Author Topic: Terrorists and Assault Weapons (Read 2063 times)

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #30 on:** September 08, 2004, 10:08:02 AM »

You can still buy all the banned asault weapons, just without bayonet lugs and flash supressors.

Or you can go down to mexico and buy real assualt weapons and sneak them over the border.

The ban changed nothing other then to prevent law abiding Americans from buying mean looking guns.

Anyone who supports the stupid ban is an idiot. "I don't need a 30 shot rifle for hunting so no one should have one"... What a tool.

I have owned a post ban AR-15, it had no flash hider or bayonet lug, other then that it was a semi auto M-16A2. I would still own it if Cali had not passed even more draconian laws.

Had I kept it I would not be able to resell it in Cali and it would have to be destroyed when I died. I owned it cause it was a fun, cheap(ammo, not the rifle cost me 1000$, yeah a terrorist is really going to buy legal weapons here in the states for stupidly high prices when he could get real ones in Mexico and sneak them in with his bomb.......Yeah he is going to want the background check.... sure.... ) and accurate rifle to plink with at the local range.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #31 on:** September 08, 2004, 10:09:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
So I take it you value your jeep more than a human life?

A criminal life? Oh yes, by all means.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 08, 2004, 10:16:51 AM »

I have no problem with the laws that say you have to be in danger, or someone has to be in danger to take a life. Shooting someone over you car, is going to far. That is what insurance is for.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #33 on:** September 08, 2004, 11:58:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
A criminal life? Oh yes, by all means.

AMEN.

Karaya

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:01:57 PM »

Quote

I have no problem with the laws that say you have to be in danger, or someone has to be in danger to take a life. Shooting someone over you car, is going to far. That is what insurance is for.

If the person is stealing a car, he isn't the prodigy of civilization. It's not like society will be out one mozart or einstein.

flakbait · « **Reply #35 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:20:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
So I take it you value your jeep more than a human life?

I value a nickel more than a thief's life.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]

tce2506 · « **Reply #36 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:24:36 PM »

They used to hang you for stealin a man's horse, I see no reason why it has to be any different now. try to steal my car, dodge the bullets!!

Quote

I value a nickel more than a thief's life.

Quote

If the person is stealing a car, he isn't the prodigy of civilization. It's not like society will be out one mozart or einstein.

Quote

A criminal life? Oh yes, by all means.

I love to see some people still have some common sense.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #37 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:40:37 PM »

You jokers who think shooting someone over your car is a good idea better check your state laws.

You shoot someone stealing your car in Cali and he better be trying to run you down or your going to jail.

You are the type of people liberals love to point to when they want to make gun owners look like fools. You will also be the example they will use when they want to make the case that law abiding citizens should not have guns.

It's justs a car, it should be insured. Yes the Criminal is scum, but he is still a human being.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #38 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:43:10 PM »

Quote

but he is still a human being.

Life is a priviledge, not a right.

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:44:19 PM »

That law, as has been pointed out, was nothing more than another "feel good" move with no affect on anything at all, let alone crime.

But Thank Cod we got bayonet lugs out of the hands of the lawful public.

Oh wait, we didn't do that. We just prohibited more bayonet lugs frmo getting into the hands of the lawful public. Because most people that wanted them already had them.

What a joke.

Steve · « **Reply #40 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:46:27 PM »

I'm at a loss of what to do. There is a post early in the thread by none other than Gscholz that I agree with. I'm completely confounded that this (what I thought was) mathmatically impossible event has occurred. Stunned.

vorticon · « **Reply #41 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:51:06 PM »

Quote

They used to hang you for stealin a man's horse, I see no reason why it has to be any different now. try to steal my car, dodge the bullets!!

wow, that makes about as much sense as the so called "reasoning" behind jack the ripper, "these women are potatos, therefore not only is it okay to kill them, but im doing society a favour by killing them"

vorticon · « **Reply #42 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:52:57 PM »

and if i dont have the RIGHT to live, i fail to see how i could possibly have the RIGHT to anything else.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #43 on:** September 08, 2004, 12:58:13 PM »

You don't know the difference between rights and priviledges? A right is something written down that you have. I.E. Free Speech and right to own weapons.

A priviledge is something you have to earn. You earn a priviledge through good actions and deeds. Last time I checked, stealing a car deserves quick removal of the priviledge of life.

Jack the ripper went out actively seeking potatos. The difference is that we don't go actively seeking criminals. We are just ready for when they come to us.

SaburoS · « **Reply #44 on:** September 08, 2004, 01:05:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Can anyone define what is or is not an assault weapon?

The people who choose to want to ban firearms don't really want to know what "an assault weapon" is. They've been influenced too much by hollywood. They will continually want to ban weapons as they go down the list. Maybe someday they will understand that it is a social issue, not a "weapons" issue.