To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?

[BigNasty]

nightshart look at it this way in your gun free utopia.
Your government bans guns... increased knife crime, home invasion, machette crime and sexual assault on women ending with genital mutilation from scissors.
Natural disaster hits, food supply disrupted.

Without a firearm you now have two choices. Hide and cower in place like a rabbit awaiting slaughter and starvation.
Gun grabbers and gun laws are population control one step from hearding the bleating sheep onto a train to take them to a camp to gas them.

 

[f1r3b1rd]

nightshart look at it this way in your gun free utopia.
Your government bans guns... increased knife crime, home invasion, machette crime and sexual assault on women ending with genital mutilation from scissors.
Natural disaster hits, food supply disrupted.

Without a firearm you now have two choices. Hide and cower in place like a rabbit awaiting slaughter and starvation.
Gun grabbers and gun laws are population control one step from hearding the bleating sheep onto a train to take them to a camp to gas them.

On that note the second amendment is why Japan never attacked the mainland.
It's original intent was that we the citizens have a DUTY to be armed and rise and protect the republic against tyrants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BigNasty]

I agree completely that guns are not the problem, people are the problem. Without people who wish to do harm, we can all each have a nuke in our backyard for shits and giggles, but that's not going to work now is it? There will always be those that wish us harm whether foreign or domestic and the tragedy is that there will always be those who suffer as a result. If we can't prevent these incidents, we can try to minimize the damage caused.

"FYI, I'm a 60 year old American man who has had firearms in the house since the day I was born. My father as his father before him owned firearms and none of them ever harmed an innocent. I've owned or had access to firearms all my life and began shooting at the tender young age of 6 and I've never harmed an individual with one nor have they decided to go off on their own and harm anyone either.

They have however put food in my freezer and on more than one occasion directly protected my person and my family from others intent on causing harm to us."

Congratulations, you are an outstanding human being that should own a firearm. I wish there were more of those like you in the world. This is meant with all sincerity and honesty. I am not against guns in general. I am against weapons designed for the sole intent to do massive damage both quantitative and qualitatively.

If you don't mind, can you let me know if

-This weapon that you have used to hunt and protect yourself with is a high powered assault rifle with high capacity magazine?
-The person that you protected yourself from, were they armed as well and what were they armed with?
-If this person that you protected yourself from was armed, was it a high powered assault rifle with high capacity magazine?
-If not, what would have been the result if this person that you protected yourself from was armed with a high powered assault rifle with high capacity magazine?

Wow and you should leave this country post haste since you are to god damned stupid to function without government control.
You do not even know what an assault rifle is, you are just parroting the antz.

Sorry you cannot be part antz. Just like you can not be part retarded.
The same goon crew that are pushing for gun grabbing and abolishing the 2nd are the same goon crew that are restricting your freedoms.

Die on your feet or serve on your knees.

 

[BigNasty]

Point taken, but there are countries were you can have whatever guns/tanks/laser guided blow'em up things you want as well... soooo ditto?

Nope I took my oath and served so the retarded have a say.

When that bad guy kicks in your door, rapes and slaughters your family in front of you while you wait for the cops just remember you had a hand in it the causality of it happening.

 

[Deedalicious]

Need has nothing to do with it, Dickweedalicious. My counter argument is not defense or hunting. My counter argument is that there is no reason to punish or limit a lawful person for the actions of an unlawful person. In other words, I don't believe you should be restricted from weed because of what others have done while under the influence. So likewise, to restrict lawful gun owners because of what an unlawful person has done or will do is an unjust punishment of the lawful person. Again, NEED has nothing to do with it.

If anybody suggests that I may not have something because of what somebody else did, they can fuck off. I will not be punished for what another person has done. I will not be restricted for what another person has done.

But you already are living under all sorts of restrictions... this is the caveat of being in a society. I mean unless you don't have drive the speed limit, obey traffic lights... wear pants... I don't know... but we all can't do "everything" we want considering the potential harm it may do to others. This is not new... The restrictions are in place in attempts to minimize damage from those who were irresponsible and unlawful and this is weighed against the benefits it may bring to the society as a whole. That is why the speed limit is 65 and not 165... nor is it 40 on the freeways. The greater the RISK of something, the higher the NEED has to be in order to justify it's status in our society. Nuclear power plants have high potential risk, but the need for additional sustainable energy out weighed the risk (by opinion of some) so we have them. The RISK of full auto highcap assault rifles is substantial, of course in the WRONG hands, not saying yours. So what is the NEED for this in our society?

 

[Time]

If we can't prevent these incidents, we can try to minimize the damage caused.

By taking something away from everyone else.

No, your argument is ridiculous on it's face. The damage is already minimized by prosecuting those that commit such acts, or their death, which ever comes first. Prosecuting those that have not committed such an act, de facto, by removing their right, their property, is by it's very nature tyrannical.

 

[pulsevape]

But you already are living under all sorts of restrictions... this is the caveat of being in a society. I mean unless you don't have drive the speed limit, obey traffic lights... wear pants... I don't know... but we all can't do "everything" we want considering the potential harm it may do to others. This is not new... The restrictions are in place in attempts to minimize damage from those who were irresponsible and unlawful and this is weighed against the benefits it may bring to the society as a whole. That is why the speed limit is 65 and not 165... nor is it 40 on the freeways. The greater the RISK of something, the higher the NEED has to be in order to justify it's status in our society. Nuclear power plants have high potential risk, but the need for additional sustainable energy out weighed the risk (by opinion of some) so we have them. The RISK of full auto highcap assault rifles is substantial, of course in the WRONG hands, not saying yours. So what is the NEED for this in our society?

Love it...you built a nice little house of cards...you just forgot one little detail...numbnut totalitarian dickheads have a caveat for living in this society..it's called the consittution which gives us the right to bear arms....because the founders after reading history and observing the real world dicided there was a NEED for a free people to be armed...

 

[Time]

But you already are living under all sorts of restrictions... this is the caveat of being in a society. I mean unless you don't have drive the speed limit, obey traffic lights... wear pants... I don't know... but we all can't do "everything" we want considering the potential harm it may do to others. This is not new... The restrictions are in place in attempts to minimize damage from those who were irresponsible and unlawful and this is weighed against the benefits it may bring to the society as a whole. That is why the speed limit is 65 and not 165... nor is it 40 on the freeways. The greater the RISK of something, the higher the NEED has to be in order to justify it's status in our society. Nuclear power plants have high potential risk, but the need for additional sustainable energy out weighed the risk (by opinion of some) so we have them. The RISK of full auto highcap assault rifles is substantial, of course in the WRONG hands, not saying yours. So what is the NEED for this in our society?

Bullshit. That we already have restrictions so more restrictions are okay is a fallacy argument. The same argument can be made for absolutely anything.

And, I already addressed need. What is the need for vaping? There is none. Need is another ridiculous argument. It's a non starter.

 

[Deedalicious]

Nope I took my oath and served so the retarded have a say.

When that bad guy kicks in your door, rapes and slaughters your family in front of you while you wait for the cops just remember you had a hand in it the causality of it happening.

Thank you for your service. I am honoring your commitment to the rights of citizens by voicing my opinion.

I don't see how not owning a weapon that can effectively kill and/or maim a large amount of people in a short amount of time = my family being raped and slaughtered.. is there a list of people that don't own assault rifles floating around for criminals that I'm unaware of? Are you on the subscription this? I'd buy an assault rifle just to get off the list. Does it also provide ammo count? Possibly ranked by number of guns?

 

[nightshard]

Guns are not the problem. How many ways can this be stated?

Obviously you will never agree with this idea and I don't know why you come into this discussion thinking that you can convince any of us that you are correct. We have our ways and they have been steeped in long standing tradition and you won't change us or our opinions on this matter.

I'm just going to have to assume you came into this conversation just to start an argument and therefore you sir are a useless troll and have now been added to my ignore list.

FYI, I'm a 60 year old American man who has had firearms in the house since the day I was born. My father as his father before him owned firearms and none of them ever harmed an innocent. I've owned or had access to firearms all my life and began shooting at the tender young age of 6 and I've never harmed an individual with one nor have they decided to go off on their own and harm anyone either.

They have however put food in my freezer and on more than one occasion directly protected my person and my family from others intent on causing harm to us.

So...fuck off.

I responded to this tread stating my thoughts and will keep doing so.

I bet you're for freedom of speech too (just as long as the one speaking has the exact same views on everything as you).

This is a discussion and not an argument and I am not a troll even though I have different views then you.

The fact that I am now on your ignore list is just fine by me.

As far as I know this is a vaping forum and not the NRA forum.

So why don't you fuck off.

 

[SgtRock]

12 ga pump shotgun was used to chase away two "gang bangers" with pistols who were about to attack me. Yes it's cliche but a rack of a 12 gauge WILL chase away most of those with evil intent..and according to EU and AUS among others, the big bad pump shotgun is in the same category falsely referred to as assault weapons by the lamestream media because they think it is just too nasty for public ownership.

And yes..if they had "high capacity magazine" loaded rifles they would have either died or left the scene voluntarily. Some who have seen me shoot might say I'm pretty bad ass with a pump shotty. It's pretty damn amazing how fast you can cycle rounds and shoot accurately with a pump shotgun after hunting with one for MANY years and shooting in excess of ten thousand rounds through them over the years.

I keep a standard capacity magazine loaded into a black rifle right here in my office in case I need it. You don't like it? Too fucking bad.

@Weedalicious You also have been added to my ignore list as I have no time for idiots.

 

[pulsevape]

Thank you for your service. I am honoring your commitment to the rights of citizens by voicing my opinion.

I don't see how not owning a weapon that can effectively kill and/or maim a large amount of people in a short amount of time = my family being raped and slaughtered.. is there a list of people that don't own assault rifles floating around for criminals that I'm unaware of? Are you on the subscription this? I'd buy an assault rifle just to get off the list. Does it also provide ammo count? Possibly ranked by number of guns?

the guy who shot all those people in the theatre in colorado he had to drive past several theatres from his house to get to the theatre where he committed his shooting why,,,why did he drive past those theatres?...because the theatre he went to had a posted policiy of not allowing guns in their theatres...most mass shootings happen in places that have a well known no gun policiy...so yes criminals know where the unarmed sheep graze.

 

[Deedalicious]

Bullshit. That we already have restrictions so more restrictions are okay is a fallacy argument. The same argument can be made for absolutely anything.

And, I already addressed need. What is the need for vaping? There is none. Need is another ridiculous argument. It's a non starter.

The need for vaping is from cigarette cessation, at least for those of us that smoked in the past (maybe still a bit now). The risk is blowing my face up if I'm stupid with batteries etc. See... I blow MY face up by being stupid... not blow your face up or those within 100 yards depends on the number of batteries my device can hold... I have a highcap mod... so low risk. Even if the need is not substantial, the low risk justifies it's place in our society and our right to own.

New things = new potential risk = new restrictions

The guns available during the signing of the 2nd amendment is not the same as the weapons we are talking about today. I argue that the language of the 2nd amendment would be different otherwise.

 

[Arthur]

@nightshard your not even american so really your thoughts on this dont matter .they have nothing to do with your rights . You wont even disclose what country your from so you sir can fuck off !

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Deedalicious]

12 ga pump shotgun was used to chase away two "gang bangers" with pistols who were about to attack me. Yes it's cliche but a rack of a 12 gauge WILL chase away most of those with evil intent..and according to EU and AUS among others, the big bad pump shotgun is in the same category falsely referred to as assault weapons by the lamestream media because they think it is just too nasty for public ownership.

And yes..if they had "high capacity magazine" loaded rifles they would have either died or left the scene voluntarily. Some who have seen me shoot might say I'm pretty bad ass with a pump shotty. It's pretty damn amazing how fast you can cycle rounds and shoot accurately with a pump shotgun after hunting with one for MANY years and shooting in excess of ten thousand rounds through them over the years.

I keep a standard capacity magazine loaded into a black rifle right here in my office in case I need it. You don't like it? Too fucking bad.

@Weedalicious You also have been added to my ignore list as I have no time for idiots.

The 12 ga pump shotgun should not be an assault rifle. Thank you for the clarification. I don't have a problem with you or your choice of arsenal. Please don't think otherwise. It's not the color of the gun that poses an issue = )

 

[pulsevape]

The need for vaping is from cigarette cessation, at least for those of us that smoked in the past (maybe still a bit now). The risk is blowing my face up if I'm stupid with batteries etc. See... I blow MY face up by being stupid... not blow your face up or those within 100 yards depends on the number of batteries my device can hold... I have a highcap mod... so low risk. Even if the need is not substantial, the low risk justifies it's place in our society and our right to own.

New things = new potential risk = new restrictions

The guns available during the signing of the 2nd amendment is not the same as the weapons we are talking about today. I argue that the language of the 2nd amendment would be different otherwise.

Bullshit..there are many other alternative smoking cessation therapies with less health risks than vaping....you don't need to vape.
The guns gaurnteed by the founders of the constitution at the time of it's writing were the most advanced weapons available

 

[Time]

The guns available during the signing of the 2nd amendment is not the same as the weapons we are talking about today. I argue that the language of the 2nd amendment would be different otherwise.

The guns available during the signing of the 2nd amendment were the same guns available to the military and vise versa. There was no distinction and that was intentional. The Founding Fathers understood that the people must be able to defend themselves from the military lest the military/government turn against the people.

You have more homework to do. The liberal taking points leave allot out.

The 2nd does not say, "The right to bear hunting rifles". Arms are arms. Military weapons are arms.

 

[BigNasty]

Thank you for your service. I am honoring your commitment to the rights of citizens by voicing my opinion.

I don't see how not owning a weapon that can effectively kill and/or maim a large amount of people in a short amount of time = my family being raped and slaughtered.. is there a list of people that don't own assault rifles floating around for criminals that I'm unaware of? Are you on the subscription this? I'd buy an assault rifle just to get off the list. Does it also provide ammo count? Possibly ranked by number of guns?

I could give two slimy shits less on your opinion about my service, at least I took an oath and live by it. All you have shown is you are a domestic enemy, a stupid one at that.. and will be treated as such.

STOP fucking parroting the lunacy of assault rifle bullshit.
Seriously look up what the fuck an assault rifle is... and that is NOT what is out there...Just because it is military style does NOT make it an assault rifle.
But with your flawed pant wetting fears you would tell someone else to take the fire arms while you cower in place.

The slaughter example is when the cops take 15 minutes to respond how are you going to defend yourself...

Now lets take China in 2014 for example, gun bans but they have mass stabbings.. look at how fast that group of fuckers killed and maimed in short order in Kunming. 33 dead 130 injured in less time that it would take to reload. In 2010 a single dude rampaged in a school killing and slashing 30 children.
If you want gun free and how it will look like check North Korea.

 

[Deedalicious]

Bullshit..there are many other alternative smoking cessation therapies with less health risks than vaping....you don't need to vape.
The guns gaurnteed by the founders of the constitution at the time of it's writing were the most advanced weapons available

I think if you're going to start a "vaping is not the most effective smoking cessation option" argument, you're going to stir up a bigger hornets nest than I did with guns in a vape forum... Also, even IF vaping is not THE MOST effective smoking cessation option, the low need still out weighs the even lower risk... so it's a go

Yes... the guns guaranteed by the founders were the most advanced weapons available. How would you compare it with weapons today by terms of Power, Capacity, Accuracy, and Distance? I don't propose to know the intentions of the founders, but it may be something they would pose a second though if they knew.

 

[Time]

I don't propose to know the intentions of the founders, but it may be something they would pose a second though if they knew.

Their intent was quite clear. You can read all about it. Go read what they wrote. Remember, they had just fought a war against their own government.

 

[pulsevape]

The need for vaping is from cigarette cessation, at least for those of us that smoked in the past (maybe still a bit now). The risk is blowing my face up if I'm stupid with batteries etc. See... I blow MY face up by being stupid... not blow your face up or those within 100 yards depends on the number of batteries my device can hold... I have a highcap mod... so low risk. Even if the need is not substantial, the low risk justifies it's place in our society and our right to own.

New things = new potential risk = new restrictions

The guns available during the signing of the 2nd amendment is not the same as the weapons we are talking about today. I argue that the language of the 2nd amendment would be different otherwise.

Dude this is getting tedious, the arguments you present have been refuted time and time gin there is nothing new here, and there is alot of dishonesty about the whole thing...you want guns banned on a more visceral level and for a diffrent reason than you will confess to.People are dying like flies over preventable things daily..obesity,heart attacks,alcoholisim,diabeties...ect...
You are a totalitarian you believe that an evasive dominating goverment is safe and will protect you from all the bad shit in the world. you find freedom a scary proposition fraught with all kinds or deadly possibilities...and you are right freedom is a risky bussiness it allows for choice and sometimes people make bad choices. But human beings can only find true enlightenment in freedom, they can only evolve in freedom...every totalitarian murder from Hitler to Mao all promised an enlightened, poverty free,crime free,war free,peacefull world.....they all delivered mass graves and nothing more. Those who would sacrfice their freedom for security loss both.

 

[HondaDavidson]

Saying guns don't kill people is like saying rat poison doesn't kill people swallowing it does so why don't we spill it all over our streets.
But what about the stupid people/kids/animals that will decide it's a good idea to taste it?
That's why when they use rat poison they inform the population and put up signs, in order to minimize the unnecessary risk.

If I eat rat poison o kill myself. The rat poison is only the method I used.

Consuming a gun will only give you a stomach ache.

If a child accidently is harmed by either. Tha fault lies with the adult person that allowed them access. The gun and poison are still faultless.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[pcrdude]

I've had guns since I was pre-teen. I was taught to shoot safely, and accurately. Mostly, I shoot a bolt action 22 LR with open sights, because it's more challenging. A 22 semi-auto with a scope is too easy. Of course, an SKS is still fun, but it's expensive to shoot. It is referred to as an "assault rifle" by those who want to take it from me, not the more accurate semi-automatic rifle, because other than style, that's all it is.

Pistol shooting is also fun. A 38 special revolver (double action) is particularly fun, and not too expensive to target practice with.

I am highly accurate and safe every time I touch a firearm.

Why is it wrong for me to have them? Forget the notion of "take all guns away". They are out there, and the criminals have them. Removing them from law abiding citizens will only endanger them and their families.

 

[Deedalicious]

The guns available during the signing of the 2nd amendment were the same guns available to the military and vise versa. There was no distinction and that was intentional. The Founding Fathers understood that the people must be able to defend themselves from the military lest the military/government turn against the people.

You have more homework to do. The liberal taking points leave allot out.

The 2nd does not say, "The right to bear hunting rifles". Arms are arms. Military weapons are arms.

True, but "The most advanced weapon at that time would probably have been either the Kentucky long rifle, capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards, or the 6-pound field gun, which could fire a variety of projectiles 1500 yards, usually one shot every two minutes" * quoted from the internet so it must be true = )

Anyone can have as many of those as they like and open carry the fuck out of it.

vs AR15 w/100rd drum mag emptied in less than a minute ...

 

[pulsevape]

I think if you're going to start a "vaping is not the most effective smoking cessation option" argument, you're going to stir up a bigger hornets nest than I did with guns in a vape forum... Also, even IF vaping is not THE MOST effective smoking cessation option, the low need still out weighs the even lower risk... so it's a go

Yes... the guns guaranteed by the founders were the most advanced weapons available. How would you compare it with weapons today by terms of Power, Capacity, Accuracy, and Distance? I don't propose to know the intentions of the founders, but it may be something they would pose a second though if they knew.

you think you should have the freedom to make the choice to vape....all the stuff you're saying are YOUR opinions they are not close to being facts..you are being dishonest you want the freedom to vape ,because you WANT the freedom to vape not because you NEED the freedom to vape be honest.

 

[pulsevape]

True, but "The most advanced weapon at that time would probably have been either the Kentucky long rifle, capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards, or the 6-pound field gun, which could fire a variety of projectiles 1500 yards, usually one shot every two minutes" * quoted from the internet so it must be true = )

Anyone can have as many of those as they like and open carry the fuck out of it.

vs AR15 w/100rd drum mag emptied in less than a minute ...

you could also buy as many cannons as you wanted. a canon filled with shot is pretty devestating.

 

[Time]

I think if you're going to start a "vaping is not the most effective smoking cessation option" argument, you're going to stir up a bigger hornets nest than I did with guns in a vape forum... Also, even IF vaping is not THE MOST effective smoking cessation option, the low need still out weighs the even lower risk... so it's a go

I'll let you in on an open secret on risk. Molon labe. There is also great risk at attempting to take firearms. I think you'll find more people die in an attempt to rid the country of guns. Are you going to be the one that tries to come and get them?

 

[Deedalicious]

I've had guns since I was pre-teen. I was taught to shoot safely, and accurately. Mostly, I shoot a bolt action 22 LR with open sights, because it's more challenging. A 22 semi-auto with a scope is too easy. Of course, an SKS is still fun, but it's expensive to shoot. It is referred to as an "assault rifle" by those who want to take it from me, not the more accurate semi-automatic rifle, because other than style, that's all it is.

Pistol shooting is also fun. A 38 special revolver (double action) is particularly fun, and not too expensive to target practice with.

I am highly accurate and safe every time I touch a firearm.

Why is it wrong for me to have them? Forget the notion of "take all guns away". They are out there, and the criminals have them. Removing them from law abiding citizens will only endanger them and their families.

Congratulations. You are also a responsible person with proper gun knowledge, skill and presumably sane. Nothing wrong with you having these firearms. I fully support you. I don't support taking ALL guns away. I like guns, even if it doesn't sound like it. It is when the scope of the weapon reaches far beyond reason that I am against. That is why the focus has only been the high capacity high powered assault rifles. I cannot, within reason, identify the need for having a weapon of this scope and capability. I can be convinced otherwise.

 

[Deedalicious]

you could also buy as many cannons as you wanted. a canon filled with shot is pretty devestating.

Yes, but not very mobile... so unless you can convince people to stand in front of it... I'm still more afraid of the high powered high capacity assault rifles.

 

[Time]

True, but "The most advanced weapon at that time would probably have been either the Kentucky long rifle, capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards, or the 6-pound field gun, which could fire a variety of projectiles 1500 yards, usually one shot every two minutes" * quoted from the internet so it must be true = )

Anyone can have as many of those as they like and open carry the fuck out of it.

vs AR15 w/100rd drum mag emptied in less than a minute ...

So what. The Civil War, America's bloodiest conflict, cost nearly 1,100,000 casualties and claimed more than 620,000 lives.

I'd say those guns were highly effective.

 

[BigNasty]

True, but "The most advanced weapon at that time would probably have been either the Kentucky long rifle, capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards, or the 6-pound field gun, which could fire a variety of projectiles 1500 yards, usually one shot every two minutes" * quoted from the internet so it must be true = )

Anyone can have as many of those as they like and open carry the fuck out of it.

vs AR15 w/100rd drum mag emptied in less than a minute ...

Your stupidity is showing again and parroting is showing again.

Stop being a commy antz and actually do some research and just see how fucking wrong you are.
Air rifles and repeating rifles were in use, rare but in use.

 

[pulsevape]

Yes, but not very mobile... so unless you can convince people to stand in front of it... I'm still more afraid of the high powered high capacity assault rifles.

your arguments are really quite ridiculous and at this point you're trolling...

 

[Deedalicious]

I'll let you in on an open secret on risk. Molon labe. There is also great risk at attempting to take firearms. I think you'll find more people die in an attempt to rid the country of guns. Are you going to be the one that tries to come and get them?

I had to look up Molon labe. I like it (place in back pocket for future use). See... now the language becomes hostile and threatening while you own the weapons in question. This doesn't bold well for an intellectual argument... No, I will not come and take them. I am afraid of being shot. I don't propose to have anyone come take them from you either. I am making an argument in attempt to convince you that not all the arsenal amassed are necessary and may do more harm than good. If you are convinced, then perhaps a standard mag instead of 100rd drum next time. That is all.

 

[Time]

I cannot, within reason, identify the need for having a weapon of this scope and capability. I can be convinced otherwise.

You don't need to identify the need. Need is moot. Your need is not the same as another's need. You don't get to decide what another person needs. It's none of your fucking business.

 

[Arthur]

Trump has wraped up the nomination. Hillary still has problems with Bernie and her emails . Let the debates begin !

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[HondaDavidson]

True, but "The most advanced weapon at that time would probably have been either the Kentucky long rifle, capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards, or the 6-pound field gun, which could fire a variety of projectiles 1500 yards, usually one shot every two minutes" * quoted from the internet so it must be true = )

Anyone can have as many of those as they like and open carry the fuck out of it.

vs AR15 w/100rd drum mag emptied in less than a minute ...

True. But with out having access to the most advanced weapons of the day. We would still be british..... the purpose of the 2nd amendment us to assure the ability to repeat the process if required.







Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Deedalicious]

Your stupidity is showing again and parroting is showing again.

Stop being a commy antz and actually do some research and just see how fucking wrong you are.
Air rifles and repeating rifles were in use, rare but in use.

Sqawk! I sad I quoted from the internet. Not a history buff by any means. Please enlighten me. What were the capabilities of these air rifles and repeating rifles of that time? How does it compare with the AR15 example listed? Is it 1/10th? 1/100th of the capability at 2x maybe 3x the weight? I don't know commy antz. Will look that up... I see Antz the movie... probably not what you meant. Please let me know where I can get more information so I can see if I do identify with the group.

 

[Time]

See... now the language becomes hostile and threatening while you own the weapons in question.

No. There is nothing hostile or threatening in that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless someone comes to take them. The hostility starts if force is used to take something. Saying the person that defends his.her property is the hostile person is disingenuous.

 

[BigNasty]

Sqawk! I sad I quoted from the internet. Not a history buff by any means. Please enlighten me. What were the capabilities of these air rifles and repeating rifles of that time? How does it compare with the AR15 example listed? Is it 1/10th? 1/100th of the capability at 2x maybe 3x the weight? I don't know commy antz. Will look that up... I see Antz the movie... probably not what you meant. Please let me know where I can get more information so I can see if I do identify with the group.

Consider your position as this... the current FDA regs.
It is ok to vape but you must and can only have 510 atties that look like cigs with 200 mah batteries and pg juice (black powder)

But your post 2007 mod and tank and juice is banned. (ar15)

As far as giving you links, nah you must do your own research.

 

[pulsevape]

I had to look up Molon labe. I like it (place in back pocket for future use). See... now the language becomes hostile and threatening while you own the weapons in question. This doesn't bold well for an intellectual argument... No, I will not come and take them. I am afraid of being shot. I don't propose to have anyone come take them from you either. I am making an argument in attempt to convince you that not all the arsenal amassed are necessary and may do more harm than good. If you are convinced, then perhaps a standard mag instead of 100rd drum next time. That is all.

If you looked up the expression then you may have read , that the Spartans were the most effective heavy infantry in the world they were the best fighting force in the world at the time...there young men had access to weapons from about the age of 7....they were the most highly trined warriors in the world....and yet they did not have mass killings, murder was rare, and they weren't a particularly imperialistic or expansiotist group.The most revered part of their armory was not the sword or the spear but the shield, which was the most highly valued piece of equipment they owned and passed down from genertion to generation
The thing that Spartans bragged about the most wasn't how many people they killed, how many towns they sacked, how many people they had conquered...their greatest boast was.....The women of sparta had never seen even the smoke of an enemies fires.....that was why they trained to be the greatest warriors in the world to protect their homeland....Woe the Vanquished.
Gun owners own guns not to go on shooting sprees but to protect their homes and freedom.

 

[Deedalicious]

True. But with out having access to the most advanced weapons of the day. We would still be british..... the purpose of the 2nd amendment us to assure the ability to repeat the process if required.







Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Valid argument. Thank you for participating. I don't have a good counter arguments for that. If you were to prepare to take a stand against the US military, you would need these ridiculous weapons since our military is armed to the teeth. I will say with almost certainty that it's not going to go well if the process is repeated today regardless of the weapon at hand. But I will heed to your argument and create the "OK to amass ludicrous weapons in preparation of potentially having to stand against the US government if/when necessary and will only use them at such time" exemption in my proposal.

 

[BigNasty]

Valid argument. Thank you for participating. I don't have a good counter arguments for that. If you were to prepare to take a stand against the US military, you would need these ridiculous weapons since our military is armed to the teeth. I will say with almost certainty that it's not going to go well if the process is repeated today regardless of the weapon at hand. But I will heed to your argument and create the "OK to amass ludicrous weapons in preparation of potentially having to stand against the US government if/when necessary and will only use them at such time" exemption in my proposal.

Not just the government or governments.
Look at the mass riots, rapes and violence in Germany from the invasive horde that has crippled them recently...

 

[pulsevape]

If you looked up the expression then you may have read , that the Spartans were the most effective heavy infantry in the world they were the best fighting force in the world at the time...there young men had access to weapons from about the age of 7....they were the most highly trined warriors in the world....and yet they did not have mass killings, murder was rare, and they weren't a particularly imperialistic or expansiotist group.The most revered part of their armory was not the sword or the spear but the shield, which was the most highly valued piece of equipment they owned and passed down from genertion to generation
The thing that Spartans bragged about the most wasn't how many people they killed, how many towns they sacked, how many people they had conquered...their greatest boast was.....The women of sparta had never seen even the smoke of an enemies fires.....that was why they trained to be the greatest warriors in the world to protect their homeland....Woe the Vanquished.
Gun owners own guns not to go on shooting sprees but to protect their homes and freedom.The expression molon labe was a response given to a tyrannt who offered Sparta peace and prosperity, as long as thet would give up their freedom and kneel.

The expression Molon Labe was the response given to a tyrannt who offered Sparta peace, prosperity and power if they would only give up their freedom and kneel.

 

[Deedalicious]

Consider your position as this... the current FDA regs.
It is ok to vape but you must and can only have 510 atties that look like cigs with 200 mah batteries and pg juice (black powder)

But your post 2007 mod and tank and juice is banned. (ar15)

As far as giving you links, nah you must do your own research.

Valid argument, but I would contest that the damage done from irresponsible vaping would be personal, not public and massive. So if I wanted to vape from a fog machine and be able to fart a cloud, then that's my prerogative. Even if I have ill intentions, my damage would extend to excessive annoyance from clouding your view and forcing you to smell the sweet scent of RY4. Can't say the same for the high powered, high capacity weapons I am referring to.

Your move sir.

 

[BigNasty]

Valid argument, but I would contest that the damage done from irresponsible vaping would be personal, not public and massive. So if I wanted to vape from a fog machine and be able to fart a cloud, then that's my prerogative. Even if I have ill intentions, my damage would extend to excessive annoyance from clouding your view and forcing you to smell the sweet scent of RY4. Can't say the same for the high powered, high capacity weapons I am referring to.

Your move sir.

Your vape has harmed more than my fire arm.

 

[Deedalicious]

Not just the government or governments.
Look at the mass riots, rapes and violence in Germany from the invasive horde that has crippled them recently...

I think the Kentucky long rifle would suffice for Canada... no offence (actually maybe a little offensive but funny)

 

[Deedalicious]

Your vape has harmed more than my fire arm.

I will blow a cloud in your honor as restitution for harming your fire leg as well?

 

[BigNasty]

I think the Kentucky long rifle would suffice for Canada... no offence (actually maybe a little offensive but funny)

More uninformed stupid commentary.

 

[pulsevape]

Valid argument, but I would contest that the damage done from irresponsible vaping would be personal, not public and massive. So if I wanted to vape from a fog machine and be able to fart a cloud, then that's my prerogative. Even if I have ill intentions, my damage would extend to excessive annoyance from clouding your view and forcing you to smell the sweet scent of RY4. Can't say the same for the high powered, high capacity weapons I am referring to.

Your move sir.

not important...like you ...people don't have to be actually harmed by vaping they can ...like you just FEEL threatend by vaping...they see some guys battery explode on TV, they are afraid your battery will explode as they walk by and kill their kid, and so you are only allowed to have a 600mah ego battery.....that sound reasonable, after all you don't NEED the most advanced vape gear on the planet.

 

[BigNasty]

More pants pissing pussy ass irrational retardation and psychosis.
Perfect example of the pussification and feminizing of America.