Author Topic: Guess Constituional Rights mean nothing to City Councils.... (Read 1260 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2005, 12:46:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SMIDSY
honestly! what the hell would you use an assault rifle for? you cant use it for self defence on the street because it is too bulky. you cant use it for home defence because it is not good for confined spaces. FOR ONCE!! JUST ****ING ADMIT THAT THE ONLY REASON YOU WANT ASSAULT RIFLES IS BECASE THEY ARE COOL!!!!!:mad: Golly-geen malitia retards should just join the national gaurd.

Dont you just love that liberal California tolerance?

This is the typical 2nd amendment hating attitude down here in the Bay Area. I will do my best to fight it by firing off several hundered rounds at the range shortly after work tommorow!

Gunslinger · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2005, 12:53:23 AM »

Revolution indeed. Were do we define how much self defense we need? Who defines it, the govt? The state? The city council? Is that freedom having somone else define the limits of your constitutional rights.

What about other rights. Can the city council say that search and seizure rights do not apply in their city. They must stem the tide of illegal trafficing so police need the ability to search any house any car any time for any reason?

on that same note let's say those perversions of rights do happen and you now find yourself pitted against an unjust police state.......how do you stop them? You gave them the only guns along time ago.

Quote

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

Gunslinger · « **Reply #17 on:** July 19, 2005, 12:54:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SMIDSY
honestly! what the hell would you use an assault rifle for? B]

TO locate, close with, and destroy my enemy by fire and manuver and to repell the enemy's assault by fire and close combat.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #18 on:** July 19, 2005, 01:19:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Dont you just love that liberal California tolerance?

This is the typical 2nd amendment hating attitude down here in the Bay Area. I will do my best to fight it by firing off several hundered rounds at the range shortly after work tommorow!

hey, im all for owning assault rifles. but ADMIT WHY YOU WANT THEM!! i admit that the only reason i would own a gun is so that i could take it down to the range and shoot it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #19 on:** July 19, 2005, 01:45:13 AM »

Not true at all, I want to use mine to commit violent street crimes, just like everyone else!

I had the same thought about the
Barett M82 in 50BMG but thankfully the CA govt stepped in saved us all from the ongoing rampages of $5,000 25lbs rifles being used in crimes. Phew!

Oh and by the way, why are you lefists so stuck up on the cosmetics of the thing? In function a civil AR15 is no different than any other semi auto magazine fed centerfire rifle. Full auto has been illegal for decades now.

Does the pistol grip make it more deadly, or just more deadly looking to ignorant californian women voters?

So its really your side thats wat too much over the top pointlesly obessed with the look of these firearms.

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 19, 2005, 02:44:31 AM »

anything below state level doesn't obey those rights. Hell even riverside county has tried/is trying to pass laws staying that i can't ride my dirt bike in my back yard. (1/2 acre)

JTs · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2005, 02:52:43 AM »

ah beautiful norco. how the place has changed. lived at 1066 hamner ave until i got drafted in 1970. cowstuff and hay. lol i dont miss that stuff. is the naval warfare station still there?
JT

SaburoS · « **Reply #22 on:** July 19, 2005, 03:37:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SMIDSY
See Rule #7

Please define what a real "assault" rifle is?
Is it cosmetics or function that make up a real "assault" rifle?

SaburoS · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2005, 03:44:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Not true at all, I want to use mine to commit violent street crimes, just like everyone else!

I had the same thought about the
Barett M82 in 50BMG but thankfully the CA govt stepped in saved us all from the ongoing rampages of $5,000 25lbs rifles being used in crimes. Phew!

Oh and by the way, why are you lefists so stuck up on the cosmetics of the thing? In function a civil AR15 is no different than any other semi auto magazine fed centerfire rifle. Full auto has been illegal for decades now.

Does the pistol grip make it more deadly, or just more deadly looking to ignorant californian women voters?

So its really your side thats wat too much over the top pointlesly obessed with the look of these firearms.

Don't forget the all important "deadly" bayonet lug and flash suppressor.
Dern ignorant, self-serving politicians (both Democrat and Republicans, men and women).

SaburoS · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2005, 03:51:16 AM »

BTW, I bought mine awhile ago because of the pending ban. Made sure any and all mods done were both Federal AND California approved. Why? Because I like it. It's different and fun to shoot at the range. I don't plan to shoot it outside of the firing range.
Kind of why I drive the cars that I do.
Why, 'cause I like it.
Chances are I will be killed or one will be killed by an accident that I'm involved with driving the car than would happen with a firearm. Heck if someone smokes tobacco, much higher probability of dying.
Look at the stats.

Charon · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2005, 09:04:01 AM »

I'll be picking up my 1944 Inland M1 Carbine today. Living in Crook County, I had to spend a day or two just trying to figure out if I'm allowed to own the thing. Appears so. It's generally somewhat immune from the last round of features-style based bans, in that it has the detachable magazine but no pistol grip and no bayone lug (early features).

Quote

hey, im all for owning assault rifles. but ADMIT WHY YOU WANT THEM!! i admit that the only reason i would own a gun is so that i could take it down to the range and shoot it.

The funny ones are the guys in cammo, about 60 soft pounds past tactical ops shape, with so much crap on the rails that you can't tell if there is a rifle underneath

Never had much desire for an evil black gun. Shooting the M-16 was about like using a pneumatic nail gun... chinck, chinck, chinck... and if you take away the pop up targets the fun factor drops by about 100 percent (YMMV). Plan on going out to the range next weekend and sending my very first battle rifle rounds downrange with the k98k and one of the MNs. Probably the Finn M39. Take the Carbine along for some old school plinking

Charon

Maverick · « **Reply #26 on:** July 19, 2005, 11:13:12 AM »

I have a very small battle rifle collection. I have to say one of the most fun guns to shoot is the M-1. I don't know why as it is pretty heavy but I get more enjoyment out of shooting it than the M-1 Carbine with back to back 30 rd bananas or my AR 16 National Match. The enfield is a nice shooting weapon as well and has a milder recoil than I expected. The SKS is just a "fun" gun that is good to use for shorter folks and women for whom a short stock fits well. For a regular sized American male it's cut too short for comfort. It shoots accurately enough and is cheap to "feed".

I don't worry about "justifying" my collection. It's my collection purchased for my reasons all of which were and are perfectly legal. Not one of my weapons has been responsible, either on its own or in my hands, for causing any pain death or fear to anyone.

Frankly I see this as a watershed situation regarding personal freedom and responsibility for members of thios "society". If the members of the society cannot be trusted to behave themselves then incarcerate them. If the members at large who DO behave themselves cannot be trusted to do so, then who is qualified to be the caretaker? It cannot be a member of that "society" as they, by definition, cannot be trusted. It must be done by someone outside to the "society" that has the expertise and lack of human failings that would qualify them as proper caretakers of the "pets" they own in that "society".

I myself am not a pet. I will not be treated as one by someone who has appointed themselves as my caretaker and therefore, knows better than I how I should live my life.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2005, 12:14:08 PM »

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

wow how dangerous

Charon · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2005, 12:35:51 PM »

Quote

I have a very small battle rifle collection. I have to say one of the most fun guns to shoot is the M-1. I don't know why as it is pretty heavy but I get more enjoyment out of shooting it than the M-1 Carbine with back to back 30 rd bananas or my AR 16 National Match. The enfield is a nice shooting weapon as well and has a milder recoil than I expected. The SKS is just a "fun" gun that is good to use for shorter folks and women for whom a short stock fits well. For a regular sized American male it's cut too short for comfort. It shoots accurately enough and is cheap to "feed".

Next on the list is a CMP Garand, and maybe a 1903. Currently have an Enfield No. 4 mk. 1 (1944); Enfield No 5 (1945); Russian capture K98k (1942); Mosin nagant M38 (1944); Finnish M39 (1942); and now the Carbine. Just picked it up. Appears to be original, non rearsenaled, early features mostly matching. Excellent shape. Going to be hard to get any work done today.

Great link Guns. My firearms are so dangerous I have to keep them locked up in a safe so they don't kill me in my sleep.

Charon

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 19, 2005, 01:14:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JTs
ah beautiful norco. how the place has changed. lived at 1066 hamner ave until i got drafted in 1970. cowstuff and hay. lol i dont miss that stuff. is the naval warfare station still there?
JT

yes, but it will most likely be disbanded this year.