Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control explained

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gun Control explained

    547025\_495170203860003\_1900494611\_n.jpg

     

    Got it?

    Attached Files

  • #2

    Niow show the one where the same rifle can be configured with or without a pistol grip.

     

     

    Comment


    • Mr.NiceGuy
      Mr.NiceGuy commented
      Editing a comment

       Those .45s are designed to be sprayed out of a semi-automatic assault machine gun weapon. Why do you need them?

       


  • #3

    i don't get it

    Comment


    • #4

      mauser wrote:

      547025\_495170203860003\_1900494611\_n.jpg

       

      Got it?


      You're right, there should be only single shot weapons allowed. Great idea!
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • mauser
        mauser commented
        Editing a comment

        The Moss wrote:

        mauser wrote:

        547025\_495170203860003\_1900494611\_n.jpg

         

        Got it?


        You're right, there should be only single shot weapons allowed. Great idea!

        So you believe we should only be allowed those weapons which were available when the Constitution was written?

        Attached Files

      • Bowe
        Bowe commented
        Editing a comment

        just keep killing each other

         

        its great entertainment


    • #5

      All ths is BS:


      Gun Control is all about preventing the next Colin Fergusson, Jerad Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, or Adam Lanza from getting hold of a gun, or worse,

      a muti-round rapid fire gun--and using it on other people.

       

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/ChoSh.jpg

      Comment


      • Zig al-din
        Zig al-din commented
        Editing a comment

        yanktar wrote:

        All ths is BS:


        Gun Control is all about preventing the next Colin Fergusson, Jerad Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, or Adam Lanza from getting hold of a gun, or worse,

        a muti-round rapid fire gun--and using it on other people.

         

        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/ChoSh.jpg

        C'mon, man...those guys were all part of a 'well-regulated militia.'  :cattongue:


      • Davo17
        Davo17 commented
        Editing a comment
        no. gun control is an arbitrary feel good measure that has never worked where its been tried but will infringe law abiding citizens rights to keep and bear arms.
        do you apply the same flawed logic to say freedom of speech? gtfo.

    • #6
      If you can't protect yourself with 5 rounds, you don't get to the ranges enough. I have yet to see any citizen case where there were more than a few attackers. 5 rounds lets you shoot all of them with a few spares. It doesn't allow you to murder 50 people without stopping to reload. (That is the time when people defend themselves against gun attacks.)

      Comment


      • Davo17
        Davo17 commented
        Editing a comment
        you dont know wtf u r talking about. why dont you let the military and leos know 5 is all they need.

        a murderer isnt going to stop because u tell law abiders they cant own mags over 5 rounds. do u realize how silly and confused you sound?

    • #7
      Buckethead: Doing well, thanks. Probably not the first time we've ever disagreed. Probably not the last either.

      Yanktar: I'm afraid you seem to have no idea what I want. Either that, or you're a great actor.

      Comment


      • yanktar
        yanktar commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Buckethead: Doing well, thanks. Probably not the first time we've ever disagreed. Probably not the last either.

        Yanktar: I'm afraid you seem to have no idea what I want. Either that, or you're a great actor.

         

        Sure I do.  You want us all to believe your make-believe alternate reality exists, one in which gun owners' guns are used for legitimate self-defense 100% of the time, and that limiting gun access increases crime rather than decreases it, and that "guns don't kill, people kill" as if guns don't make it a hell of a lot easier.

        You want us to pretend that the 2nd Amendment is only half as long and the words "A Well-Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a Free State," don't exist and have no meaning.

        What you DON'T want to is to admit it.


    • #8
      Yanktar: I couldn't begin to tell you for what other people use their guns. If you want to know, ask them. I will say based on the stats, the overwhelming majority of guns are never used in crimes. You want to reduce crime......great. You simply want to infringe on the rights of those not committing the crime....there's going to be a problem.

      The right protected by the 2nd Amendment is as much an individual right as that which is protected by the first. You don't have to agree with that.....you just have to deal with it.

      Comment


      • yanktar
        yanktar commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Yanktar: I couldn't begin to tell you for what other people use their guns. If you want to know, ask them. I will say based on the stats, the overwhelming majority of guns are never used in crimes. You want to reduce crime......great. You simply want to infringe on the rights of those not committing the crime....there's going to be a problem.

        The right protected by the 2nd Amendment is as much an individual right as that which is protected by the first. You don't have to agree with that.....you just have to deal with it.

         

        You mistake me: I don't have any desire to infringe on your rights or anyone else's.  I AM concerned with reducing crime.  Sandy Hills isn't that far from here, either in distance or in the community it's in.  There have been more public shootings with high cap weapons in the last 15 or 20 years than there had been since the start of the Depression. The last few years have seen too many.

        Wild accusations that Obama's going to take your guns and create a fascist/socialist dictatorship just don't fly.  NOBODY is coming to take your legally and legitimately owned guns. That's just not in any of the proposals or executive orders.  I cannot believe you think it's OK for a violent felon (convicted) out on parole to be able to LEGALLY buy a gun, any gun. "Violent" according to the NIJ's definition of the term. Nor can I believe you don't want to keep weapons out of the hands of Jerard Loughner, Colin Fergusson, or Adam Lanza.

        The 2nd is, in many ways, one of the worst-written of the BOR because it has a clause that explains its reason for existence, yet the writings of the men who created it implies they had something else in mind. But it also is clear that their concept of a militia, reminiscent of the recent events of their last 25 years, with every man "to arms!", was what they were thinking about, and the concept of "National Guard" at the state level and a Federal military were foreign to them, and would be for through the next century.  Remember: in the Civil War, units were ALL state-based, both in the Union and in the Confederacy.  This trend, in some form persisted even into WWII ("Texas Longhorns" vs "Buddaheads"--the former from Texas, the latter the 442nd Japanese-Americans). You cannot ignore the first half of the 2nd.  Only the MOST recent SCOTUS decision reversed decades and decades of interpretation that it referred to STATES' mlitias or national guards.

        And the recent decison did NOT preclude regulating and licensing gun ownership. It did not interpret the 2nd to mean anyone and everyone can get a gun without any regulation or oversight.  You don't need to agree, you just have to deal with it.


    • #9
      Trust me.....I intend to deal with it.

      Comment


      • quickie1
        quickie1 commented
        Editing a comment

      • yanktar
        yanktar commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Trust me.....I intend to deal with it.

        OK. I PRESUME you mean legally, by obeying the law, and using the legal and legislative process to oppose what you don't agree with.

        Otherwise it's just another Internet "Tough Guy" posturing.

        PS: Whenever anybody says "Trust me", I immediately don't...because 999 times out of a 1000, I'm right not to.


      • Mossy Mossy Moss
        Mossy Mossy Moss commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Trust me.....I intend to deal with it.

         

        I've reported this post to the FBI. It sounds like you're planning some illegal activities, possibly violent. I just thought you should know, they'll be watching you now. 

         

         

         

         


    • #10
      Yanktar: I don't posture, and defending one's liberties has nothing to do with being a "tough guy".

      You can do whatever you like.

      Comment


      • Booker
        Booker commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Yanktar: I don't posture, and defending one's liberties has nothing to do with being a "tough guy".

        You can do whatever you like.

         

        But thats exactly what you are doing, and you are acting like the kind of nutcase people don't want to have guns.

         

        Congrats, you do more damage to your cause by acting like a retard than you help.


    • #11
      Mossy: Whoop-de-doo.

      Comment


      • Mossy Mossy Moss
        Mossy Mossy Moss commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Mossy: Whoop-de-doo.

         

        I'm just saying, whatever last stand/mass murder you might be planning, the Feds will be all over your **bleep** before you get a chance. 

         

        You're welcome, America.


    • #12
      Yanktar: you're free to characterize it in whatever way you like.

      Comment


      • #13
        Mossy: and I'm just saying.....whoop-de-doo.

        Comment


        • Mossy Mossy Moss
          Mossy Mossy Moss commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:
          Mossy: and I'm just saying.....whoop-de-doo.



          So are you still going to go through with your plan? I'd kind of like to see you you on national TV, your face pinned to the ground with an SWAT boot.


      • #14
        Mossy: you mean my plan to deal with it? Yes, I'm hatching it out as we speak.

        Comment


        • Mossy Mossy Moss
          Mossy Mossy Moss commented
          Editing a comment

           

          mauser wrote:
          Mossy: you mean my plan to deal with it? Yes, I'm hatching it out as we speak.



          Be sure to write us from prison! If you survive, that is.


      • #15
        It was conceived in liberty, but unfortunately democraccy, which the Founders feared, has been liberty's undoing.

        Comment


        • Rimmer
          Rimmer commented
          Editing a comment

          Did the founders fear Democracy?


           


          I know they warned against the progression of ruthless capitalism and domination by the financiers...



      Working...
      X