Purdue editorial: Automatic Assault rifles easy to buy
- Thread starter Seancass
- Start date
- Status
kayakersteve
Member
here's what I Emailed this yo yo....
I found your comentary on assault weapons to be very uninformed - I hope next time that you decide to express your beliefs on a subject you know little about, you do some unbiased research first. Number one mistake: This was not an automatic weapon; it is a semi-automatic. This means that after you fire ONE round, it will automatically load another round. It will not spray bullets out in rapid fire pattern by holding the trigger depressed. Automatic weapons have been illegal to own for many years.
I would personally be more concerned about this punk selling drugs to little kids than his gun ownership, but you are probably too young to have children to care about this issue, because you openly stated in your comentary that you wouldn't fret about the drugs issue!
Lastly pertaining to your statement, "It is the responsibility of city officials to do what they can to prevent another Virginia Tech incident; mandatory registration would be a logical step. " Guess what, I agree - kind of: If the law makers would have allowed citizens (students and professors) the option of legal concealed carry of weapons, this idiot that attacked VT probably could have been stopped by a private citizen. Imagine that!!! As it stands, we must rely on our over burdened police departments that got to the scene that day after the rampage was over. Too little, too late.
I hope you look at this in a little more detail before you make inaccurate statements and conclusion again.
I found your comentary on assault weapons to be very uninformed - I hope next time that you decide to express your beliefs on a subject you know little about, you do some unbiased research first. Number one mistake: This was not an automatic weapon; it is a semi-automatic. This means that after you fire ONE round, it will automatically load another round. It will not spray bullets out in rapid fire pattern by holding the trigger depressed. Automatic weapons have been illegal to own for many years.
I would personally be more concerned about this punk selling drugs to little kids than his gun ownership, but you are probably too young to have children to care about this issue, because you openly stated in your comentary that you wouldn't fret about the drugs issue!
Lastly pertaining to your statement, "It is the responsibility of city officials to do what they can to prevent another Virginia Tech incident; mandatory registration would be a logical step. " Guess what, I agree - kind of: If the law makers would have allowed citizens (students and professors) the option of legal concealed carry of weapons, this idiot that attacked VT probably could have been stopped by a private citizen. Imagine that!!! As it stands, we must rely on our over burdened police departments that got to the scene that day after the rampage was over. Too little, too late.
I hope you look at this in a little more detail before you make inaccurate statements and conclusion again.
No matter what we say to this future news wannabe it wont change his mind.
The $ signs are ringing in his ears. Reporting a story about DEADLY 100 BULLET PER SECOND ASSAULT, KILLER WEAPONS is what he is all about.
I would not be surprised if he used the 1st Amendment ploy to sample some of the margeewhana to prove it’s safe.
You know for the children.
The $ signs are ringing in his ears. Reporting a story about DEADLY 100 BULLET PER SECOND ASSAULT, KILLER WEAPONS is what he is all about.
I would not be surprised if he used the 1st Amendment ploy to sample some of the margeewhana to prove it’s safe.
You know for the children.
FourNineFoxtrot
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 361
I've read some really great, eloquent, persuasive responses to this article, and as usual, I'm impressed by the capacity of people on this forum to construct a reasoned, civil argument.
The sad thing is that the kid who wrote this article isn't going to read these responses and think about them. He's going to look at the e-mail replies, see dozens of them piling up, and say, "Wow, look at all the attention I got from that article. This is great!"
I hate to say it, but by bringing the attention of so many people to a single college paper article that probably went nearly unread on campus, we've lent the author a weight he would never have had.
It pains me to see such eloquence ultimately doing no more than "Feeding the troll".
The sad thing is that the kid who wrote this article isn't going to read these responses and think about them. He's going to look at the e-mail replies, see dozens of them piling up, and say, "Wow, look at all the attention I got from that article. This is great!"
I hate to say it, but by bringing the attention of so many people to a single college paper article that probably went nearly unread on campus, we've lent the author a weight he would never have had.
It pains me to see such eloquence ultimately doing no more than "Feeding the troll".
Here is my response. I intetionally didn't get into the technicalities or differences between MG's and semi-auto knock-offs because it doesn't really matter. The bans against MG's are still unconstitutional. And the fact that a bolt action with a scope has twice the range is also not really important.
The important thing to challenge is the ideolgy of "I'm scared so I want to make this illegal."
Anyway...
Sir,
I just read your online article at The Exponent. Although I differ with you on your stance about firearms laws, what I found most troubling about your article was this line:
"As the federal government decreed in 1994, assault weapons just don't belong in our communities."
I'm not a Constitutional Law scholar but it's my understanding that the people are to be in control of the government, not vice versa. Personally, I don't see how the federal government has any business making any unilateral decrees about anything. It exists to serve the people, not control them.
On the actual laws you are supporting, there are a lot of reasons that the guns you object to (such as civilian AK-47 clones) should remain legal. I'm sure you have heard arguments both for and against this point of view before and I'm equally sure that I probably couldn't change your mind if I tried. So I won't. But I do want to at least explain my point of view to you.
In plain English, the strongest reason for this type of firearm to remain legal is because we are Americans. The whole idea in our country is that you should be able to pretty much do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone else doing it. Having a rifle and taking it to a range doesn't harm anyone. Keeping it locked in a closet or safe in your home for defensive purposes doesn't harm anyone else either. At least not unless they try to hurt you or your loved ones. Since legal gun ownership by responsible adults isn't inherently dangerous, and since we're living in a country that values liberty very highly, I can't imagine any reason compelling enough to enact laws that restrict that or any other personal freedom.
I apply the same argument to issues like same sex civil unions and legalizing drugs. I support both of those things. I actually have no interest in either and whether or not they are legal won't affect my life in the least. But I still support them because even if I'm not inclined to do those things, that still isn't a good enough reason for me to try and restrict someone else's rights.
I do think you have a good reason to be concerned with an armed drug dealer living next to you (the $3,800 in cash makes me think he wasn't just a recreational user). That would worry me too. But the solution is not to limit someone else's right because you are afraid. I'm kind of afraid too - that's actually one of the biggest reasons I own guns.
Anyhow, I don't want to take up more of your time. As I said, I doubt that you'll change your mind anyway and that wasn't my intention in writing to you. I just wanted to make sure that you understood the other point of view on this issue.
The important thing to challenge is the ideolgy of "I'm scared so I want to make this illegal."
Anyway...
Sir,
I just read your online article at The Exponent. Although I differ with you on your stance about firearms laws, what I found most troubling about your article was this line:
"As the federal government decreed in 1994, assault weapons just don't belong in our communities."
I'm not a Constitutional Law scholar but it's my understanding that the people are to be in control of the government, not vice versa. Personally, I don't see how the federal government has any business making any unilateral decrees about anything. It exists to serve the people, not control them.
On the actual laws you are supporting, there are a lot of reasons that the guns you object to (such as civilian AK-47 clones) should remain legal. I'm sure you have heard arguments both for and against this point of view before and I'm equally sure that I probably couldn't change your mind if I tried. So I won't. But I do want to at least explain my point of view to you.
In plain English, the strongest reason for this type of firearm to remain legal is because we are Americans. The whole idea in our country is that you should be able to pretty much do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone else doing it. Having a rifle and taking it to a range doesn't harm anyone. Keeping it locked in a closet or safe in your home for defensive purposes doesn't harm anyone else either. At least not unless they try to hurt you or your loved ones. Since legal gun ownership by responsible adults isn't inherently dangerous, and since we're living in a country that values liberty very highly, I can't imagine any reason compelling enough to enact laws that restrict that or any other personal freedom.
I apply the same argument to issues like same sex civil unions and legalizing drugs. I support both of those things. I actually have no interest in either and whether or not they are legal won't affect my life in the least. But I still support them because even if I'm not inclined to do those things, that still isn't a good enough reason for me to try and restrict someone else's rights.
I do think you have a good reason to be concerned with an armed drug dealer living next to you (the $3,800 in cash makes me think he wasn't just a recreational user). That would worry me too. But the solution is not to limit someone else's right because you are afraid. I'm kind of afraid too - that's actually one of the biggest reasons I own guns.
Anyhow, I don't want to take up more of your time. As I said, I doubt that you'll change your mind anyway and that wasn't my intention in writing to you. I just wanted to make sure that you understood the other point of view on this issue.
1gkek - terrible reply, IMO. Accusing the guy of drug use and blaming him for someone owning an AK is the worst possible way to be an ambassador for our cause. Your email will only insult and anger him, and he'll be able to paint gun owners as accusatory, angry, and misinformed.
Well I took a little different tack. I will forward any response.
Hey Mike
Hope this finds you well. A friend of mine forwarded your recent article to me for comment. He thought I would have interest since I am a Purdue graduate, BSME 1983. Yea I am an old coot. I am also a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights.
Mike it would be easy for me to launch into a tirade about several of the misconceptions and prejudices that your article holds. I am sure you have received several such communications. I feel that is not the correct method or tone in which to voice disagreement. As such I will not bore you with a detailing of some of your errors, which are in reality technical, and not nearly central to the point of my concern.
Mike, the same document that protects your right to espouse your opinions protects the rights of US citizens to keep and bear arms. Like it or not the right of your neighbor to own that rifle is included in those protections. In all reality he has probably thrown that right away, in what appears to be a felonious possession of controlled substances. And for what it is worth, I think his rights should indeed be forfeited if convicted.
It is important to note that we do not draw our rights from that Constitution; it does not give those rights to us. Those rights are unalienable and creator given, the Constitution is a tool of affirmation and guarantee. In addition we do not get to pick and choose which rights we support and which we do not. The Constitution is to be taken, accepted and protected as a whole. That one document has served as the framework for the most successful experiment in self governance that has been known to man. Through its protections and execution, the mechanisms of our society have lifted more people out of poverty and oppression than ever before. The world too, has prospered from the successes of America.
Mike our Constitution is under full attack. It is under attack from both sides of the political aisle and from sources International in nature. I would like to respectfully suggest that before you call for the suspension of a right; you may want to consider what would ensue, if the right you find so distasteful can be removed so easily. If that right can be removed what is to keep the rest of the rights from being rendered null and void with similar ease?
Good luck in your studies and with your future.
Go Boilers.
With respect and regards,
Greg
Hey Mike
Hope this finds you well. A friend of mine forwarded your recent article to me for comment. He thought I would have interest since I am a Purdue graduate, BSME 1983. Yea I am an old coot. I am also a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights.
Mike it would be easy for me to launch into a tirade about several of the misconceptions and prejudices that your article holds. I am sure you have received several such communications. I feel that is not the correct method or tone in which to voice disagreement. As such I will not bore you with a detailing of some of your errors, which are in reality technical, and not nearly central to the point of my concern.
Mike, the same document that protects your right to espouse your opinions protects the rights of US citizens to keep and bear arms. Like it or not the right of your neighbor to own that rifle is included in those protections. In all reality he has probably thrown that right away, in what appears to be a felonious possession of controlled substances. And for what it is worth, I think his rights should indeed be forfeited if convicted.
It is important to note that we do not draw our rights from that Constitution; it does not give those rights to us. Those rights are unalienable and creator given, the Constitution is a tool of affirmation and guarantee. In addition we do not get to pick and choose which rights we support and which we do not. The Constitution is to be taken, accepted and protected as a whole. That one document has served as the framework for the most successful experiment in self governance that has been known to man. Through its protections and execution, the mechanisms of our society have lifted more people out of poverty and oppression than ever before. The world too, has prospered from the successes of America.
Mike our Constitution is under full attack. It is under attack from both sides of the political aisle and from sources International in nature. I would like to respectfully suggest that before you call for the suspension of a right; you may want to consider what would ensue, if the right you find so distasteful can be removed so easily. If that right can be removed what is to keep the rest of the rights from being rendered null and void with similar ease?
Good luck in your studies and with your future.
Go Boilers.
With respect and regards,
Greg
kayakersteve
Member
Nope!
No repsonses yet. I'm not holding my breath.
No repsonses yet. I'm not holding my breath.
I jumped on the bandwagon too, here's my email to him. I doubt he'll respond- he's probably huddling under his cubicle afraid to touch his computer thinking one of us crazy gun guys is going to take a shot through it at him! 
Nice Article
May I ask if you even know what an 'automatic' rifle is?
Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is John Frey, and I am a college student like yourself located in Reno, NV. I read your article listed on Purdue's website regarding your neighbor, and I would like to agree with you about the nature of this person's character. With that much loose cash and that amount of drugs, he is obviously the type of person that we don't need living in a peaceful community. But then your article takes a sudden twist that I had not expected, one of which that seems to demonstrate your lack of knowledge in a specific area, and that area is firearms.
An automatic rifle is a machine gun, a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of a trigger. These types of weapons can be legally possessed by law abiding citizens, ONLY after providing a full federal background check and a federal tax stamp which costs nearly $10,000. Even with the AWB sunsetting in 2004, machine guns can not be purchased by anyone who hasn't done the previous two requirements. Since your article claims the drug runner was not charged for possession of the weapon, I am able to deduce that this weapon was, in fact, NOT an automatic rifle.
So that leaves your term of assault rifle, which you throw around like the current government throws around the term Terrorism and WMD's. In most cases, the AK-47 found in an American household is simple a SEMI-automatic rifle, firing only one round with each trigger pull. The legally owned AK-47 is nearly identical to most typical hunting rifles, with the exception of it's extended magazine. For example, a Remington Woodsmaster rifle I own is semi automatic as well, yet only has a 4 round magazine. If I told you the magazines for it were loaded, in my safe, would that bother you as well?
In closing, I doubt you will take this email to heart. In fact, I'd be surprised if you make it to the final paragraph before deeming me an NRA Nazi and simple discard writings as flawed logic. I again wish to emphasize that I agree with your original premise, that this criminal in your article was a bad man out to do bad things. But it's the demonization of a legally owned firearm that leaves me disturbed. Current laws prohibit people involved in drugs from purchasing firearms, and it's very likely he possessed this rifle in relation to his drug running and possibly for gang related activity, but who knows for sure? The fact we need to address is that millions of people in our country own firearms for sporting and self defensive purposes, from old men with old fashioned revolvers, to younger men with a more modern taste of firearms. The only dangerous thing about any gun is the possible intent of the holder. Criminals will continue to do harm to others, be it with a gun, knife or other improved and convenient weapon. It's the criminal you should fear, not the gun. Did you realize your state, Indiana, allows for us law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon with permit? Most states do. You've likely stood next to a law abiding citizen with a gun at the bank, restaurant, shopping mall, etc, and you didn't even know it. But I would like to let you know this: a good guy with a gun is not a dangerous thing. He may end up saving your life, should you ever be thrust into a dangerous situation where seconds matter and the police are just minutes away.
Guns, when held by a properly trained and law abiding person, will not hurt you or affect your world in a negative way. I'd hope to see your future editorials reflect a need to reform the justice system to get criminals off our streets, and not reflect the "guns are bad" stereotype.
Thanks for your time,
Nice Article
May I ask if you even know what an 'automatic' rifle is?
Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is John Frey, and I am a college student like yourself located in Reno, NV. I read your article listed on Purdue's website regarding your neighbor, and I would like to agree with you about the nature of this person's character. With that much loose cash and that amount of drugs, he is obviously the type of person that we don't need living in a peaceful community. But then your article takes a sudden twist that I had not expected, one of which that seems to demonstrate your lack of knowledge in a specific area, and that area is firearms.
An automatic rifle is a machine gun, a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of a trigger. These types of weapons can be legally possessed by law abiding citizens, ONLY after providing a full federal background check and a federal tax stamp which costs nearly $10,000. Even with the AWB sunsetting in 2004, machine guns can not be purchased by anyone who hasn't done the previous two requirements. Since your article claims the drug runner was not charged for possession of the weapon, I am able to deduce that this weapon was, in fact, NOT an automatic rifle.
So that leaves your term of assault rifle, which you throw around like the current government throws around the term Terrorism and WMD's. In most cases, the AK-47 found in an American household is simple a SEMI-automatic rifle, firing only one round with each trigger pull. The legally owned AK-47 is nearly identical to most typical hunting rifles, with the exception of it's extended magazine. For example, a Remington Woodsmaster rifle I own is semi automatic as well, yet only has a 4 round magazine. If I told you the magazines for it were loaded, in my safe, would that bother you as well?
In closing, I doubt you will take this email to heart. In fact, I'd be surprised if you make it to the final paragraph before deeming me an NRA Nazi and simple discard writings as flawed logic. I again wish to emphasize that I agree with your original premise, that this criminal in your article was a bad man out to do bad things. But it's the demonization of a legally owned firearm that leaves me disturbed. Current laws prohibit people involved in drugs from purchasing firearms, and it's very likely he possessed this rifle in relation to his drug running and possibly for gang related activity, but who knows for sure? The fact we need to address is that millions of people in our country own firearms for sporting and self defensive purposes, from old men with old fashioned revolvers, to younger men with a more modern taste of firearms. The only dangerous thing about any gun is the possible intent of the holder. Criminals will continue to do harm to others, be it with a gun, knife or other improved and convenient weapon. It's the criminal you should fear, not the gun. Did you realize your state, Indiana, allows for us law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon with permit? Most states do. You've likely stood next to a law abiding citizen with a gun at the bank, restaurant, shopping mall, etc, and you didn't even know it. But I would like to let you know this: a good guy with a gun is not a dangerous thing. He may end up saving your life, should you ever be thrust into a dangerous situation where seconds matter and the police are just minutes away.
Guns, when held by a properly trained and law abiding person, will not hurt you or affect your world in a negative way. I'd hope to see your future editorials reflect a need to reform the justice system to get criminals off our streets, and not reflect the "guns are bad" stereotype.
Thanks for your time,
KimberTLE.45
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 31
Wrote him a quick email.....
Hello,
I read your article concerning assault weapons. I think that it is ridiculous that you are claiming that machine guns and fully automatic weapons are available to the public easily. The weapon you speak of, the AK-47 is no different than any other SEMI-automatic firearm such as a handgun. For you information, to purchase a fully automatic weapon you must be approved by the ATF, your state representative, be fingerprinted, wait 1-2 months for background check and processing of papers. After all of this - IF you get approved, why don't you check some prices on fully automatic weapons?These firearms can cost up to $30,000 for an M-16, And I've seen AK-47's go as high as $25,000. Maybe you should do a little more research kid.
P.S. Oh yeah don't forget! VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!!!
Hello,
I read your article concerning assault weapons. I think that it is ridiculous that you are claiming that machine guns and fully automatic weapons are available to the public easily. The weapon you speak of, the AK-47 is no different than any other SEMI-automatic firearm such as a handgun. For you information, to purchase a fully automatic weapon you must be approved by the ATF, your state representative, be fingerprinted, wait 1-2 months for background check and processing of papers. After all of this - IF you get approved, why don't you check some prices on fully automatic weapons?These firearms can cost up to $30,000 for an M-16, And I've seen AK-47's go as high as $25,000. Maybe you should do a little more research kid.
P.S. Oh yeah don't forget! VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!!!
Kind of Blued
Member
I'm in college, own an AK-47, and don't deal or ingest drugs.
Can this story be completely null and void now?
Can this story be completely null and void now?
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
Mikey is missing a major point.
If the neighbor will not obey the ban on possession of illegal narcotics (which apparently, Mikey doesn't have an issue with), why would he obey a ban on the possession of "assault rifles?" The man is a criminal. He acts outside the law. So what exactly are you expecting a ban to accomplish?
I am not able to email him directly. If anyone would like to forward this post feel free.
If the neighbor will not obey the ban on possession of illegal narcotics (which apparently, Mikey doesn't have an issue with), why would he obey a ban on the possession of "assault rifles?" The man is a criminal. He acts outside the law. So what exactly are you expecting a ban to accomplish?
I am not able to email him directly. If anyone would like to forward this post feel free.
mpmarty
Member
My response to Mike
Mike,
Please take a deep breath and relax. There are no easily purchased assault weapons in the United States. Assault Weapons are fully automatic, that is they shoot continuously until the trigger is released or they run out of ammunition. The AK47 / AK74 (newer model) you see around this country are SEMI-AUTOMATIC meaning they shoot one bullet for each pull of the trigger. Just like an old fashioned revolver. You are obviously not quite up to speed on your subject matter. I would recommend that at the very least you visit the BATFE website and familiarize yourself with what is and is not an assault weapon. In spite of the ignorant acts of some politicians in 1994 they did not ban assault weapons, they banned a few imported rifles that had cosmetic similarities to assault weapons. Actually, to put your mind at ease, let me explain that fully automatic assault weapons or any other type of "machine guns" have been banned and or extremely strictly regulated by federal law since 1934. In some states such as Oregon it is legal to possess such a firearm but federal law requires the person wishing to purchase the weapon to pay a $200.00 tax and submit to a comprehensive FBI background check into his past activities, mental health, political affiliations, family members and social activities. This background check can take up to six months to complete and only after passing this check can the purchase be completed. Unfortunately, criminals do not have to put up with this complication as they buy stolen military hardware in back alleys and use them to commit crimes. No law passed, no city ordinance will have the slightest effect on this type of activity. The only defense the law abiding civilian has is to dial 911 (also known as federally sponsored dial a prayer) and hope the cops catch the crooks some day or arm himself, legally in whatever way he can and hope never to need the defensive armament in the same way you would buy fire extinguishers and hope never to need them.
Mike,
Please take a deep breath and relax. There are no easily purchased assault weapons in the United States. Assault Weapons are fully automatic, that is they shoot continuously until the trigger is released or they run out of ammunition. The AK47 / AK74 (newer model) you see around this country are SEMI-AUTOMATIC meaning they shoot one bullet for each pull of the trigger. Just like an old fashioned revolver. You are obviously not quite up to speed on your subject matter. I would recommend that at the very least you visit the BATFE website and familiarize yourself with what is and is not an assault weapon. In spite of the ignorant acts of some politicians in 1994 they did not ban assault weapons, they banned a few imported rifles that had cosmetic similarities to assault weapons. Actually, to put your mind at ease, let me explain that fully automatic assault weapons or any other type of "machine guns" have been banned and or extremely strictly regulated by federal law since 1934. In some states such as Oregon it is legal to possess such a firearm but federal law requires the person wishing to purchase the weapon to pay a $200.00 tax and submit to a comprehensive FBI background check into his past activities, mental health, political affiliations, family members and social activities. This background check can take up to six months to complete and only after passing this check can the purchase be completed. Unfortunately, criminals do not have to put up with this complication as they buy stolen military hardware in back alleys and use them to commit crimes. No law passed, no city ordinance will have the slightest effect on this type of activity. The only defense the law abiding civilian has is to dial 911 (also known as federally sponsored dial a prayer) and hope the cops catch the crooks some day or arm himself, legally in whatever way he can and hope never to need the defensive armament in the same way you would buy fire extinguishers and hope never to need them.
POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK...
Okay guys! A lot of you sending this kid e'mails complaining that he didn't get his facts straight need to check your own lest you make us all look like fools.
2 Glaring misstatements for example: one poster stated that the Tax Stamp fee is $10,000. Another stated one needed the approval of their state representative. NOT!!!!
The fee is $200.
Need approval from the local chief law enforcement officer (which can be one of a variety of different guys like county sheriff, chief of police, head judge...).
The point here is that if we can't even get our facts straight how can we expect those against firearms, or with no interest in them to.
Okay guys! A lot of you sending this kid e'mails complaining that he didn't get his facts straight need to check your own lest you make us all look like fools.
2 Glaring misstatements for example: one poster stated that the Tax Stamp fee is $10,000. Another stated one needed the approval of their state representative. NOT!!!!
The fee is $200.
Need approval from the local chief law enforcement officer (which can be one of a variety of different guys like county sheriff, chief of police, head judge...).
The point here is that if we can't even get our facts straight how can we expect those against firearms, or with no interest in them to.
No response and I don't expect to get one either.
He's afraid so he wants someone to legislate the source of that fear away for him. It's a common problem in this country.
He's not interested in hearing what we have to say. I'd be suprised if he didn't just delete all our emails at once.
But I still felt I should fire one off. I couldn't let that go uncontested.
BTW - Werewolf is right. If you're going to comment on the facts that he didn't check then you had better make sure yours are correct too.
But again, don't let this be a machine gun vs. duck hunting debate.
Don't fall for that because that doesn't matter in the least.
We're Americans. We're supposed to be able to live how we choose in relative peace and without government intrusion into how we live our lives. That is all the reason I need.
You don't have to justify why you need a right.
He's afraid so he wants someone to legislate the source of that fear away for him. It's a common problem in this country.
He's not interested in hearing what we have to say. I'd be suprised if he didn't just delete all our emails at once.
But I still felt I should fire one off. I couldn't let that go uncontested.
BTW - Werewolf is right. If you're going to comment on the facts that he didn't check then you had better make sure yours are correct too.
But again, don't let this be a machine gun vs. duck hunting debate.
Don't fall for that because that doesn't matter in the least.
We're Americans. We're supposed to be able to live how we choose in relative peace and without government intrusion into how we live our lives. That is all the reason I need.
You don't have to justify why you need a right.
Wild Deuce
Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2007
- Messages
- 223
I think FourNineFoxtrot has come closest to the truth.
you know what, he is right... it is way to easy to get a automatic rifle... all it takes is cash and a connection to drugs/gangs...
I have no doubt that if you gave me a few thousand in cash, and I made a trip to oakland I could come home with several automatic weapons.
I have no doubt that if you gave me a few thousand in cash, and I made a trip to oakland I could come home with several automatic weapons.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
