gun question.

1…1516182021

Comments

  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    69charger wrote:
    Ted Nugent has done more to help feed the homeless and provide assistance for wounded troops than Obama Christ has ever done. He has more than made up for sins of the past. I have yet to see him lose a debate to boot! The guy knows his stuff.
    If it's ok with you, i think we will just agree to disagree.
    Thanks.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    If it's ok with you, i think we will just agree to disagree.
    Thanks.

    I'm pretty sure we should just hook up. I think it's what's best for the country.
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    69charger wrote:
    I'm pretty sure we should just hook up. I think it's what's best for the country.
    You wish you were that cool...
    ps..

    How can you tell if a redneck is married?
    There is tobacco spit stains on BOTH sides of his pickup truck.

    i did say in my last post could we please agree to disagree, but you had to carry it on. oh well.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    i just have to point out that Sammy The Bull Gravano is a selfish liar, has zero loyalty, a drug dealer and murderer... and yet he is your pro-gun spokesman... a convicted drug-dealer with at least 19 murders under his belt... nice role model ;)

    p.s. i'm an old school mafia fan... not these lying scumbag rats you admire :D
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    dunkman wrote:
    i just have to point out that Sammy The Bull Gravano is a selfish liar, has zero loyalty, a drug dealer and murderer... and yet he is your pro-gun spokesman... a convicted drug-dealer with at least 19 murders under his belt... nice role model ;)

    p.s. i'm an old school mafia fan... not these lying scumbag rats you admire :D

    That's funny that the message you take from that quote is that I admire him. We are living on different planets I think...
  • in_hiding79
    in_hiding79 Posts: 4,315
    69charger wrote:
    Here I am playing my guitar!

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Ted_Nugent_in_concert.jpg

    Ha! :)


    Nugent, Ted Nugent! ;)
    And so the lion fell in love with the lamb...,"
    "What a stupid lamb."
    "What a sick, masochistic lion."
  • melodious
    melodious Posts: 1,719
    69:

    I support ownership of guns...I do not own one myself, nor do I aspire to such heights, but like everything...Guns are inanimate objects, only extensions of their operators...

    my 2 cents
    all insanity:
    a derivitive of nature.
    nature is god
    god is love
    love is light
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    melodious wrote:
    69:

    I support ownership of guns...I do not own one myself, nor do I aspire to such heights, but like everything...Guns are inanimate objects, only extensions of their operators...

    my 2 cents

    Eloquently stated... as usual! :)
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    I wish I had a guitar that was also a gun. You could rock out and shoot things at the same time...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    melodious wrote:
    69:

    I support ownership of guns...I do not own one myself, nor do I aspire to such heights, but like everything...Guns are inanimate objects, only extensions of their operators...

    my 2 cents



    if thats the case you must support heroin? after all its an inanimate object..

    a nuclear bomb is an inanimate object... you must support them also.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    dunkman wrote:
    if thats the case you must support heroin? after all its an inanimate object..

    a nuclear bomb is an inanimate object... you must support them also.
    I made the nuclear bomb point before to 69charger but he seemed to evade my point. I wonder if ownership of a nuclear bomb was constitutional, would pro-gun Americans also be pro-bomb? after all, bombs don't kill people, the people that use them do...
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    I made the nuclear bomb point before to 69charger but he seemed to evade my point. I wonder if ownership of a nuclear bomb was constitutional, would pro-gun Americans also be pro-bomb? after all, bombs don't kill people, the people that use them do...

    Ownership of a nuclear bomb is not constitutional and outside the scope of what the founding fathers considered bearable arms. Do your research and see for yourself. DC v.s. Heller made the distinction also.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    69charger wrote:
    Thank Jeebus you live in Scotland.

    I love my country and my right to own firearms! I am going to buy a gun this Friday in your honor. I'm not kidding. http://www.shootingusa.com/TV_SCHEDULE/SHOW_27-14/23.S_W_M_P_.45L.jpg I'll have it by Sunday afternoon!

    Thanks for inspiring me! ;)

    BTW today is the day! I can pick it up at 10:15am! Woot!

    Thank you all for the inspiration! ;)
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    69charger wrote:
    BTW today is the day! I can pick it up at 10:15am! Woot!

    Thank you all for the inspiration! ;)
    I'll help you out. That's when the big hand is on the ten and the little hand is on the three.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    69charger wrote:
    ...outside the scope of what the founding fathers considered bearable arms.

    They had stuff like this in mind.

    They had no idea man would ever invent guns like this .

    So how the hell can you know what was within or outside the scope of what they considered bearable arms? You don't, it's rules established later on that determine what is ok and what is not.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    I'll help you out. That's when the big hand is on the ten and the little hand is on the three.

    At night or in the day time?
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    69charger wrote:
    Ownership of a nuclear bomb is not constitutional and outside the scope of what the founding fathers considered bearable arms. Do your research and see for yourself. DC v.s. Heller made the distinction also.
    OH MY GOD, I just said IF it was constitutional, as your right to bear firearms is, would you still defend it or would you realise that just because something is constitutional, it doesn't make it right? I assume you have the power of individual thought? IF (note I said if) you were allowed a bomb, would you defend the right of an American to have one because it is in inanimate object?

    I don't understand your inability to consider a hypothesis. A weapon is a weapon, they are made to kill.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Collin wrote:
    You don't, it's rules established later on that determine what is ok and what is not.
    Yeah, since rules and laws are apparently supposed to be static, let's all go on a good ol' fashioned witch-burning, for old time's sake :rolleyes:
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Collin wrote:
    They had stuff like this in mind.

    They had no idea man would ever invent guns like this .

    So how the hell can you know what was within or outside the scope of what they considered bearable arms? You don't, it's rules established later on that determine what is ok and what is not.

    Do you understand what you are looking at? Does one just look more scary to you? You realise the diameter of the musket projectile is anywhere from .50 to .75 inches? The diameter of the projectiles in the semi-auto guns you posted are .223 inches. At close range that musket will do more damage than the other guns you posted.

    This isn't even relative to the discussion as what is bearable and what is not has been clearly defined by SCOTUS.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts

    Here's a good explanation.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    I don't understand your inability to consider a hypothesis. A weapon is a weapon, they are made to kill.

    Ok ,so a BB gun is the same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

    I get it now. Just having trouble understanding your logic.

    Sheesh! :rolleyes:

Categories