It may be now-or-never to buy certain guns

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The left only likes to take the constitution literally (or just make stuff up from it - enter right to privacy) when it fits their plans. Right to assemble freely only applies to the left, freedom of speech only applies to the left, right to keep and bear arms only applied to a militia, etc. etc. They do like to twist the constitution. Talk about labels, they label anything that can hold 30 rounds or more as an assault rifle. They are full of it.

That truly is ignorant. Try basing your posts on facts, and try an honest look at the constitution and bill of rights one of these days.

Try refuting what I say. Whenever one of you Commies4Christ responds to me (for lack of an intelligent response) you use the worn out "try basing your posts on facts" routine. I don't know anyone who is falling for it, leastways not myself..

I do base it on facts. The fairness doctrine is an infringement on free speech, there are no two ways about it. Labeling fire-arms as "assault" weapons when they may or may not be, and then banning them, is an infringement on second amendment rights - no two ways about it. The government is not supposed to always have superior weapons to the public. Hence its througout our historical documents and speeches from our founders, that the government needs to be in fear of the people. The right to privacy clause mentions nothing about killing babies (which you call fetuses to make you feel better about killing them), yet you guys invoke it whenever a debate comes up, and that argument has more holes than swiss cheese. Enough facts for you? Didn't think so.

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

Law abiding citizens for the most part. Black market is a problem though.

[The Dude 206]

The left only likes to take the constitution literally (or just make stuff up from it - enter right to privacy) when it fits their plans. Right to assemble freely only applies to the left, freedom of speech only applies to the left, right to keep and bear arms only applied to a militia, etc. etc. They do like to twist the constitution. Talk about labels, they label anything that can hold 30 rounds or more as an assault rifle. They are full of it.

That truly is ignorant. Try basing your posts on facts, and try an honest look at the constitution and bill of rights one of these days.

Try refuting what I say. Whenever one of you Commies4Christ responds to me (for lack of an intelligent response) you use the worn out "try basing your posts on facts" routine. I don't know anyone who is falling for it, leastways not myself..

I do base it on facts. The fairness doctrine is an infringement on free speech, there are no two ways about it. Labeling fire-arms as "assault" weapons when they may or may not be, and then banning them, is an infringement on second amendment rights - no two ways about it. The government is not supposed to always have superior weapons to the public. Hence its througout our historical documents and speeches from our founders, that the government needs to be in fear of the people. The right to privacy clause mentions nothing about killing babies (which you call fetuses to make you feel better about killing them), yet you guys invoke it whenever a debate comes up, and that argument has more holes than swiss cheese. Enough facts for you? Didn't think so.

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

Law abiding citizens for the most part. Black market is a problem though.

We use it quite frankly because your posts are devoid of any facts. Just look at your post in this thread. You make things up, then say "prove me wrong". I'm not going to do your homework for you. It's generally good form to use cited references and noted facts when trying to make a point. If you're going to throw bull$hit out there, don't act surprised when someone calls you out on it.

[NickD 203]

The left only likes to take the constitution literally (or just make stuff up from it - enter right to privacy) when it fits their plans. Right to assemble freely only applies to the left, freedom of speech only applies to the left, right to keep and bear arms only applied to a militia, etc. etc. They do like to twist the constitution. Talk about labels, they label anything that can hold 30 rounds or more as an assault rifle. They are full of it.

That truly is ignorant. Try basing your posts on facts, and try an honest look at the constitution and bill of rights one of these days.

You can keep your so-called assault weapons, I want an F-22 loaded with incendiary bombs and nuclear warhead missiles. Would rather take a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, but don't have space for it in my pond.

if you've got the cash to afford these toys ... have you already quit your day job?

My response was more US Constitutional related than practical.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The left only likes to take the constitution literally (or just make stuff up from it - enter right to privacy) when it fits their plans. Right to assemble freely only applies to the left, freedom of speech only applies to the left, right to keep and bear arms only applied to a militia, etc. etc. They do like to twist the constitution. Talk about labels, they label anything that can hold 30 rounds or more as an assault rifle. They are full of it.

That truly is ignorant. Try basing your posts on facts, and try an honest look at the constitution and bill of rights one of these days.

Try refuting what I say. Whenever one of you Commies4Christ responds to me (for lack of an intelligent response) you use the worn out "try basing your posts on facts" routine. I don't know anyone who is falling for it, leastways not myself..

I do base it on facts. The fairness doctrine is an infringement on free speech, there are no two ways about it. Labeling fire-arms as "assault" weapons when they may or may not be, and then banning them, is an infringement on second amendment rights - no two ways about it. The government is not supposed to always have superior weapons to the public. Hence its througout our historical documents and speeches from our founders, that the government needs to be in fear of the people. The right to privacy clause mentions nothing about killing babies (which you call fetuses to make you feel better about killing them), yet you guys invoke it whenever a debate comes up, and that argument has more holes than swiss cheese. Enough facts for you? Didn't think so.

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

Law abiding citizens for the most part. Black market is a problem though.

We use it quite frankly because your posts are devoid of any facts. Just look at your post in this thread. You make things up, then say "prove me wrong". I'm not going to do your homework for you. It's generally good form to use cited references and noted facts when trying to make a point. If you're going to throw bull$hit out there, don't act surprised when someone calls you out on it.

Ahh - I'm sorry, I thought the constitution was common knowledge to you. I guess I need to point out to you which part of the bill of rights these things are spelled out in. Oh, and I guess I also have to use references whereas you need no references. I guess I should bow to your all-knowingness. You don't need references.

Anyway... off to lunch.

[natty bumppo 297]

The left only likes to take the constitution literally (or just make stuff up from it - enter right to privacy) when it fits their plans. Right to assemble freely only applies to the left, freedom of speech only applies to the left, right to keep and bear arms only applied to a militia, etc. etc. They do like to twist the constitution. Talk about labels, they label anything that can hold 30 rounds or more as an assault rifle. They are full of it.

That truly is ignorant. Try basing your posts on facts, and try an honest look at the constitution and bill of rights one of these days.

You can keep your so-called assault weapons, I want an F-22 loaded with incendiary bombs and nuclear warhead missiles. Would rather take a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, but don't have space for it in my pond.

if you've got the cash to afford these toys ... have you already quit your day job?

My response was more US Constitutional related than practical.

purchasing the actual platform (aircraft/ ship) could be an interesting exercise if you've got the cash and the gov't will sell to you. arming it with nukes, etc. might be a different story.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[The Dude 206]

The left only likes to take the constitution literally (or just make stuff up from it - enter right to privacy) when it fits their plans. Right to assemble freely only applies to the left, freedom of speech only applies to the left, right to keep and bear arms only applied to a militia, etc. etc. They do like to twist the constitution. Talk about labels, they label anything that can hold 30 rounds or more as an assault rifle. They are full of it.

That truly is ignorant. Try basing your posts on facts, and try an honest look at the constitution and bill of rights one of these days.

Try refuting what I say. Whenever one of you Commies4Christ responds to me (for lack of an intelligent response) you use the worn out "try basing your posts on facts" routine. I don't know anyone who is falling for it, leastways not myself..

I do base it on facts. The fairness doctrine is an infringement on free speech, there are no two ways about it. Labeling fire-arms as "assault" weapons when they may or may not be, and then banning them, is an infringement on second amendment rights - no two ways about it. The government is not supposed to always have superior weapons to the public. Hence its througout our historical documents and speeches from our founders, that the government needs to be in fear of the people. The right to privacy clause mentions nothing about killing babies (which you call fetuses to make you feel better about killing them), yet you guys invoke it whenever a debate comes up, and that argument has more holes than swiss cheese. Enough facts for you? Didn't think so.

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

Law abiding citizens for the most part. Black market is a problem though.

We use it quite frankly because your posts are devoid of any facts. Just look at your post in this thread. You make things up, then say "prove me wrong". I'm not going to do your homework for you. It's generally good form to use cited references and noted facts when trying to make a point. If you're going to throw bull$hit out there, don't act surprised when someone calls you out on it.

Ahh - I'm sorry, I thought the constitution was common knowledge to you. I guess I need to point out to you which part of the bill of rights these things are spelled out in. Oh, and I guess I also have to use references whereas you need no references. I guess I should bow to your all-knowingness. You don't need references.

Anyway... off to lunch.

Wow, I really didn't realize you were that ignorant. I was referring to your well thought out analysis of political media tendencies of the left and right. That is what you posted and what I replied to. It's quite clear and reposted in this post for your convenience. Try to make a point one of these days.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, we are doing the masturbatory gun coveting now are we? Excellent, I bet you're all throbbing thinking about those big guns

[NickD 203]

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

They are nice for deer hunting, rather than gutting that deer and having to haul it back, you just bring along zip lock bags and pick up the hamburger like stuff off the ground.

Edited August 17, 2009 by NickD

[natty bumppo 297]

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

They are nice for deer hunting, rather than gutting that deer and having to haul it back, you just bring along zip lock bags and pick up the hamburger like stuff off the ground.

check the hunting laws in your state ... if this is in 5.56 configuration it may not be enough caliber for your suggested purpose.

you must have a stalone/ schwarzenegger / hollywood ability to hold on target to score that many hits at a distance ... or are you advocating pouring in the rounds after the animal is down?

[Ban Hammer 13,658]

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

They are nice for deer hunting, rather than gutting that deer and having to haul it back, you just bring along zip lock bags and pick up the hamburger like stuff off the ground.

quite a bit of exaggeration there........

[Ban Hammer 13,658]

The left only likes to take the constitution literally (or just make stuff up from it - enter right to privacy) when it fits their plans. Right to assemble freely only applies to the left, freedom of speech only applies to the left, right to keep and bear arms only applied to a militia, etc. etc. They do like to twist the constitution. Talk about labels, they label anything that can hold 30 rounds or more as an assault rifle. They are full of it.

That truly is ignorant. Try basing your posts on facts, and try an honest look at the constitution and bill of rights one of these days.

You can keep your so-called assault weapons, I want an F-22 loaded with incendiary bombs and nuclear warhead missiles. Would rather take a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, but don't have space for it in my pond.

i'll settle for my 30-06 with a 4.5x12 leupold.

[The Dude 206]

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

They are nice for deer hunting, rather than gutting that deer and having to haul it back, you just bring along zip lock bags and pick up the hamburger like stuff off the ground.

check the hunting laws in your state ... if this is in 5.56 configuration it may not be enough caliber for your suggested purpose.

you must have a stalone/ schwarzenegger / hollywood ability to hold on target to score that many hits at a distance ... or are you advocating pouring in the rounds after the animal is down?

Either option would serve the same purpose. However, being able to do it at a distance seems so much cooler

[natty bumppo 297]

The left only likes to take the constitution literally (or just make stuff up from it - enter right to privacy) when it fits their plans. Right to assemble freely only applies to the left, freedom of speech only applies to the left, right to keep and bear arms only applied to a militia, etc. etc. They do like to twist the constitution. Talk about labels, they label anything that can hold 30 rounds or more as an assault rifle. They are full of it.

That truly is ignorant. Try basing your posts on facts, and try an honest look at the constitution and bill of rights one of these days.

You can keep your so-called assault weapons, I want an F-22 loaded with incendiary bombs and nuclear warhead missiles. Would rather take a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, but don't have space for it in my pond.

i'll settle for my 30-06 with a 4.5x12 leupold.

someone has an inside gov't connection who will divert/ sell the desired weapons platforms on the side ....

[nowhereman 1]

I posted an excerpt from an article about Obama allowing licensed firearms in national parks & it was completely ignored. Most of you would rather trade baseless rhetoric back & forth than actually discuss the facts.

[natty bumppo 297]

I posted an excerpt from an article about Obama allowing licensed firearms in national parks & it was completely ignored. Most of you would rather trade baseless rhetoric back & forth than actually discuss the facts.

and people are b!tching about this as obama is making a tour of the national parks during peak tourist season.