Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by the_raven_03 That is a bad thing. The ban on assault rifles should have been held up. There is absolutely no reason that a person needs to own a gun of that power. I think it is just asking for trouble. we are constitutionally allowed to bear arms, i think we should uphold the constitution. and how is it asking for trouble? i think in the grand scheme of things, the gun situation is equal, if not better than it was before. previously, a criminal could use an AR, but not a normal civilian, which gave them unequal footing, now, anyone can own one, giving us equal footing
abcd1234 Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Tell me how many times is a person going to use an assault rifle to protect themselves from a criminal. The chances are very slim. I myself see no use for them whatsoever. I don't think that guns are bad by any means, I have been raised around them my entire life because my dad owns a lot of them. I am not against them for hunting, shooting, etc., but what is an assault rifle going to do for you?
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 the same thing any other gun will do in a self-defense situation, help protect you however, if someone has an AR and someone has a pistol, etc. the AR will probably, repeat, probably win.. so ARs legalized level the playing field
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Hanna_solo thanks LK i thoight i was the only person in here voting Bush man i was scaer d lol No, we're just hopelessly outnumbered. If you look around, you'll find some people who are.
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I have no problem with you if you want to vote Bush, but dear god, spell properly (or atleast try to) x_x. This is what makes me question the state of our education system. :x
Ranre Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Just end the elections so the threads will be over with! Runs around and hits wall
DarthBuzzard Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 See the bottom line of my sig for all you need to know... I am eagerly awaiting Nov. 2 so it can all be over...
Ranre Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 I say if you wanna vote for Bush vote on Nov.2, if you wanna vote for Kerry...... Move to hawaii and forget about it. Nothing ever happens here.
El Sitherino Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 Except volcano eruptions, and that whole pearl harbor incident.
Vagabond Posted October 29, 2004 Author Posted October 29, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch we are constitutionally allowed to bear arms, i think we should uphold the constitution. and how is it asking for trouble? i think in the grand scheme of things, the gun situation is equal, if not better than it was before. previously, a criminal could use an AR, but not a normal civilian, which gave them unequal footing, now, anyone can own one, giving us equal footing Well, gosh, why should we stop there? Why not allow us to have grenades and rocket launchers? After all, they're really just another variant of arms. But that's not all - I think every family should have an M1 Tank - it's our right, after all. In fact, we should all be required to walk around with cannisters of small pox gas, "just in case". But the ultimate would be if we were all able to carry a personal, tactical nuke with us, for that extra layer of protection. And we should be allowed to do this, because the Constitution entitles us to all these bountiful wonders, and more I actually think that there's been a huge misunderstanding about the 2nd ammendment. When it says, "the right of the people to...bear arms shall not be infringed", they're really saying that people have the right to keep the arms of bears, if they want to. So, every family has the right to hang a couple of bear arms over the fireplace. Whereas hanging the arms of, say, a gun fanatic, is sadly not protected by the constitution
Jan Gaarni Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Second ammendment was written, what, 200 years ago? And there has been no adjustments to it as the country evolved. Back then they didn't have such fancy things as AK47's or whatever automatic weapon you can think of. It was mostly rifles, shotguns, or a pistols. It's one thing to have the right to bear arms, cause it's for defencive use. It's a whole nother thing when you bring in assault weapons, which really is in their name: Assault weapons. Offensive weapons. Of course you have defensive weapons too, like an MG. Why not own that?
ET Warrior Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 Originally posted by Jan Gaarni HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Second ammendment was written, what, 200 years ago? And there has been no adjustments to it as the country evolved. Oh, we've had a few adjustments here and there, but by and large us Americans hate change, especially if it's progressive chanage
Vagabond Posted October 29, 2004 Author Posted October 29, 2004 I just want to have the right to wear some bear arms...rowr.
90SK Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 Personally, I'm pro-Kerry all the way. Bush screwing everything up, and has to be removed. Then again, I would much prefer to stretch both their faces!
El Sitherino Posted October 31, 2004 Posted October 31, 2004 I think if I'm capable of a weapon at 18, I should be able to buy liquor then.... ****ing laws.
Ranre Posted October 31, 2004 Posted October 31, 2004 Look at my sig. Think that preatty much covers most of this.
El Sitherino Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 Please stop polluting discussions with your un-needed banter. yes, I mean you Ranre.
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 interesting IS, that's the same thing i say to myself whenever i read any of your posts hehe:lightning
monkey joe Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 why is this still a thread i mean like bush already won
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.