USA Wake Up

[Maestro]

Why the **** do we need assault weapons? Seriously. I mean, I appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into gun making, hell I enjoy that more than shooting, but do you think Americans need to own AR15s and AK47s? Please. As if a semi-auto rifle isn't 'assault' enough. There needs to be at least SOME regulation.

inb4 "omg second amendment"

Oh by the way, AK-47s are automatic weapons that require a $200 background check by the feds. Just FYI y'know.
There is a HUGE ****ing difference between a semiauto and automatic. I'd like to see someone empty a full magazine out of an AR-15 and do the same thing as an M-16.
By the way, assault weapon is a contrived legal term to be able to ban any weapon that could stop the ninja-SWAT death squads. It's not an actual technical term that should be applicable to anything so thus the congress can manipulate it to their will to do anything they want.
Before one of you jackasses shoots his mouth off do some homework on the terms you're throwing around or I'll grind your face in it, be assured.
Differing opinions I'll tolerate; blatant misuse of terminology in a legal context (aka, stupidity) I will not.
Oh, and by the way, the reason the second amendment was established is enumerated to be the right to carry a weapon until such time government needs to get kicked in the nads to put it back in its place. Don't throw me that bullshit 'it's militia', it's accepted that all the rights in the constitution are individual, not collective. Otherwise I could say we don't have the right to say this.
Pull your head out your ass.

 

[VirusType2]

Oh by the way, AK-47s are automatic weapons that require a $200 background check by the feds. Just FYI y'know.
There is a HUGE ****ing difference between a semiauto and automatic.

Just FYI:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ak+47+semi+auto&aq=1&oq=ak+47+semi

Before one of you jackasses shoots his mouth off do some homework on the terms you're throwing around or I'll grind your face in it, be assured.
Differing opinions I'll tolerate; blatant misuse of terminology in a legal context (aka, stupidity) I will not.

Pull your head out your ass.

Foot goes in mouth / head comes out of ass


Also, you might want to refrain from being yourself around here.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Yeah I must not be informed. The only 'assault weapon' I own is an SKS...or a ruger 10/22 if that counts.

Oh, and I bought my SKS maybe two years ago and it has a grenade launcher...is that illegal?

Well you tried to say assault weapons are fully automatic weapons, when that is not the case. Those are not classified as "assault weapons"

The ban effected semi automatic rifles and pistols. It was in complete defiance of the 2nd amendment.


I'm assuming your SKS also has a bayonet lug. If you had bought it in 2004 it wouldve been an illegal sale that could land you time in federal prison.


Oh also- here's how I guarantee you Obama will renew the ban


"I think it’s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."

Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04

 

[Kase]

No, it's not. That's the entire point of the thread. i will die before anyone or any government strips me of my firearms.

you need some help

 

[VirusType2]

Rakurai, for all your efforts, I don't think you are winning anyone over. You may actually be getting more Obama votes to be perfectly honest.

Many people don't want civilians to have assault weapons in the first place. They may not even be aware of these laws like gun owners would be.

I found out through SIGbastard that, right now, fully automatic weapons are legal. It's pretty shocking.

And you present yourself as a bloodthirsty lunatic with little regard for human life as an opponent of gun control?

Sorry. While before I was on the fence about putting the ban back in place, after this discussion, I really don't want you or anyone else to have them.

This is the part where perhaps you threaten my life. Don't you see?

"I think it?s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban." - Obama

I agree.

 

[jet_porkins]

Did the Founding Fathers have assault rifles in mind when they compiled the Bill of Rights?

Even if the ban on assault rifles goes up, go get a hunting rifle. Gets the job done just as efficiently.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Rakurai, for all your efforts, I don't think you are winning anyone over. You may actually be getting more Obama votes to be perfectly honest.

I doubt it. Most people here already are solid in their lust for Obama. It's just fun to discuss the issues. I highly doubt anyone forms their voting opinion from anything on HL2.net. If they do that's pretty sad.

Many people don't want civilians to have assault weapons in the first place. They may not even be aware of these laws like gun owners would be.

No, most people are against having their rights to such taken away.

I found out through SIGbastard that, right now, fully automatic weapons are legal. It's pretty shocking.

How is it shocking? Don't you read the constitution- the second amendment guarantees us these rights.

I don't see how you could not be aware of this.

And you present yourself as a bloodthirsty lunatic with little regard for human life as an opponent of gun control?

WTF? In no way did I ever say I'm "bloodthirsty" or present myself as a lunatic. Don't know where the hell you got that from.

Sorry. While before I was on the fence about putting the ban back in place, after this discussion, I really don't want you or anyone else to have them.

And a lot of people don't want others to have freedom of speech. It doesn't make that view right in the least. The right to bear arms is just as important as freedom of speech.

This is the part where perhaps you threaten my life. Don't you see?

Um only if you were planning on breaking into my house. How the hell do I "threaten your life"

Don't be so dramatic.

"I think it?s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban." - Obama

I agree.

Then you want to strip people of their rights, plain and simple.

Did the Founding Fathers have assault rifles in mind when they compiled the Bill of Rights?

Even if the ban on assault rifles goes up, go get a hunting rifle. Gets the job done just as efficiently.

You realize that a huge percentage of "hunting rifles" are "assault weapons" as classified by the ban. You people need to read it before you comment.



This woman WROTE legislation for an 07 assault weapons ban and she DOESNT EVEN KNOW WHAT PARTS SHE LISTED IN THE BAN ARE

See below. This is utter idiocy. "large capacity clips" "shoulder thing that goes up" these people should NOT be legislating firearms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo


She makes shit up as she goes. The guns chosen in the original ban were NOT the guns that "most gangs and criminals used to kill police"

She just makes up lies as she goes.





Below is even more FEARMONGERING by this woman trying to make uninformed people believe there are "HEAT SEEKING BULLETS" by saying that phrase and showing posters with guns aimed at planes.

There is no such ****ing thing as heat seeking bullets. This is just scare mongering and fear tactics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

 

[Krynn72]

I think the Constitution is wrong. I believe every day civilians shouldnt have the right to firearms.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I think the Constitution is wrong.

:O

No way in hell anyone is going to take anything from the Bill of Rights away from me.

 

[VirusType2]

I doubt it. Most people here already are solid in their lust for Obama.

Because the alternative are a couple of morons named Palin and McCain: 100 years of wars, a further collapsing economy, etc.

"I don't agree with what the majority of Americans want."- John McCain

"What does a vice president do?" - Palin

I highly doubt anyone forms their voting opinion from anything on HL2.net. If they do that's pretty sad.

What? News sources on the internet are far more trustworthy than the shit on the T.V. That's sad if that's what you based your decision on.

No, most people are against having their rights to such taken away.

We aren't discussing just any rights, but the rights to own machine guns and assault weapons. Source?

How is it shocking? Don't you read the constitution- the second amendment guarantees us these rights.

I don't see how you could not be aware of this.

where in the constitution does it say that we have a right to own machine guns? You know in the 1960's there were mobsters robbing banks, killing police, and committing massacres with their Thompson sub machine guns with 80 round drums. Yeah, that's when they took them away from us.

WTF? In no way did I ever say I'm "bloodthirsty" or present myself as a lunatic. Don't know where the hell you got that from.

You stated you would rather kill someone than deal with a small hassle.

And a lot of people don't want others to have freedom of speech. It doesn't make that view right in the least.

Who? Name one ****ing politician that campaigned against freedom of speech.

The right to bear arms is just as important as freedom of speech.

No it's not. If you really think so, why?

Then you want to strip people of their rights, plain and simple.

You want to own assault rifles with bayonets, machine guns, and you stated that you will own guns regardless of laws. "they will take them over my dead body". Explain to me why you would ever need these things, and how it will make America better.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Because the alternative are a couple of morons named Palin and McCain: 100 years of wars, a further collapsing economy, etc.

"I don't agree with what the majority of Americans want."- John McCain

"What does a vice president do?" - Palin

"100 years of war" is already out of date- the Iraqis have given a withdrawal date, so Iraq isn't even a main campaign issue anymore.

I'd also like to see the context of those two quotes.

What? News sources on the internet are far more trustworthy than the shit on the T.V. That's sad if that's what you based your decision on.

Yes but the majority (besides mine and a few others) of articles posted on here are heavily liberally biased. It's like saying you get all your news from **************.com or something

We aren't discussing just any rights, but the rights to own machine guns and assault weapons. Source?.

If you take away the right to an automatic weapon you also remove the right to semi-automatic weapons. You cannot make the distinction based on how fast something shoots.

where in the constitution does it say that we have a right to own machine guns? You know in the 1960's there were mobsters robbing banks, killing police, and committing massacres with their Thompson sub machine guns with 80 round drums. Yeah, that's when they took them away from us.

You don't know what you're talking about. Prohibition ended in the early part of the century, not the 60's. You can also still by a Thompson, I see them in gun stores all the time. These were never taken away they are just outdated and that's why you never see them anymore.

You stated you would rather kill someone than deal with a small hassle.

It's not a small hassle, I'd rather kill someone trying to steal from me than let them do so.

Who? Name one ****ing politician that campaigned against freedom of speech.

FCC? Other radio acts?

No it's not. If you really think so, why?

Yes, it is. It's in the bill of rights. Without the second amendment there would not BE a first.

You want to own assault rifles with bayonets, machine guns, and you stated that you will own guns regardless of laws. "they will take them over my dead body". Explain to me why you would ever need these things, and how it will make America better.

I don't need to explain how something "will make America better" in order to own it. WTF. Since when is THAT bullshit a prerequisite for something.

By that logic why are video games, fatty foods, cigarettes, etc legal as they "dont make America better"

EITHER WAY, they do because it makes the government wary to enact threatening laws to privacy. The government NEEDS to fear the potential wrath of its citizens.

 

[kineaesth]

If you take away the right to an automatic weapon you also remove the right to semi-automatic weapons. You cannot make the distinction based on how fast something shoots.

Urm... Why not. There's a big difference in being able to hold down the trigger and constantly fire compared to firing once every trigger squeeze.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Urm... Why not. There's a big difference in being able to hold down the trigger and constantly fire compared to firing once every trigger squeeze.

No, there's not. Both kill just the same and just as effectively.

In fact I bet your "joe blow" will kill more people in a random attack with a SEMI automatic rifle as opposed to spray and pray with an automatic before his magazine is spent.

There's a reason weapons like the M16 have been designed into only semi-automatic and 3 round burst, and these are the weapons soldiers are using in Iraq.


How often do you go shooting and how often with both types of weapons?

 

[kineaesth]

How often do you go shooting and how often with both types of weapons?

Hahahaha...
Oh, right, I changed my location

This is New Zealand, mate.
Our gun culture is massive. I have guns that you've only seen in video games.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Hahahaha...
Oh, right, I changed my location

This is New Zealand, mate.
Our gun culture is massive. I have guns that you've only seen in video games.

I doubt that unless you've got some type of experimental phase weapons LMAO.

I'm no naive gun owner here, I've been shooting since I was 8. When it comes to death, it makes no difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic rifle. Both are going to kill you dead just the same. To say "one is not allowed" is to say all are not allowed.

 

[VirusType2]

If you take away the right to an automatic weapon you also remove the right to semi-automatic weapons. You cannot make the distinction based on how fast something shoots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_weapons

I'd also like to see the context of those two quotes.

By all means, enjoy free internet, and look it up, at least until McCain's group - AT&T and Verizon lobbyists - get their green light. Companies who want to tax the internet, and create completely unfair service.


I don't know if you can bear to watch the videos. They get slammed. But here:

Palin - "what does a VP do?"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=palin+what+does+a+vp+do&aq=1&oq=palin+what+does

McCain - "Well again, I disagree with what the American people want"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ith+what+the+American+people+want&btnG=Search

Yes but the majority (besides mine and a few others) of articles posted on here are heavily liberally biased. It's like saying you get all your news from **************.com or something

Then fair is fair right? So you don't believe the news from sources you post? Then why post it? How can you call us ridiculous for getting our news from the internet when that is what you are doing? Do you know of a better way to get news? The majority of the articles you have posted is extremely biased.

Does shedding light on an ugly truth make them biased?



EDIT: by the way

Title XI, subtitle A, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms deemed to be assault weapons, as well as any semi-automatic rifle that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more of the following features: A telescoping or folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, and a bayonet lug.

This law also banned possession of newly-manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

This section took effect September 13, 1994, and expired automatically on September 13, 2004 through a sunset provision.

what do you need any of this stuff for? This only makes it easier for crime and mass murder. IT serves NO other purpose.

This law also banned possession of newly-manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Why do you need removable clips of more than 10 rounds for home protection or hunting?

You don't.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_weapons

:dozey:
I know what an automatic firearm is and how they work. Both semi automatic and automatic rifles will kill you just the same. Like I said, for accuracy purposes a semi automatic rifle is probably a threat to larger crowds of people than a fully automatic weapon. There's a reason the army changed from the A1 receiver being a fully automatic piece to the now 3 round burst and semi automatic switch.

By all means, enjoy free internet, and look it up, at least until McCain's group - AT&T and Verizon lobbyists - get their green light. Companies who want to tax the internet, and create completely unfair service.


I don't know if you can bear to watch the videos. They get slammed. But here:

Palin - "what does a VP do?"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=palin+what+does+a+vp+do&aq=1&oq=palin+what+does

McCain - "Well again, I disagree with what the American people want"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ith+what+the+American+people+want&btnG=Search

Either way I endorse Bob Barr, like I've always said. McCain/Palin are just the lesser of two evils.

Then fair is fair right? So you don't believe the news from sources you post? Then why post it? How can you call us ridiculous for getting our news from the internet when that is what you are doing? Do you know of a better way to get news? The majority of the articles you have posted is extremely biased.

Does shedding light on an ugly truth make them biased?

I dont know why it censored the site I posted (biased censorship anyone?), but I posted P..ro... fg test warrior dot com (take out fg and the periods and the spaces to see)

That's a heavily biased conservative site. I was saying that if all you see are biased news articles you're not in any way getting the whole story. Someone basing their decision solely off of hl2.net is ridiculous for doing so. I wasn't mocking people for using the internet in general for their news. I do that.

what do you need any of this stuff for? This only makes it easier for crime and mass murder. IT serves NO other purpose.

How does something like a folding stock or barrell shroud do anything to make it easier to murder, this is ridiculous. These are just banning aesthetic things on a rifle.

Why do you need removable clips of more than 10 rounds for home protection or hunting?

You don't.

The second amendment is there for more than home protection or hunting. Get that through your head. Also it's not "clip" it's magazine.

 

[kineaesth]

Also it's not "clip" it's magazine.

How does something like a folding stock or barrell shroud do anything to make it easier to murder, this is ridiculous. These are just banning aesthetic things on a rifle.

These two together make so little sense. First you correct him on gun terminology, then you think that a folding stock or barrel is aesthetic?

How about 'Oh I'm going to shoot some people in a crowded mall, rather than lugging in this massive long gun I'll take this fold-up semi automatic rifle in my backpack, brilliant!'

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

These two together make so little sense. First you correct him on gun terminology, then you think that a folding stock or barrel is aesthetic?

How about 'Oh I'm going to shoot some people in a crowded mall, rather than lugging in this massive long gun I'll take this fold-up semi automatic rifle in my backpack, brilliant!'

I know what I'm talking about

Barrel shroud, not barrel.
http://www.angolaarmory.com/jpg/223.jpg



And yes, I know what it does to cool the barrell, but the only reason its included in the ban is because "IT LOOKS SCARY"



It in no way makes it easier to kill. If anything the barrell shroud will burn you so it makes it harder.


@ the folding stock. Ridiculous to ban it, its obviously just because the look. There are enough rifles you could easily hide as well, or just disassemble it and carry. The ban focused on looks

 

[VirusType2]

:dozey:
I know what an automatic firearm is and how they work.

So then why bother arguing about it:

You cannot make the distinction based on how fast something shoots.

Both semi automatic and automatic rifles will kill you just the same.

What does that have to do with anything?

Yes, a pistol and a Nuclear Missile will kill you just the same too. So we should be allowed to have Nuclear Missiles. I'm sure they are perfect for hunting wabbits.

I don't find the federal weapons ban unreasonable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Like I said, for accuracy purposes a semi automatic rifle is probably a threat to larger crowds of people than a fully automatic weapon.

Does someone committing a massacre on innocent civilians with an automatic rifle really care about being accurate when he is firing indiscriminately on any and everyone in his sight?

Automatic terror is half the fun!

There's a reason the army changed from the A1 receiver being a fully automatic piece to the now 3 round burst and semi automatic switch.

The US military favors fully automatic weapons for a reason. The ability to lay down a stream of incredible firepower. Exactly not what people need for any reason other than to kill lots of people.

I was saying that if all you see are biased news articles you're not in any way getting the whole story.

So then why not post some balanced news?

?

??

The second amendment is there for more than home protection or hunting. Get that through your head.

Are you planning to overthrow the government? Well, you did say that you will keep whatever guns you want, regardless of laws.

If you don't like it here, you are free to leave. Find another country with more freedoms, if you can.

 

[Eejit]

Yes, it is. It's in the bill of rights. Without the second amendment there would not BE a first.

Then how do other countries with gun control manage to have freedom of speec etc?

By your reasoning that's impossibles!!

The second amendment is there for more than home protection or hunting.

A volunteer militia are never going to be able to defeat a modern army. This isn't the 18th century. The disparity between militaries and weaponry available to civilians is now insurmountable.
In the 18th century there were infantry with relatively simple weapons, relatively simple artillery pieces, and cavalry. All easy enough for a rebellion to manufacture and use.
Today you'd be up against tanks, long range artillery, and bomber jets.

Iraqi and Afghan insurgents seem to have firearms. How well exactly are they doing against the US army?
Inflicting some casualties, yes, but any closer to 'driving out the invaders'?

 

[VirusType2]

The US military has 'top secret' weapons that can melt your face, generate sound waves that render you insane, biometric sniffers that track people according to their scent, etc.

Hypothetically, I'm more worried about that loco 20 year old drug dealer across the street with an UZI.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

TBF guys. Switzerland have a huge gun culture and yet have the same amount of deaths from firearms per year as the UK does, which has some of the most heavy gun control in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

I am in no way a gun nut or anything (I don't own one), but I feel that this is worth anti-gun people seeing.

 

[VirusType2]

Interesting.

Just to clarify my stance some, I'm not anti-gun:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=147454

 

[Eejit]

TBF guys. Switzerland have a huge gun culture and yet have the same amount of deaths from firearms per year as the UK does, which has some of the most heavy gun control in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

I am in no way a gun nut or anything (I don't own one), but I feel that this is worth anti-gun people seeing.

Switzerland has lower crime rates in general, you can't look at absolute figures like that.

In switzerland 37% of homicides are committed with firearms, whereas in England and Wales it's 8% (btw I assume England and Wales figures are generally quoted due to N.I. skewing numbers unfairly ), Switzerland and the US have the highest % of homicides as gun related of anny first world countries, while E&W have the lowest.

 

[Kase]

:dozey:
I know what an automatic firearm is and how they work. Both semi automatic and automatic rifles will kill you just the same.

yes but the automatic has the spray and pray factor :cheers:

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So then why bother arguing about it:


What does that have to do with anything?

Yes, a pistol and a Nuclear Missile will kill you just the same too. So we should be allowed to have Nuclear Missiles. I'm sure they are perfect for hunting wabbits.

It's easier to kill more people with a well aimed semi-automatic than spraying indescrimantely with an automatic.

I don't find the federal weapons ban unreasonable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Why should have of those things listed by banned? Because you're "scared" of them? That's a ridiculous infringement on freedom and that's the exact reason it was allowed to sunset.

Does someone committing a massacre on innocent civilians with an automatic rifle really care about being accurate when he is firing indiscriminately on any and everyone in his sight?

Automatic terror is half the fun!

Someone with a semi-automatic weapon is going to kill more people before they're taken out. Just look at the beltway sniper.

The US military favors fully automatic weapons for a reason. The ability to lay down a stream of incredible firepower. Exactly not what people need for any reason other than to kill lots of people.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote regarding the A1 receiver's evolution FROM fully automatic TO semi automatic and 3 round burst. There's a reason it did this.

So then why not post some balanced news?

?

??

Which is what I've been doing. My entire point was that anyone who bases their vote solely off of hl2.net is ****ing retarded. Just like anyone who does solely off of "colbert report" or other things like that.

Are you planning to overthrow the government? Well, you did say that you will keep whatever guns you want, regardless of laws.

No, I'm not, but I'm going to be able to defend myself against warantless searches and seizures unlike many others here. Not all defending yourself from the government is "LOL LETS TAKE ON THE US MILITARY!!!1"

If you don't like it here, you are free to leave. Find another country with more freedoms, if you can.

The law currently works in my favor so this statement is more applicable to those who disagree with me. I'm fighting just to retain what is currently in effect and working just fine for freedom, not change anything.

 

[Eejit]

ITT: Drug dealer wants to keep guns better than the police have.

 

[Vegeta897]

How about gun dealers who want to keep drugs better than the police have?

Yeah, think about that. IS YOUR MIND BLOWN

 

[Eejit]

Them too.
Though as far as I know none of them are posting here.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...9C58494B45470714862574F3006D0CA6?OpenDocument
10/31/2008
Woman Kills Repeat Rapist With Shotgun Blast


The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.


And you all would have had her disarmed

 

[Eejit]

Oh noez that means if we're still pro gun control we support rape of old women!!!1

Is that trivial objection or wisdom of repugnance fallacy?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

yes but the automatic has the spray and pray factor :cheers:

It doesn't really make a difference if someone is shooting into a crowd with an automatic or a semi-automatic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0-iZCu-n7E


The above is a semi-automatic Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. It's going to take out just as many people as the automatic virtually just as fast.

 

[CptStern]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...9C58494B45470714862574F3006D0CA6?OpenDocument
10/31/2008
Woman Kills Repeat Rapist With Shotgun Blast


The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.


And you all would have had her disarmed

An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday.

Patrick emptied his AK-47, shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock, Police Chief Patty Patterson said.
He told police he had been robbed and shot in the past year.
"He wasn't going to be robbed again, and he wasn't going to be shot again," Patterson said Saturday at a news conference.

And you would have had him armed ..because after all he has a right to defend himself from 12 year old burglars disguised as darth vader


obviously the above is proof that guns for home defense are uneccesary just as your link proves without the shadow of a doubt that guns are necessary ...right?

 

[Raziaar]

My god, unloading through the door just after a knock? That's ****ed up.

 

[CptStern]

the kid was hit ian estimated 30 times ..also his father and 9 year old brother were also hit but survived


this tragedy brought to you by Kalashnikov; in Soviet Russia gun kills you

 

[VirusType2]

lol

Who in the hell would rape a 57 year old woman.

http://www.elegancehealthandbeauty.com/sculptrabefore1.jpg


I mean, if you are a rapist, you can have whoever you want right?

(lollol)

 

[Kase]

It doesn't really make a difference if someone is shooting into a crowd with an automatic or a semi-automatic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0-iZCu-n7E


The above is a semi-automatic Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. It's going to take out just as many people as the automatic virtually just as fast.

its alot easyer for some to kill alot of people when they can just hold down the trigger, you honestly just apear to be a pro gun fanatic. you said you would die before they take your guns away you need your head checked and need better arguments on why you need guns tbh. The only people that should have them are the police and the Armed Forces every day people dont need guns and your outdated second amendment nonsence has nothing to do with the first amendment:bounce::bounce::bounce:

 

[Ridge]

How about having a gun to keep the bad guys away? When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away....calling the cops wont do anything for you unless you are rediculously lucky enough to actually have a cop going down that street at that time...

 

[CptStern]

How about having a gun to keep the bad guys away? When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away....calling the cops wont do anything for you unless you are rediculously lucky enough to actually have a cop going down that street at that time...

yes you should always take matters into your own hands

An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday.

Patrick emptied his AK-47, shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock, Police Chief Patty Patterson said.
He told police he had been robbed and shot in the past year.
"He wasn't going to be robbed again, and he wasn't going to be shot again," Patterson said Saturday at a news conference.

good thing he didnt wait for the cops, 12 year old trick or treaters are like terrists

want to explain why your right to protection supercedes the rights of others not to go down in a hail of bullets? please explain