M&p15-22

People don't "need" anything other than food, water, and shelter. Having said that I'm not willing to throw away all of our technology because we don't need it. I have a TV, DVD player, Car, Furniture, Electric Guitar etc. Not because I need them. BECAUSE I CAN! That's the only excuse anyone needs.

People also don't "need" freedom either. The government keeps chipping away at it. There's no need to help them speed up the process.
 
00Buck said:
People don't "need" anything other than food, water, and shelter. Having said that I'm not willing to throw away all of our technology because we don't need it. I have a TV, DVD player, Car, Furniture, Electric Guitar etc. Not because I need them. BECAUSE I CAN! That's the only excuse anyone needs.

People also don't "need" freedom either. The government keeps chipping away at it. There's no need to help them speed up the process.
Click to expand...

Should a flamethrower be illegal? Grenade Launchers? Nuclear Weapons? At what point is it too much destructive power? I just want to know where the line should be drawn, I think they did a pretty good job at stopping at FA weapons.... I don't agree with other things the gov has done, as I said with black\green rifles....

This isn't for the sake of trolling, I didn't think I'd piss so many people off saying I agree with no FA weapons lol

In some states in the USA you can apply for class II weapons you just need to submit fingerprints and such, what's wrong with that? You want crazy firepower, be responsible for it. Don't just hand out FA weapons to the public. lol
 
It has to do alot with your general attitude of
As AWESOME as they are, full auto weapons have no practical purpose other than killing people.

And Armor piercing rounds are the same, no purpose except to kill humans wearing armor.
Click to expand...

anti's seem to enjoy defining what a valid "purpose" is and to what extent it can be applied. A gun be it FA has the SAME purpose as your SA and your BA and your Pump, which is target shooting and self defense. To define the purpose of the FA as being different than the SA is wrong, because the purpose of the SA has been defined by the anti's as the exact same thing, and that is to commit violence (which is what you are proposing with :

Most people Im sure would be responsible, jsut like most gun owners are. But instead of a guy walking into a school and shooting shotguns at ppl, now you start to get into people bringing machine guns to shcools and killing dozens and dozens if not hundreds of people.
Click to expand...
.

So please explain how the same purpose cannot be attributed to a bolt action or pump gun ???? For us a gun is a gun is a gun with a noble purpose, for an anti a gun is a gun is a gun for a bad purpose..... see a pattern?!?!
 
cpynch said:
Should a flamethrower be illegal? Grenade Launchers? Nuclear Weapons? At what point is it too much destructive power? I just want to know where the line should be drawn, I think they did a pretty good job at stopping at FA weapons.... I don't agree with other things the gov has done, as I said with black\green rifles....

This isn't for the sake of trolling, I didn't think I'd piss so many people off saying I agree with no FA weapons lol

In some states in the USA you can apply for class II weapons you just need to submit fingerprints and such, what's wrong with that? You want crazy firepower, be responsible for it. Don't just hand out FA weapons to the public. lol
Click to expand...

what you fail to grasp is that any argument that can be made to eliminate full auto, would also apply to all other types of guns.
 
cpynch said:
Should a flamethrower be illegal? Grenade Launchers? Nuclear Weapons? At what point is it too much destructive power? I just want to know where the line should be drawn, I think they did a pretty good job at stopping at FA weapons.... I don't agree with other things the gov has done, as I said with black\green rifles....

This isn't for the sake of trolling, I didn't think I'd piss so many people off saying I agree with no FA weapons lol

In some states in the USA you can apply for class II weapons you just need to submit fingerprints and such, what's wrong with that? You want crazy firepower, be responsible for it. Don't just hand out FA weapons to the public. lol
Click to expand...

Unf'ingbelieveable... he sounds just like Michael Moore.
I'll save us all some time, click below to make him go away! ;)
Are you sure you want to add cpynch to your ignore list?
 
furet said:
For us a gun is a gun is a gun with a noble purpose, for an anti a gun is a gun is a gun for a bad purpose..... see a pattern?!?!
Click to expand...

I'm not anti gun whatsoever... I was shooting before I could ride a bike.

Then answer this question, where should the line be drawn at legal firearms to own? Should anyone be allowed to own any firearm regardless of shape, size, or intended purpose of the gun? What defines a firearm? Should there be regulations on ammo? Please answer, and try to be respectful. I was trying to have a legitimate convo on this topic, but some people get awfully offensive quickly.
 
cpynch said:
I'm not anti gun whatsoever... I was shooting before I could ride a bike.

Then answer this question, where should the line be drawn at legal firearms to own? Should anyone be allowed to own any firearm regardless of shape, size, or intended purpose of the gun? What defines a firearm? Should there be regulations on ammo? Please answer, and try to be respectful. I was trying to have a legitimate convo on this topic, but some people get awfully offensive quickly.
Click to expand...

Plenty of Americans have howitzers and tanks in their backyards. Yet I fail to recall anybody raining artillery down on anybody else. If your not a criminal there should be no limitations. The only limitations should be laws that limit the government not the people.
 
cpynch said:
I'm not anti gun whatsoever... I was shooting before I could ride a bike.

Then answer this question, where should the line be drawn at legal firearms to own? Should anyone be allowed to own any firearm regardless of shape, size, or intended purpose of the gun? What defines a firearm? Should there be regulations on ammo? Please answer, and try to be respectful. I was trying to have a legitimate convo on this topic, but some people get awfully offensive quickly.
Click to expand...

i see and understand you point completely whether or not i agree or disagree at some point a line must be drawn and where exactly that point is can become a interesting legal debate. Personaly i dont see myself owning a FA weapon if they were allowed (well until i win the lottery:D). but i agree a different classification and licencing system would be needed.
 
USP said:
Plenty of Americans have howitzers and tanks in their backyards. Yet I fail to recall anybody raining artillery down on anybody else. If your not a criminal there should be no limitations. The only limitations should be laws that limit the government not the people.
Click to expand...

I bet there's never been a single report of anyone firing a civilian tank because the ammo isn't available because of law. If the law wasn't there, don't you agree the chances of it happening are much greater?

Do you think that explosives like mortars and Carl Gustavs should be legal to use to law abiding citizens? If not, why? Why do you think the line should be drawn there and not somewhere else, if at all? Where does a weapon truly become a weapon and should be controlled?

I don't think a civilians should be allowed to have fighter jets with functioning missiles. Doesn't mean I think that if they were legal people would be blowing stuff up everyday, but it could happen a lot easier if it was legal.

Anyways, I've pissed enough people off and haven't gotten but 1-2 decent answers, other than "You're a FUDD" .... wow dude. awesome.
 
cpynch said:
I bet there's never been a single report of anyone firing a civilian tank because the ammo isn't available because of law. If the law wasn't there, don't you agree the chances of it happening are much greater?

Do you think that explosives like mortars and Carl Gustavs should be legal to use to law abiding citizens? If not, why? Why do you think the line should be drawn there and not somewhere else, if at all? Where does a weapon truly become a weapon and should be controlled?

I don't think a civilians should be allowed to have fighter jets with functioning missiles. Doesn't mean I think that if they were legal people would be blowing stuff up everyday, but it could happen a lot easier if it was legal.

Anyways, I've pissed enough people off and haven't gotten but 1-2 decent answers, other than "You're a FUDD" .... wow dude. awesome.
Click to expand...

you would be wrong, the ammo is available.
 
USP said:
you would be wrong, the ammo is available.
Click to expand...

Show me proof. What store can you walk into and say "Hey do you have any tank shells? Oh you do? But they only come in olive drab... hmmm I was looking for somthing in Khaki."

Tank rounds are not readily available commercial rounds. Neither are Howitzer rounds.
 
cpynch said:
Show me proof. What store can you walk into and say "Hey do you have any tank shells? Oh you do? But they only come in olive drab... hmmm I was looking for somthing in Khaki."

Tank rounds are not readily available commercial rounds. Neither are Howitzer rounds.
Click to expand...

In the US you can buy these with the proper paperwork. Some only require the $200 DD tax stamp. The only limitation generally is that if its explosives some states require you to own a specialty munitions bunker that meets certain requirements.
 
Paul Morrison said:
That said, the RCMP's loss on the variant issue before the Ontario High Court of Justice will likely aid the importation of these and other similar firearms that only look, cosmetically, like restricted or prohibited firearms.
Click to expand...


Hey Paul.......I almost missed this. Can you elaborate? I've not had an opportunity to do any searches on the issue. Sounds like a couple of cracks in the RCMP's flawed strategy are evident.
 
cpynch said:
I'm not anti gun whatsoever... I was shooting before I could ride a bike.

Then answer this question, where should the line be drawn at legal firearms to own? Should anyone be allowed to own any firearm regardless of shape, size, or intended purpose of the gun? What defines a firearm? Should there be regulations on ammo? Please answer, and try to be respectful. I was trying to have a legitimate convo on this topic, but some people get awfully offensive quickly.
Click to expand...

As noted, were to draw the line is a debate of proportion, the simple answer is as USP pointed out, why draw a line when there is no purpose for a line. The issue with your opinion is that why stop at FA, since for an anti a BB gun is a weapon of mass destruction. Now, I am not saying your an anti, but your attitude is of the same nature, you may have pushed your line as far back as an SA is ok but the FA is not whereas the anti has his line at "no guns period".... again see a pattern. Why is your definition of where the line lies more credible than the anti's??? To draw a line, any line is of the same attitude that drives anti's.

The line is being drawn for no REAL reason, just as your comment about FA's being hungry for children. If a ####tard want's to commit attrocities he/she does not have to wait for legal FA's, they will use whatever NOW.
Your opinion of FA seems to be based on a perception of problems versus actual problems and that is a problem (why ?? refer back to earlier in this post)

As far as
but some people get awfully offensive quickly
Click to expand...
, I wouldn't call a decade of dealing with crappy laws that draws lines and dictates what is acceptable based on perception of problems being "offensive quickly"... Aug 2009 is your sign in date, stick around and join in on the insult of decent people perprotrated by our better than thow hoplaphobs (however that's spelled) then tell us again about our sensitive nature.:rolleyes:
 
cpynch said:
I bet there's never been a single report of anyone firing a civilian tank because the ammo isn't available because of law. If the law wasn't there, don't you agree the chances of it happening are much greater?

Do you think that explosives like mortars and Carl Gustavs should be legal to use to law abiding citizens? If not, why? Why do you think the line should be drawn there and not somewhere else, if at all? Where does a weapon truly become a weapon and should be controlled?

I don't think a civilians should be allowed to have fighter jets with functioning missiles. Doesn't mean I think that if they were legal people would be blowing stuff up everyday, but it could happen a lot easier if it was legal.

Anyways, I've pissed enough people off and haven't gotten but 1-2 decent answers, other than "You're a FUDD" .... wow dude. awesome.
Click to expand...

As a millwright I am also called to do some machining and metal fabrication work from time to time. If you get a tank I bet you dollars to doughnuts I and many other people on this forum could fire it. With knowledge of reloading and a little research on the internet I could probably make an old school mortar. Am I going to? Probably not.

I also believe that there may be a time citizens will have to form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government. Look at every civilization in history as an example of when this could, or should I say will happen. The first step of communism is a disarmed populace who cannot say $hit about what is happening. I do not have the tinfoil on to tight because this may not even happen in my or my children’s life time. But I do believe if we remain on this road it will eventually lead there.

People who have the means to defend themselves if the time arises will thwart most problems before they happen. I cannot recall his name but look at the Japanese General from WW2. When asked why he did not try and invade US soil his response was because there is a rifle behind every blade of grass. It was not the military he feared it was the will and the capability of the people. Armed people bring checks and balances to government and have the will and ability to protect their freedom and most of all their lives.
 
USP said:
In the US you can buy these with the proper paperwork. Some only require the $200 DD tax stamp. The only limitation generally is that if its explosives some states require you to own a specialty munitions bunker that meets certain requirements.
Click to expand...

Wow, I sure can't find any reference to what you're saying. And I'm Canadian anyways. I'm not overly concerned with gun laws in the USA, although I wish ours were a bit closer to yours in some ways, especially with hunting with black rifles.

You've completely missed my point, and I'm going to stop there because I can clearly see you feel you have the right to own any form of destructive device that you deem fun regardless of what might happen to other people, e.g. tanks, and howitzers, etc.... it's ridiculous to even discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom