PDA

View Full Version : "There is no valid reason for civilians to have assault rifles, semiautomatic handgun


Mr.1904
08-07-2012, 1:50 PM
This article is honestly sickening to my stomach.

Gun type used in Sikh shootings used in other attacks

http://news.yahoo.com/handgun-type-used-sikhs-mass-shooting-weapon-choice-145915701.html?_esi=1

"There is no valid reason for civilians to have assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns and high-capacity magazines," he said. "We have to start ratcheting down the firepower in civilian hands in the United States."

Can you believe this horse****? The misinformation is honestly disgusting. Where do these people come from? Ignorance is bliss, but not when you're making yourself out to be a moron. People fear what they don't know.

freonr22
08-07-2012, 1:53 PM
its not misinformation. its purposeful bad information

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 2:00 PM
Just because there is no so-called valid reason to have something is no reason to ban it.

There is no valid reason for civilians to have soft drinks. It makes them fast. We need a ban.

There is no valid reason for civilians to watch 99% of the crap they have on TV, we need to ban TV.

There is no valid reason for civilians to eat tasty food, we need to ban food that doesn't taste bland and yucky.

Okay, I grant you that there IS a valid reason to BREATHE since you would die if you don't, but it's still something we should work on.

Montu
08-07-2012, 2:04 PM
Just because there is no so-called valid reason to have something is no reason to ban it.

There is no valid reason for civilians to have soft drinks. It makes them fast. We need a ban.

There is no valid reason for civilians to watch 99% of the crap they have on TV, we need to ban TV.

There is no valid reason for civilians to eat tasty food, we need to ban food that doesn't taste bland and yucky.

Okay, I grant you that there IS a valid reason to BREATHE since you would die if you don't, but it's still something we should work on.

the valid reason is it's necessary for the security of a free state

I'm not sure if these people are in denial of what the 2a's purpose is..or if they're really that dumb.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 2:05 PM
its not misinformation. its purposeful bad information

This. People have the mistaken belief that there is simply a gap of understanding, and that taking somebody to a shooting range will make it all go away. Ted Lieu is an officer in the National Guard, and 100% in the SB249 camp. I have a feeling he's been to a firing range a time or 2 as a Gaurdsman, and he's still as anti-2A as the rest.

Mr.1904
08-07-2012, 2:05 PM
its not misinformation. its purposeful bad information

Stating that a Springfield semi-automatic handgun is the same as a Glock semi-automatic handgun is misinformation. Now it's gonna be; Those evil black pistols!

Read the article. although i wouldn't recommend doing so if you have high blood pressure.

rromeo
08-07-2012, 2:09 PM
There is no valid reason for members of the state legislature to be paid $100,000 each year.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 2:10 PM
There is no valid reason for members of the state legislature to be paid. $100,000 each year.

Fixed it :D

CessnaDriver
08-07-2012, 2:14 PM
They are at war with the armed citizen. Make no mistake.
They hate us with every fiber of their being because
they deeply cannot stand the power we posess over government in the form
of firearms. They know that that ultimately stands in their way of
their dream of an all powerful government to control us as they see fit.
For our own good of course. For the children.

This forum even has members that deeply trouble me even with their defense
of the evil ones.

Gio
08-07-2012, 2:14 PM
What a bunch of bs.

bigbearbear
08-07-2012, 2:19 PM
I think it is understandable for certain politician (or a wannabe...) to home in on the issue of firearms when tragic news like this hit. However, if you look at the reality of such mass killings around the world, removing firearms will not reduce or solve the problem.

Take away guns, they'll start using improvised explosives/bombs/chemical instead, causing even more damages.

rromeo
08-07-2012, 2:20 PM
Fixed it :D

True that.

CessnaDriver
08-07-2012, 2:25 PM
Don't anyone fools yourselves.
They are NOT about stopping criminals.
We fall for that trap all the time and get into statistics and link wars and
the facts fall on our side and it doesn't matter!

They are about empowering government over all of us.
Throw that back in their face. Put THEM on the offensive that they are championing tyranny.




The same logic they attempt should apply to alcohol if they are serious.

Why should people be allowed to use something so powerful and
when abused, which is often, is lethal to 50,000 people a year in the USA.

Think they will argue to ban alcohol? we know how that went.

What do they think will happen with guns if they were illegal like alcohol was?


Again, they don't care.
They have never been about stopping criminals.
This is 100 percent an attack on our liberty.

Yes there are useful idiots out there, but don't lose track of the target.

TNP'R
08-07-2012, 2:28 PM
Just because there is no so-called valid reason to have something is no reason to ban it.

There is no valid reason for civilians to have soft drinks. It makes them fast. We need a ban.

There is no valid reason for civilians to watch 99% of the crap they have on TV, we need to ban TV.

There is no valid reason for civilians to eat tasty food, we need to ban food that doesn't taste bland and yucky.

Okay, I grant you that there IS a valid reason to BREATHE since you would die if you don't, but it's still something we should work on.

And you know what an anti's reply would be? Trust me I've seen it a dozen times when trying to rationalize gun ownership. They're one answer to everything is guns are only designed to kill, you don't need a gun. Guns give you power to kill someone and someone that owns a gun is more likely to kill someone if they own a gun. Yeah I've been having a so called debate about guns in a another forum and that's their main reasoning.

I'm starting to worry about the direction that our gun rights are going.

Mr.1904
08-07-2012, 2:30 PM
It's also fitting i can't find an email address for the author of the article ANYWHERE. His name's Greg Mccune of Reuters. If anyone can drudge up his email please post it so we can correct him.

email
08-07-2012, 2:30 PM
Tell him.

Greg McCune
2009 SABEW President
Editor in Charge, Reuters America Service
greg.mccune@thomsonreuters.com
(312) 408-8701

Untamed1972
08-07-2012, 2:31 PM
Just because there is no so-called valid reason to have something is no reason to ban it.

There is no valid reason for civilians to have soft drinks. It makes them fast. We need a ban.

There is no valid reason for civilians to watch 99% of the crap they have on TV, we need to ban TV.

There is no valid reason for civilians to eat tasty food, we need to ban food that doesn't taste bland and yucky.

Okay, I grant you that there IS a valid reason to BREATHE since you would die if you don't, but it's still something we should work on.

Yep....these anti's have completely lost or just dont care about the concept of "LIBERTY"!!! Liberty means not having to give a "valid reason"...especially to the gov't for permission to do something. The constitution was specifically setup to require Gov't to give a valid reason 4 doing or restricting something....not the other way around. We are supposed to be free of Gov't interference in our lives, unless the Gov't can give valid reason, subject to it's enumerated powers for encroaching on our liberty.

They know that to gain dominance they must first remove their potential subjects ability to defend themselves and to fight back. They are deathly afraid of being the targets of the next "French Revolution".

AAShooter
08-07-2012, 2:37 PM
Since the 2A is designed for the common man to fend of a out of control government, some pretty good fire power is needed. So, is there a need? Yes.

TNP'R
08-07-2012, 2:43 PM
Since the 2A is designed for the common man to fend of a out of control government, some pretty good fire power is needed. So, is there a need? Yes. The anti's will say and I've heard this a dozen times as well. How are you going to fight back against tanks, and jets. You're crazy if you think firearms alone can take on the military.

Untamed1972
08-07-2012, 2:46 PM
The anti's will say and I've heard this a dozen times as well. How are you going to fight back against tanks, and jets. You're crazy if you think firearms alone can take on the military.

Then maybe the only response to that is: "I'd rather die on my feet......then live on my knees."

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 2:47 PM
the valid reason is it's necessary for the security of a free state

I'm not sure if these people are in denial of what the 2a's purpose is..or if they're really that dumb.

See but they are going to counter that that is what the LE agencies and military is for.

We need to start thinking like the opposition, they don't see things the way we do.

TNP'R
08-07-2012, 2:49 PM
See but they are going to counter that that is what the LE agencies and military is for.

We need to start thinking like the opposition, they don't see things the way we do.

Seen a story about how the Stockton police department can't even refuel their own squad cars, how are they suppose to protect and secure?

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 3:01 PM
Seen a story about how the Stockton police department can't even refuel their own squad cars, how are they suppose to protect and secure?

Let's see, if I were a socialist I would say "we need to increase taxes on the rich to give our LEOs the tools they need to protect us all."

Then I would go on to say, "it's not fair that rich people can afford their own private security at the expense of public safety funding for the rest of us"

Of course I say "arm the populace, an armed society is a polite society. People who take advantage of a community in distress are no better than common looters and should be dealt with accordingly until regular law and order is restored"

SoCalSon
08-07-2012, 3:02 PM
The anti's will say and I've heard this a dozen times as well. How are you going to fight back against tanks, and jets. You're crazy if you think firearms alone can take on the military.

We wait until the tank run out of gas, find some kind of entrance in and unload. Shoot at the plane only when flying low. Owning a gun is a lot like being able to operate a plane or motorcycle. You don't have to do either or you could if you want to do both, but it is always nice to know that your able to if that is your wish.

Montu
08-07-2012, 3:02 PM
Seen a story about how the Stockton police department can't even refuel their own squad cars, how are they suppose to protect and secure?

yep Also, the real purpose to 2a is to protect our selves from them...who do you think is going to go around doing all the oppressing?

Mr.1904
08-07-2012, 3:13 PM
Tell him.

Greg McCune
2009 SABEW President
Editor in Charge, Reuters America Service
greg.mccune@thomsonreuters.com
(312) 408-8701

Emailed. Thanks again!

Czechsix
08-07-2012, 4:15 PM
It's also fitting i can't find an email address for the author of the article ANYWHERE. His name's Greg Mccune of Reuters. If anyone can drudge up his email please post it so we can correct him.

greg.mccune@thomsonreuters.com should get to him.

Doh, duped.

AAShooter
08-07-2012, 4:26 PM
The anti's will say and I've heard this a dozen times as well. How are you going to fight back against tanks, and jets. You're crazy if you think firearms alone can take on the military.

That doesn't change the 2A

Cali-V
08-07-2012, 4:45 PM
The anti's will say and I've heard this a dozen times as well. How are you going to fight back against tanks, and jets. You're crazy if you think firearms alone can take on the military.

Tell that to those in Syria without firearms...

njineermike
08-07-2012, 4:52 PM
The anti's will say and I've heard this a dozen times as well. How are you going to fight back against tanks, and jets. You're crazy if you think firearms alone can take on the military.

That's funny. I hear that EXACT statement from some on here who are supposedly on our side.

PandaLuv
08-07-2012, 5:37 PM
criminals shouldn't have them.

Bangzoom
08-07-2012, 6:00 PM
I really dont want to read that but i know i will...just like i just have to smell the milk when i know it went bad

rojocorsa
08-07-2012, 7:52 PM
There are no valid reasons for gun-free zones.

See what I did there?

postal
08-07-2012, 8:24 PM
People that go off about "tanks, aircraft, US mil etc"... I just remind them of the nut job and teenager that brought the entire DC area to a screeching halt for 23 days with an AR taking chest shots at 80 ish yards.

People didnt go to work, kids didnt go to school. It was people barricading themselves inside with the curtains pulled. Total shut down of all of DC area.

This was one nutjob and teen with the wrong tool for the job.

Just imagine what 2-3 hundred *well trained* riflemen could accomplish if 'revolution' was the goal. This would be "deer hunter" rifles- not an AR chest shot at 80 yds....

Deer hunting bolt action rifles would be about the last thing banned... right before the flintlock and musket.

At no point would a revolution require going toe to toe with the US Mil. And a true revolution with just cause, the bulk of the mil will stand down.

Dont believe this as a "possibility"? look in to 'the DC Sniper'- an idiot and a teen did this already with surprising results with little to no skill....

No. A TRUE revolution against a *tryannical government* would be as simple as a few hundred RIFLEMEN going after tryannical government officials. At no point would it involve squaring off against the Mil like Justice Scalia mentioned in Heller.

In short order the surviving govt would be forced into hiding for self preservation and breaking their chain of command which would be difficult for them to control while in hiding. A *coup* could potentially be far easier than ANYONE could imagine.

Right now they want take the semi's... eventually they'll come after your deer rifle and bird gun too. That deer rifle is FAR MORE USEFULL than most people would care to acknowledge...

Just a something that could happen looking at past events....

HiveDR.
08-07-2012, 9:04 PM
Postal, you are right about the bolt gun. Case in point just look how well the Afgans did against the Russians with "outdate" Enfield 303's in the 80s.

Thrashard340
08-07-2012, 9:11 PM
IMO, bolt guns, pump shotguns and revolvers will never be outlawed. However, there is a far greater issue at hand. As almost all of us on this forum knows, gun laws are just a Band-Aid fix that does not solve the underlying issue...the mental state of the individual committing the crime.

I do not agree with SB249 or any additional "bans" on existing firearms. So do we have any other solutions here besides gun laws?

Big D
08-08-2012, 1:16 PM
There is no reason to have a vehicle capable of going faster than the speed limit. But anyone can go buy a car or motorcycle capable of going almost 200 mph.

safewaysecurity
08-08-2012, 1:30 PM
Banning all semi auroz would mean banning 85% of the guns out there in civilian hands.

tlcwrites
08-08-2012, 1:53 PM
I blogged a few days ago (http://www.momwithagun.com/2012/08/why-logic-isnt-enough/) about a conversation I had with a family member about guns and shooting and gun control. I grew up in Canada, so my family member approaches that whole issue from a different cultural mindset. I'll let the interested read the blog post for the details, but the bottom line was this: My family member acknowledged that I had logical reasons to KBA, that gun bans wouldn't do anything to stop nutjobs from committing mass murder, and that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. All that said, she still said that she just felt owning guns was "yucky" and no rational evidence to the contrary would change her mind.

This is the problem we face in trying to argue facts and figures and statistics and rationality with anti-gun folks, I think - they are reacting to the thought "ZOMG, a GUN!!!" on a visceral, emotional level, and no amount of logic can touch that emotional gut-level response.

Tammy

Nyanman
08-08-2012, 1:55 PM
I guess they all followed the points from this guy: http://www.gunlaws.com/HowGunSpinIsDone.htm

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Scratch705
08-08-2012, 4:15 PM
my valid reason is cause it is fun to go out to a range and shoot. why should there be any more valid reasons past that?

if valid reasons are needed to keep something legal. then i want to ask, what valid reasons is there to let people consume alcohol? all it does is impair a person's thinking, and cause tens of thousands of deaths every year.