this effects because now these high priced items arent worth anything anymore.

Check your local gunshop before monday and you'll find them selling every gun that is part of the ban.