Syco21

Anyone advocating for the Feinstein ban to pass is advocating for massive loss of life in America. No matter how you feel about armed rebellion, there WILL be one and whether it succeeds or fails, there will be a ton of blood shed.

A four year education requirement would be a violation of our rights. For one, it'd require registration and licensing. If the government can tell me when and how I am allowed to exercise a right, the that right becomes a privilege, not a right. I think that the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, Brady Bill and GFZs are unacceptable violations of my rights.

You did, you asked why give them guns if you can't trust them to collectively bargain. That makes it a trust issue. There is no hypocrisy, these are separate issues.

They're also not trying to get rid of teachers, they're just trying to limit their ability to demand higher wages, better hours and whatever else teachers demand.

MythBusters on explosive decompression MythBusters on explosive decompression again It wont be a good thing for sure, but it wont destroy the plane either. As for GFZ's being eliminated reducing the chances of someone going columbine: I don't know if it were lower those odds or not. But it will significantly increase the odds of one of the shooter's would be victims being armed and able to fight back. As for training requirements: I don't support them, not to buy a gun and not to carry. I do, however, support adding gun safety and handling classes to public schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-case-empty-police-car-shot-neighborhood-teen-killed-article-1.1059140 Wonder what'll happen when George Zimmerman is ultimately found not guilty by reason of justified homicide. :unsure: http://www.examiner.com/article/five-years-later-no-accountability-for-post-katrina-gun-grab http://occupykingstonca.ipage.com/occupywhig/2011/12/01/nypd-illegally-detained-around-100-ows-protesters-for-almost-three-hours-in-a-so-called-frozen-zone-outside-an-obama-fundraising-event/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/aurora-police-stop-handcu_n_1575009.html http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/ndaas_indefinite_detention_without_trial_returns/ http://www.salon.com/2010/01/27/yemen_3/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/31/obama-fisa/ Should I continue? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo I wont feel safe with more police, I'll feel more threatened. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4909076/las-vegas-metro-police-shoot-and-kill-handcuffed-teen http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8820624 http://www.examiner.com/article/chicago-police-shoot-and-kill-second-innocent-pet-dog-one-month http://12160.info/video/police-shoot-and-kill-unarmed-man-in-custody-on-the-ground http://www.chicagonow.com/steve-dales-pet-world/2012/12/shooting-dogs-a-police-epidemic-dog-is-killed-in-hazel-crest/ http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/man_fatally_shot_outside_bronx_bodega_34lCyvrg2IyzvA1HP913XI http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1#.UON2C3fK28w http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Lawyer-Cop-killed-innocent-man-take-3894199.php http://www.infowars.com/hostage-escapes-motel-standoff-gets-shot-killed-by-police/ http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oxnard-police-admit-killing-innocent-man-3965953.php http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=euC&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=police+shoot+and+kill+innocent&oq=police+shoot+and+kill+innocent&gs_l=serp.3...42866.51442.0.51675.15.13.2.0.0.0.226.1137.11j1j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.9kU_mNyECMo :unsure: It's not an issue of trust, trust has nothing to do with the anti-union ideologies.

But this is my point. Can you tell me what it takes to modify an AR-15 so that it will fire in full auto and do so reliably?

It is and they can't. Weapon 1 is an M14 and 3 is an upgraded M14(M14 EBR). They are battle rifles, designed for long distance engagements. Better known as sniper rifles. Both rifles have a gas operated, bolt rotating action. Not a direct impingement action, according to you, they can not be assault rifles. Weapon 2 is an M16, it is an assault rifle. Weapon 4 is an HK 416 civilian model. It is only capable of semi automatic fire. It is not an assault rifle and has the same action as weapons 1&3. Weapon 5 is a military variant of the HK 416, it is a select fire rifle capable of full auto and semi auto fire. It is an assault rifle. It has the same action as weapons 1, 3 & 4. Weapon 6 is an M1 Garand, it has the same action as weapons 1, 3, 4 & 5. It is not an assault rifle. Weapon 7 is a .50 Desert Eagle. It has the same gas operated, rotating bolt action as weapons 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. According to your earlier comments, this would make it an assault rifle. Clearly that is impossible. My point here is that you do not fully understand all the fine minutia of how firearms operate and what precisely makes a weapon an assault rifle. But again, there is nothing to get offended about! This is perfectly understandable. I myself do not really know too much about firearms.

Can You Answer My Other Question Now?

I Assure You, All Of ThosE Guns Are Precisely What They Appear To Be: Real Guns That Fire Real Bullets. As For your Questions: You need to Give Me A Damn Good Reason For Banning any Gun And So Far You Haven't. As For Need, Does Anyone Need A Car That will Travel Faster Than The Speed Limit?

Thank you for answering my question! I have just a few more, please humor me. Would you be so kind as to point out to me which of these weapons are assault rifles and which are not? http://imgur.com/a/YBhJx

I think you just did it again! Is the AR-15 an assault rifle or not?

So you're saying the M-16 is an assault rifle and that the AR-15 is also an assault rifle because they both use direct gas impingement systems?

There's also no conclusive proof that he wasn't a government agent working under orders from the president, either. There's no conclusive proof that he even used the rifle at all. Lot's of reports that say he didn't. There's no conclusive proof that he even exists or that the shooting took place, no conclusive proof that you or I exist. There's no conclusive proof that the world isn't flat or that aliens don't live among us. Hell, for all we know we could be living in the matrix and there was never any shooting at all, only the robots harvesting people for whatever reason and the program just filled in the blanks to explain the disappearances. Maybe Cheyenne Mountain really does house a Stargate program! What if the Elder Scrolls series is the true history of our civilization!? There's no conclusive proof to say none of that is true, so maybe it is! See, I too can speculate without any basis in reality. I'm not insulting you and I'm sorry if you feel that way. But it's the honest to goodness truth. You might be a gun owner, you may even know your gun better than I know my own hand. But never the less, you're still wholly ignorant of what an AR-15 is and how it operates. The fact you keep calling it an assault rifle just proves that assertion. You clearly do not know what an assault rifle is or how it operates, you shouldn't be ashamed. A lot of people have no idea. There are cops that don't know squat about the laws they enforce. But they're cops for goodness sake! An extreme example is that I've had officers tell me that it is illegal to shoot someone on your property outside of your home and that if you do, you should drag them into the house before calling the police so as to make it look like a break in. 1. It's totally legal to shoot a trespasser that hasn't broken into your home, so long as they were a threat to you, your property or another third party or their property. 2. Following their advice will land you in prisom before you can blink your eye. When the investigators show up to look at the crime scene, they will see that you drug the body into the house to make it look like a break in. Then you can kiss your self defense goodbye because now it appears to be a premeditated murder. So you see, being a gun owner automatically mean you know everything there is to know about every gun that exists. This is just further proof. The AR-15 IS a sporting rifle and it's just as difficult for an AR-15 as it is a semi auto shotgun or handgun. Nukes are a threat to you? When was the last time someone was killed with one? Guns aren't a threat to the public at large because out of 330,000,000 people, 2,500,000 deaths only 8,000k people are killed with them. That's 0.002% of the population. If you want a larger percentage, it's still only 0.32% of all deaths. Doctors and pharmaceuticals have a higher death toll than guns. Malpractice is responsible for nearly 200,000 deaths per year. That's 7.8% of all deaths. If doctors aren't a threat to the population, then guns sure as hell ain't. My point is that the few murders that happen are insignificant when compared to the population as a whole and don't even come close to outweighing the benefits of DGUs, of which there are at least 100,000 each year.

If you're going to reject my argument, you need to explain why. Otherwise you're just copping out. A handgun has about the same rate of fire as a semi automatic rifle. Which is to say generally about as fast as you can pull the trigger. These are big, WTF changes. But it doesn't really matter. So basically you're basing your claims on pure speculation, a conclusion you came to. You as a person that is completely ignorant as to what an assault rifle is or how guns work. To convert a modern sporting rifle into an assault rifle, you would need knowledge of how guns work, a machine shop, knowledge of how to operate the machines and the ability to manufacture new parts. It's not a simple task of replacing a part like you would a Lego or a stick of RAM or flipping a switch. There's a lot that would have to go into it. It's not easy and I highly doubt anyone doped up on Prozac or any similar drug would be able to do so without damaging the firearm.

It's kind of irrelevant because the bill wont pass. It's just a likely scenario of what'll happen if it does. My gun must be defective, it hasn't inflicted any lethal injury ever. Not even the few downs I have drawn down on people. So then high powered is a meaningless buzz phrase that you use to conjure emotional responses designed to deflect from the core issue. Mkay You just made an amazing argument for people to carry everywhere they go! Great job. I mean, if the VTech shooter was able to continue his spree for two whole hours, then that just proves the point we make that the police are useless when it comes to your safety. The best they can guarantee is to clean up the mess after the fact. LMFAO @modified for full auto fire. Nope, nope and nope! Where the hell did you get that from? :laugh: 1. I haven't seen any report at all stating the weapon had been modified in anyway. 2. There are conflicting reports about whether he even used the rifle! A .22LR being impossible to kill 33 people because it's not a "high powered assault rifle." It does matter because it shows that guns aren't not a serious threat to the public at large, there are far greater dangers than guns. Such as cars and accidents.

The civil war in the 1860s is hardly comparable to the hypothetical situation I have proposed. For one, it was a war with clearly drawn lines. The hypothetical I have put forth wouldn't be a war between states, it'd be a war between the states and the fed. One only has to look at a map of gun friendly states to see that these states outnumber the gun hating states. There wouldn't be clearly drawn lines either, it wouldn't be the north vs the south. There would be people in every state taking up arms against their oppressors. There would be states in the north and south rebelling against the fed. And once again, gun confiscation wouldn't be the primary reason for violent rebellion, it would simply be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Americans everywhere are really getting fed up with the Fed. D.C. doesn't represent the interest of the people and everyday new rights violations are being perpetrated. Then what is your point? Suicides are irrelevant. Live accidents, homicides and justified somewhere around 12k, a number that is actually going down every year. What's your point? What's your point? Are you saying that a gun is only high powered/lethal when a person intends to use it for murder? So then a car is a high powered weapon when someone intends to use it for murder as well? Really? Then the Sandy Hook shooting must not have happened, nor the V-Tech shooting, nor the UT-Clock Tower shooting, nor the Columbine shooting, nor the Pearl High School shooting, nor the Aurora Theater or Temple shootings, nor pretty much any other shooting in America. Why? Because none of those shootings involved assault rifles unless the assault rifles were carried by the police. The Pearl High, Clock Tower and Columbine shootings used hunting rifles and shotguns. The V-Tech and Luby's massacres used handguns. The Sandy Hook shooting was either perpetrated with handguns or a semi automatic rifle commonly used for a multitude of purposes including but not limited to home defense, hunting and shooting sports. Apparently the V-Tech killer did the impossible by executing the deadliest School SHOOTING in American history using a .22LR handgun, a feat deemed impossible by the Brady Bunch and our dear Colourwheel herself! Because we are allowed to own firearms in this country: This 12 year old girl was able to successfully protect herself from an intruder This 10 year old boy was able to protect himself and his 8 year old sister from burglars. This woman would have been raped. This woman may have been shot/killed/raped and her rapist still free to rape more women This woman would have been raped a second time, with her previously convicted serial rapist free to rape more women.

Um, car Deaths Still Outnumber Gun Deaths. suicides MayBe Increasing, But Actual MurderIs At aA Record Low for The Nation.

It Does, Actually. If Someone is Going To Kill themselves Then The Absence Of A Gun Isn't Going To Stop Them. I Don't Have The Numbers On Me, But America Isn't The Highest For Suicide Among DevelopEd Nations.

You know what that article didn't mention? About two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. How many of those car related deaths are the negligent driver and how many are the 'victims' so to speak? You're assuming that everyone in the country would oppose the rebellion. You're way, way wrong. More than just the few I mentioned are more than fed up with the government. It's just that these few are the crazy rednecks living in the woods, already distrustful of the government. They're the ones that'll take the first stand. Other gun owners will surely follow, and remember, about half the country owns enough guns for the other half. And once again, if that were to happen, states like Texas would get involved against the fed. So yeah, the end result would the country falling to pieces.

I will agree, the legislation is quite extreme and I don't see the people currently in legislative power to pass this bill without it being reformed a bit. But honestly even if the bill was passed I doubt it would tear the country appart. There are thousands, If Not Hundreds Of ThOusands That Will Absolutely Refuse To Comply With That Law. What DoYou Think Is Going To Happen When The ATF gathers Up The Bound Books And Starts Doing confiscationS? PeopleAre Going To shoot Back. States Are Going To Get Pissed Off. Texas will Go crazy, The Gun Owners Will Be Too Much For Local Law Enforcement, Feds Won't Be Able To Handle It And They'll Try ToCall OutThe National Guard. The States Will RecallThe National Guard And The Fed will Call Out TheMain Forces. But A Lot, If Not Most, Will Refuse Orders, SomeWill Even Join The other Side. It Will Lead To Civil War And The Country Will Fracture.

Switching gears! Dianne Feinstein *spits* has proposed an AWB: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons Good news: it's not likely to succeed. Why? Because this bill would tear the country asunder.

Bow Ties Have No Place In Modern Society. Humph

I had wrote a nice long post to Amycus in response to her points. But as I was putting on the finishing touches, the wind blew my power out and lost it all. So now I'm just going to go with short bullet points. 1. China is a terrible example for multiple reasons. 1a. China's news is heavily censored and wholly unreliable. Truth we don't know if there were any deaths or not. 1b. China has a long list of civil right's violations. Yeah, maybe they don't have rare massacres that used guns, they do have severe oppression. Which is precisely why a lot of gun owners own their guns. 1c. The civil rights movement was a nationwide rebellion, one that succeeded and one that included armed rebels(BPP). 2. About 40-50% of the population owns one or more of the 300,000,000+ guns in America. 2a. While the minority holds the majority of guns, do not underestimate the willingness of gun owners to arm their friends and family in an emergency. 2b. In the event of a nationwide gun grab, all that would happen is a huge bloodbath. The conflict would destroy the nation, ultimately leading to the US being dissolved. 3. You can already purchase all of those things. 3a. You can own upto 15 pounds of unenriched uranium. 3b. Grenade and rocket launchers are not prohibited and can be purchased. 3c. You can buy tanks in many countries, including the UK. 3d. You can also buy missile silos, including nuclear missile silos. 3e. You can buy warbirds(military aircraft), including fighter jets and even bombers. 3f. You can also buy grenades for those grenade launchers. 3g. You can buy howitzers and other cannons. You can't buy ammo for them, but you can make it. 3h. The world hasn't ended yet. 4. What restrictions do you wish to see? 5. You shouldn't listen to the media, they are often biased, uninformed and straight up lying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ That is the media presenting you with biased, uninformed opinion. Not news. There is no such thing as a heat-seeking bullet. They also, in other interviews, make the claim that the rifle can shoot down an airplane. You can't, unless you're within spittin distance of the plane, it's going to be very hard if not impossible to hit the plane at all, let alone one of the tiny critical areas. But then if you're that close, might as well just through some teddy bears into the engines. Sure is a hell of a lot cheaper. Those rifles retail for around $10,000, the ammo costs $5 a round. There's a reason these rifles aren't used in crime. The VPC, as unreliable of a source they are, has a list of crimes that involved .50BMG rifles. Most of them are possession crimes, I saw one where someone actually used it to threaten a U.S. Marshall and few were they were fired... In Mexico. It's a small list that covers multiple decades. The point, the people who buy these rifles tend to buy them for the same reason the rich buy super cars. They just want them in their collection. This is why you shouldn't listen to gun control advocates(the ones on TV). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w8es6M_9HKk They're full of s*** and don't know what they're talking about. If Bloomberg honestly didn't know he was mistaken, then he has no business proposing firearms based legislation. If he was straight lying, he has no business being a politician.

I don't like Ugg boots either, by my God, some women can pull them off. Then again, they can pull off anything.

Sometimes, unfortunately, reform really does only come at the barrel of a gun. The last successful armed rebellion in America was in 1946. That's right. Nineteen. Forty. Six. Look it up, it's called the Battle of Athens. That's dandy and all, but reform can be achieved in other ways too. The pen is mightier than the sword. You really should study your opponents position before responding. At citizen request, the U.S. Department of Justice had investigated allegations of electoral fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944, but had not taken action. The wealthy Cantrell family (supporters of the Democrats' New Deal policies in the 1932 Presidential elections) essentially ruled the county. Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, then was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944, while his former deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff.[1][2] A state law enacted in 1941 had reduced local political opposition by reducing the number of voting precincts from 23 to 12 and reducing the number of justices of the peace from fourteen to seven (including four "Cantrell men"). returning [WWII] veterans resolved to challenge Cantrell's political control by fielding their own nonpartisan candidates and working for a fraud-free election. Combat veteran Knox Henry stood as candidate for sheriff in opposition to Cantrell.[1] In advertisements and speeches the GI candidates promised an honest ballot count and reform of county government. At a rally, a GI speaker said, “ The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.[/url] Polls for the county election opened August 1, 1946. About 200 armed deputies turned out to patrol the precincts—the normal complement of 15 deputies significantly augmented by reinforcements from other counties. There were a number of conflicts before the polls closed, the most serious of which was when deputy CM Wise shot and wounded a black man who was trying to vote.[3] As the polls closed, deputies seized ballot boxes and removed them to the jail. Some snippets from the Wiki article. It's a short article and had you read it as I suggested, you would know that your little comment about pens would have been easily tossed aside. Because as you can see, the feds investigated the claims of corruption three times but never took any action, the people did everything they could change things through the system, but their efforts were constantly blocked. It wasn't until the election, when the Sheriff's office made it painfully clear they weren't going to let anyone challenge their power that the veterans armed themselves and went to battle. So no, the pen isn't always mightier than the sword and yes, armed insurrection is sometimes necessitated. Now I said this was the last successful armed rebellion, what I meant and should have said was that it was the last successful armed insurrection. Afterall, the civil rights movement was a rebellion and they were armed. http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/images/bpp/wsa/black%20panthers%202-28-69.jpg