are exactly right and a lot of uninformed people will find this out.....I have lived through one bad time and I did not think I would see the next one but I was wrong......Bad days ahead for the working people. If you can get a job?????

 

hahahahaha you make me laugh hahahahahahaha

 

That doesn't matter. They close all political based threads in tech.

 

It was basic sarcasm, but in truth yes I have tried to immobilize someone and successfully done it twice. Once when I was in Afghanistan and another time in Florida, the outcome of the one in Florida I took a bullet graze to the leg. Would I do it if I believed no one would get hurt ? The answer is probably not... It all depends on the situation at the time.. If I had kids or a girlfriend around me I would never raise a finger until i believed their lives were in danger..

Let me guess Interceptor your a cop or prior service? But that's the difference between you and me, someone pulls a gun on me I think about the person not so lucky after me, will I defend myself as I have been taught and if I fail will I live with that decision, yes....

but like I said it depends on circumstances..

but seriously Chuck Norris did it too....

 

There is always a decision process that arises when the situation calls for it, if you believe your life is on the line, it changes everything. But I guess I should rephrase easy, but in any case I agree its a whole different story when its a life or death situation and sometimes you must roll with the punches and walkaway to come out ahead. Some situations have too many outcomes....

 

Also while we are on the subject of guns, anyone who wants to see a picture of the aftermath caused by a 50 cal to the head pm me....

 

I know they usually do, I said in my first post this may get moved to 'SSU'

 

Ok, I am not going to argue about self defense, or CQB, or how to disarm you opponent. Lets take that to another thread if need be.

Lets look at the facts. If you read the political doctrine of the Democratic party it clearly states their goals. If you look at Obama and Biden's records, and their positions they are as anti-second ammendment as you can get.

When you couple that with a house and Senate controlled by Democrats its not a stretch to see a serious attack on our rights coming. Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstien, and all the other demcrats are no friends of legal gun owners.

When you talk of a renewed assault weapon ban. What exactly is "an assault weapon". Basically its any rifle that can fire semi-automatically including what many would consider normal hunting rifles. Do you define it based on hte fact that it is "scary" looking? Take any semi auto rifle witha plain wood stock. Repalce that with a synthetic stock, and varous add ons, and now is it an assult rifle? How has the function of the rifle changed? It hasn't...

Now, once you go after "assault rifles" , then you'd of course need to regulate "sniper rifles". after al there are armed snipers on the top of every building... Oh, wait a sniper rilfe is typically a bolt action single shot rifle. in Fact most sniper rifles are nothing more than what most of us would call a very accurate "deer rifle".

when yo look at what a failure the democratic anti-gun platform has been, and how it attacks a basic framework of the constitution I am simply shocked and amazed at what gullible sheep people are. But of course heck who cares about the 2nd ammendment except all those gun whackos right? Who cares if people who are gun owners loose their rights if you don't own a gun, or don't like guns, or don't really care about the issue. I mean in the end it really doens't affect you, right???

Well, you as a citizen should... If you can negate the 2nd ammendment by "creative legislation". Then what is to stop you from removing the 1st, or the 4th ammendment? I am all about individual liberties and a strict adhereance to the constitution. I am not in favor of many of the new "interpretations" of the constitution as needs to be "re-interpreted". The constitution is fine as is...

 

If you take any position to the extremist degree and use slippery slope logic you can make it look bad. Doesn't matter what kind of view it is...left/right, Dem/GOP, Moderate/radical, centrist/partisan...whatever.

With slippery slope logic and taking the pro-gun stance to a ridiculous degree, I could envision an 8 year old buying an RPG at Walgreens, I mean, it's a constitutional right isn't it? Americans deserve to own weapons, right?

The gun control issue might swing mildly depending on who is in office in any particular year, but on a macro level, it's going to stay on the same course.

 

Let me see if a picture will help here.

Consider the two AR-15s below. The Clinton Assault Weapon ban said that the one on the top is an AW, because it has a pistol grip, a flash suppressor on the end of the barrel and a bayonet mount under the front sight. The ban saids that a semi-automatic rifle that uses a detachable magazine is an AW if it has more than one "attachment". The AR-15 on the bottom is not an AW, because it has only one attachment.


AR-15 with pistol grip, flash suppressor and bayonet mount.


AR-15 with pistol grip only


The attachments have nothing to do with crime. The mere shape of a grip? A flash suppressor? And when was there a crime with a bayonet on a rifle? Moreover, the attachments are common to tens of millions of other guns. All pistols have "pistol grips," obviously, as do all revolvers and many rifles and shotguns, about a third of Americans` 200+ million guns. Several million other rifles have bayonet mounts.7 Tens of millions of rifles, pistols and shotguns are semi-automatic and/or use a detachable magazine.


So then you have the question of "Who needs an assault weapon," the anti-gun lobby asks. The premise of that question is, however, at odds with basic American principles. In a free society, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, it is upon those who wish to restrict rights. Therefore, gun-ban supporters must show why the certain waepons should be banned, and thus far they have never done so. It is clear that the guns are rarely used in crime, and rarely does the criminal`s choice of gun determine the outcome of his crime. AWs have the same functional traits, and use the same ammunition, as other guns.

Consider this stat.



AWs are functionally identical to millions of other guns. About 15% of Americans` guns--upwards of 30 million guns--are semi-automatics. Also, AWs use the same ammunition as other guns, so they are neither more powerful, or less powerful, than other guns.

Its not a slippery slope argument as you attempt to cite. Its one of simple basic consitution rights. Your argument about supplying RPGs to 8 years olds is a red herring and is in fact an extremist viewpoint.

There are plenty of other laws already in place to cover the legal use and ownership of weapons. There are already laws covering importation of weapons into the United States that came into being in 1989 under firearm importation law, and 1993. Full Auto weapons have been covered by National Firearms Act since the 30's.

There is plenty of enforceable laws on the books now. The bans pursued by the Democrats ammounts to nothing more than a full frontal attack on the individuals's rights.

 

That's details....minutea...

I still own an AR-15, I still own several hunting rifles, I still own several shotguns, even after the gun grabbers passed the AWB. I expect to legally own them for the rest of my life in America.

If a bayonet mount or flash suppressor is important enough to you to position your entire political ideology behind it, have fun with it I guess. Macro-scale our gun rights aren't different than 50 years ago and won't be different 50 years from now.

And of course the RPG example is an extremist viewpoint...as is going from a ban on flash supressors and bayonet mounts to taking away standard hunting weapons. That was my point...both argument take the position to the extreme. Sorry if you didn't see the obvious irony intended with it. I mean, there's nothing in the constitution that says an 8 year old can't buy an RPG right? I mean, we don't need any dern new fangled interpretations of the constitution do we?

 

We are going to get new fangled interpretations of the constitution wait and see. They have already tried a few times if they run everything it will be changed....

 

We 'gun owners' Americans are FUCKED!

 

All I can say is to repeat something my Dad said years ago, "Take hand guns out of the hands of citizens and then only ones that will have hand guns then are the criminals."

Think about it????

 

You guys are panicking like Democrats have never been in power before.

 

How is it minutea? What makes one of those weapons any different than the other. Why is it reasonable to ban a weapon because it has a bayonet mount? The point is that the old law made no sense and was not fairly applied.

I fully expect the new ban to ban entire classes of weapons, and I would not be suprise at some point to see an effort to confiscate those weapons.

You may believe you will own all your weapons "legally" for the rest of your days. I am not convinced based on who Obama/Biden have aligned themselves with that this will necessarily be the case. I pray you are correct, but I believe you are wrong....

 

The weapons really aren't different than any other...except for the small details like having a bayonet mount...hence me calling it "minutea".

I have to respectfully disagree...I think it's a pretty big jump to go from banning bayonet mounts to confiscation of new classes of weapons.

And Obama/Biden have now aligned themselves with the whole of the United States...will government shift to the left? Sure, but it won't be any more left than it was under LBJ. They aren't going to take away your guns...at MOST, they will pass another watered down version of an AWB and grandfather in everything you already got. I doubt that would happen either though, to much other **** Obama/Biden care about they will want to spend political capital on. That and the economic and military situation puts anything like that on the back burner, too. If you're afraid of radical stuff Obama/Biden might do, gun control is like 37th on the list of things you should worry about.

 

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

Again, you can choose to belive what you wish. I would also like to point out that Obama's transition team is Led by John Podesta who was the architect of the Clinton AWB.

To assume that rights will not be infringed upon because "there isn't time to do so" is a weak argument. Their own records speak volumes for them already.

It will be interesting to see if Obama and Biden come in as the people they ran as, vs. the people they have always been since the two are vastly different.

 

I never said they wouldn't "have time" to ban guns, just that there are many other things higher on the list. Obama never ran on gun control.

I know what bill you are referring to, it was a very poorly drafted bill. It failed, and it would fail the US Congress, too. If it can't pass in far left Illinois, it wouldn't sniff the floor of the US Congress.

And was Clinton's AWB all that bad? I still say it's a leap to go from a watered down nonsensical ban to wholesale confiscation of sporting firearms.

 

Hey just a heads up if you are going to get one there is no time like now just the heads up I have seen the lines and stuff is already on back order.