Quote :

"I don't think they meant for every fucking redneck in 2007 to be packing heat all the time. "

thats totally what they meant.

i NEED my AK, son



[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 5:00 PM. Reason : m]

1/13/2007 5:00:13 PM

yeah, it's only "rednecks" that want to have firearms for protection
nevermind the countless women and minorities that live in a sketch place that feel they should be afforded the protection that the constitution states they are allowed to own

you people say that, instead of admitting that the problem with firearms in this country... the problem that causes all of the laws in the first place, is hardly because of these "rednecks"...

funny how the people that throw that comment out hardly know me, but it's ok to call a southern caucasian a "redneck", but you wouldn't dare generalize any other class of people

somehow it's ok for you people to generalize one group of people and avoid the real problem with guns altogether

and what difference does it make to any of you if I want to have a handgun in a vehicle to defend myself if I need it?

anyway, I'm done with you people, it's your opinion and everyone else that doesn't agree is just an "uninformed" idiot

^ I don't give a shit if you own 100 AKs, it's your business, I don't care as long as you're not a criminal and you don't threaten me with it... it's no more deadly than a high powered deer rifle with a box mag, ammo, and a competent operator

1/13/2007 10:34:15 PM

Quote :

"funny how the people that throw that comment out hardly know me, but it's ok to call a southern caucasian a "redneck", but you wouldn't dare generalize any other class of people"

I'm so with you on this. I rarely use the word, and it bothers me when it's used in or as an argument.

1/14/2007 12:00:26 AM

Suggested reading (both by John Lott):

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

and

The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong

1/14/2007 1:24:38 AM

Quote :

"funny how the people that throw that comment out hardly know me, but it's ok to call a southern caucasian a "redneck", but you wouldn't dare generalize any other class of people"

I wasn't making a direct insult to you. A lot of people would consider me in the same classification. And face it, a lot of the people who are gun nuts fit the stereotypical redneck. Secondly, I also own firearms. But at the same time I don't feel a need to carry a concealed weapon 24/7. Having everyone (including supposive law-abiding citizens) carry a weapon is not going to solve problems. Its just gonna cause more. Thems the facts, jack.

1/14/2007 2:06:13 AM

^^haha, Lott

Quote :

"Im a little confused. Greg, do you work in American Samoa? because in this thread you said you dont care about things that dont interfere with your life, so why are you even posting in this thread? "

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 7:37 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2007 7:37:49 AM

I think it started when Ic alled her a hypocritical cunt



^^I don't feel the need to carry something 24/7 either


but there is nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen doing so either if they so choose

1/14/2007 8:26:19 AM

Quote :

"Having everyone (including supposive law-abiding citizens) carry a weapon is not going to solve problems. Its just gonna cause more. Thems the facts, jack."

Well it doesnt matter that YOU don't consider it neccesary to carry all the time. Some people DO want or need to carry all the time, and the fact that you don't shouldn't infiringe on their right.

Also, show me where having law abiding citizens carrying weapons caused more problems than it solved. That is not a fact at all, jack.

1/14/2007 8:48:09 AM

Quote :

"but there is nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen doing so either if they so choose"

Why does he have to be "law abiding"?

Are you saying you wouldn't support a convicted felon's right to carry a gun concealed 24/7?

1/14/2007 9:38:04 AM

given the fact that it says its talking about a well regulated militia the argument for regular people to have tanks holds more weight with me than the argument that they should be allowed to carry around a revolver in their pants.

1/14/2007 11:15:15 AM

^^ That is why they used to take the trigger fingers off felons.

1/14/2007 12:17:34 PM

Quote :

"given the fact that it says its talking about a well regulated militia the argument for regular people to have tanks holds more weight with me than the argument that they should be allowed to carry around a revolver in their pants."

the second amendment was written because for preservation of freedoms, not sporting weapons in the first place... I'd love to have an Abrams to ride around in the woods or what not, but can't really see making a purchase like that unless I was really rich... I don't give a damn if someone buys a tank and wants to drive it around on private property, it would be fun to go shoot some shells at junked cars

handguns have routinely been used in combat, as have all military arms, so that right is afforded to us all so yeah, hanguns are good to go also, the 2nd amendment however makes no reference to any hunting arm...

see Miller vs arkansas 1937 and the subsequent Miller vs US 1938... too bad the ruling that changed everything didn't even have defense present... even the DA knew what he was doing was wrong

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

and bridget, the original 1934 firearms act was intended to keep firearms out of the hands of minorities... too bad they never changed it because the ATF needed something to do after prohibition was repealed... 0 weapons were registered in 34, 1 was registered in 1935... people were not going to pay for a $200 stamp on a weapon or suppressor, they just chose to take apart their weapons and make them "non functional"

and the 1968 amendment did nothing but turn millions of otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals overnight

as for criminals having guns, as long as someone has served their time and has no history of violent offenses then I think they have the right to own a weapon also


oh well... I just think it should be a matter of personal choice... I don't believe in telling other people what choices they should make, it's their life, just don't threaten me with harm

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM. Reason : ...]

1/14/2007 6:37:40 PM

why would they only be allowed to have the tank on private property?

1/14/2007 6:41:31 PM

not being street legal seems to be a pretty good reason

1/14/2007 6:45:05 PM

lets hope they never need to defend themselves on a road

1/14/2007 6:48:23 PM

I see where you're going, but it doesn't make a difference


who gives a shit what people own if they aren't breaking the law???


if they break the law, then deal with it


I bet someone is gonna be retarded and be like, OMG YOU THINK PEOPLE SHOULD OWN NUKES TOO DON'T YOU

I don't think a true weapon of mass destruction should be owned by ANY private entity

1/14/2007 6:56:31 PM

ok, so you can own a gun but not if it breaks the law

wait, i dont think you agree with that

1/14/2007 6:57:35 PM

you're reaching here

1/14/2007 7:04:04 PM

im just using an extreme example to show that you aknowledge the need for some regulation and limitations. now that we know that you arent opposed to it on principle, as you somewhat implied, we can start to work at why some regulations are ok to you and some are not

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 7:08 PM. Reason : e]

1/14/2007 7:08:02 PM

I understand regulations are a good thing


kinda like...

don't use a firearm in the commission of a crime

don't threaten bodily harm with a firearm

don't use a firearm except for sporting or last ditch defense purposes

seems to be pretty reasonable and common sense

1/14/2007 7:13:08 PM

requiring permits seems pretty common sense to me, and im hardly a person thats "OMFG GUNS"

1/14/2007 8:31:25 PM

If you have to take a class and a test and get your license renewed occasionally to drive, you should have to do the same thing to have a gun. Or at least, it's not too unreasonable.

1/14/2007 8:35:36 PM

I would absolutely agree that laws that tack on a bunch of years to a crime committed with a gun are a much better alternative than banning guns.

Quote :

"the second amendment was written because for preservation of freedoms, not sporting weapons in the first place"

that is the key point.

1/14/2007 8:50:29 PM

i dont see anyone proposing the banning of guns

1/14/2007 9:11:26 PM

Quote :

"If you have to take a class and a test and get your license renewed occasionally to drive, you should have to do the same thing to have a gun. Or at least, it's not too unreasonable."

thats fine, I've already done that anyway, but apparently some states and muncipalities feel that I am "safer' by not allowing me to do so

^^ exactly, there is so much more to this, including my position on guns, than carrying a handgun for personal defense... a whole lot more

^ are you serious???
there are people with power right now that would be content banning guns... it has nothing to do with "safety" or "gang violence" or any of that... these people want to expand federal powers and I would even go as far as saying that some politicians and people want it for reasons much more vile than that

the framers of our constitution would flip over in their graves if they knew what these people are doing to the constitution

1/14/2007 9:26:54 PM

what people and what have they done?

1/14/2007 9:32:04 PM

there is along list of people in the government who feel that americans shouldn't own firearms

been posted numerous times on here



and most of them have guns themselves


in the case of kennedy, his family was one of the largest importers of firearms in this country

1/14/2007 9:35:35 PM

i doubt the framers would be that upset. they kinda expected shit like this to occur.

im sure jefferson would be upset its been so long since a good rebellion. and sam adams is probably still pissed he wasnt asked to help draft the constitution and would probably join the minutemen or something equally crazy.

1/14/2007 9:49:21 PM

I lolled

1/14/2007 9:51:11 PM

Quote :

"^ are you serious??? "

..in this thread

Quote :

"but apparently some states and muncipalities feel that I am "safer' by not allowing me to do so ^^ exactly, there is so much more to this, including my position on guns, than carrying a handgun for personal defense... a whole lot more ^ are you serious??? there are people with power right now that would be content banning guns... it has nothing to do with "safety" or "gang violence" or any of that... these people want to expand federal powers and I would even go as far as saying that some politicians and people want it for reasons much more vile than that"

?

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2007 9:51:32 PM

well, more like.. you don't really believe that do you

1/14/2007 9:52:04 PM

i definitely dont think guns should be banned. hell im looking to buy my first handgun, i need someone to go out to personal defense with me

1/14/2007 9:53:59 PM

^^^^^and those weaklings who didn't value their liberty and principles at every turn were those who didn't join the minutemen or "something crazy". When an otherwise legitimate government begins to take illegitimate measures concerning things it is and isn't allowed to do, it's time to question the whole concept of it's legitimacy.
There were plenty of people who questioned and opposed the revolution in this country back then, because the British were not forcing THEM to house British soldiers in their own homes, taking THEIR guns away, unfairly taxing THEIR commodities, and jeapordizing rights THEY cared about. They didn't want to feel FREE, they wanted to feel "safe". Hell, if you are lucky enough to get a couple of ounces of rice to stay alive every day and Let Kim Jong Il win his annual golf tournament, North Korea is probably pretty fucking "safe" because it has zero crime in it's civilian sector.

But people tend to forget very easily that governments and politicians have been some of the biggest murderers and criminals in history. This is why their legitimacy must be questioned every time they attempt to expand their power. And gun control is a bedrock pretense of expansion of governmental powers.

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ,]

1/14/2007 10:01:12 PM

^^^^ the problem is at all levels, local, state, and federal


and I was in 2 different paragraphs with that, but what I was talking about in the first part was how the laws vary so much from state to state and even municipality to municipality



^^ it's a good shop... I'd be willing to go with you and help you when I'm back in town

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ...]

1/14/2007 10:01:46 PM

i havent read this thread...and i dont really want to...

but nancy pelosi makes me so sick. she got to be so popular amongst libs by being the most divisive venom-spewing partisan person on the planet. she has called republicans and the president every name in the book. and then the day she took over she made that speach about how "now we can work together" and crap...i just about threw up

1/14/2007 10:11:30 PM

But it's okay when W. does the same shit, right?

1/14/2007 10:18:12 PM

he doesnt do that

1/14/2007 10:19:49 PM

he's a uniter

1/14/2007 10:20:59 PM

well, he's not the best pres ever, by any means


but I don't recall him being anywhere near as venomous as the leaders from the left

they've called him every name under the sun... and this coming from people who are supposedly "professionals" and were elected to lead

1/14/2007 10:21:07 PM

^ You're right, he's not as venomous, but he's divisive in the same way, except it's more insidious.

The whole " if you're not with us you're supporting terrorism" stuff that he use to throw around, as well as the stuff Tony Snow STILL says both make people view Bush as a divider.

And plenty Republicans don't like Bush, which is how come Pelosi gets away with calling him an idiot. She doesn't generally bash Republicans in general like the aforementioned comments attack the democrats.

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 10:26 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2007 10:25:45 PM

he doesnt have to be venomous, he has the leaders of the right for that

1/14/2007 10:26:47 PM

I'd still say name calling is petty and immature


esp for a public figure to call the president of his/her own country those names on TV


but whatever gets you votes!!!!


and the left has been pretty damn divisive also

god we need a third party

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 10:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2007 10:29:37 PM

Quote :

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert, for example, is worth less than $1 million."

i call bullshit.

Quote :

"its not her fault if republicans cant read legislation before voting"

actually, it is her fault. it's impossible for representatives to read every bit of legislation in detail before they pass it (which is a seperate problem, but it is what it is for right now). sneaking in something like that is crooked and wrong.

Quote :

" I don't give a shit if you own 100 AKs, it's your business, I don't care as long as you're not a criminal and you don't threaten me with it... it's no more deadly than a high powered deer rifle with a box mag, ammo, and a competent operator"

shit, in many/most instances, i'd rather have the hunting rifle if i planned to go on a killing rampage.

hell, Greg can vouch for my work with a bolt action hunting rifle...i can unleash carnage with it that i wouldn't have a chance at being able to do with an "assault rifle".

Quote :

"the framers of our constitution would flip over in their graves if they knew what these people are doing to the constitution "

yep, and crazy gun control measures are only a tiny, tiny part of it.

1/18/2007 4:48:42 PM

The only thing I could find on Hastert said something around 6 million. But, it didnt link to actual sources, so Im not sure. Its pretty clear that it is over 1 million though, with much of it showing up after he got into public office (and NO that does NOT make him rare )

1/18/2007 8:40:40 PM

i would think you'd be hard pressed to find a member of Congress who isn't a millionaire. In fact, I would be gravely concerned about the lack of financial astuteness of a Senator or Representative lacking $1,000,000 of net worth.

1/18/2007 10:18:33 PM

so which is more financially astute, the guy who gets a 50 million dollar inheritance, does nothing with it, but eventually runs for congress
or
a guy who is born incredibly poor, but spends the first part of his life getting a family, sending his kids to college and owning a home, but doesnt have more than two or three hundred thousand dollars worth of assests

addition:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=C&sort=A
Im pretty sure you could find people who you consider both "very dumb" and "very smart" no matter what your ideology in that list of the poorest 25.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 10:26 PM. Reason : e]

1/18/2007 10:22:53 PM