AUDub 11,131 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I believe he is a closet Muslim. It doesn't condone his actions one way or the other. Just my opinion. I think he's about as Muslim as I am a worshiper of Quetzalcoatl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,890 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Funny that you brought up the conspiracy theorists. Haven't seen any of them here in a while. Wasted a lot of time arguing with them. You must be new. I need to introduce you to this dude named homer. Homer? Not even close. 78 is just butt hurt cause I caught him lying. I've been following it. Gets a tad nonsensical and vindictive from time to time, doesn't he? You can get by making smart a$$ comments from time to time with some folks. Others, not so much. Need I say more? Nope. You don't. Rarely do as a matter of fact. Well thank you for showing affection. Tis the season.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I believe he is a closet Muslim. It doesn't condone his actions one way or the other. Just my opinion. I think he's about as Muslim as I am a worshiper of Quetzalcoatl. I remember FOX showing a bit about what was served to eat at one of Obamas big dawg meetings. They spent all of 5 minutes bashing the fact that Obama served lobster and even showed a picture of Obama eating bacon and eggs (not from the actual meal they were bashing though???). Less than 20 minutes later they made some obscure comment relating Obama to Islam. Somebody in this relationship is completely ignorant... the channel or the viewers that believe this??? We debate, you decide!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 a couple of months ago i was taking a test at a community college. ran into an old hunting buddy. always liked him. He is the definition of a gun nut. retired cop, spent a couple of years in afganistan training LE. He is a professional marksman and tactics, swat or whatever. he returned and now is employed with the campus PD. We were having a good conversation and i am not sure how it got on the subject of Newton but he thinks anyone who believes it happened is a fool. I still like the guy but i know where to draw the line for conversation with him now. but it amazes me at how such a professional down to earth person can fall for such s***. like he really needs to believe it never happened. I understand. There are people in my family that swear up and down that Obama is a super-sekrit Muslim. I love 'em, but I make it a point to avoid discussing politics. I believe he is a closet Muslim. It doesn't condone his actions one way or the other. Just my opinion. You can't be serious...he doesn't have a closet..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,471 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 *the Twilight Zone theme plays softly in the background* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Funny that you brought up the conspiracy theorists. Haven't seen any of them here in a while. Wasted a lot of time arguing with them. You must be new. I need to introduce you to this dude named homer. Homer? Not even close. 78 is just butt hurt cause I caught him lying. I've been following it. Gets a tad nonsensical and vindictive from time to time, doesn't he? You can get by making smart a$$ comments from time to time with some folks. Others, not so much. Need I say more? Nope. You don't. Rarely do as a matter of fact. Well thank you for showing affection. Tis the season.......... And yet, you never resist saying more..... :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,811 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 This makes about as much sense as suing a pencil maker because I failed my final exams. Was it a Scranton and your number 2 pencil wasn't sufficiently dark? You may have a case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,811 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 a couple of months ago i was taking a test at a community college. ran into an old hunting buddy. always liked him. He is the definition of a gun nut. retired cop, spent a couple of years in afganistan training LE. He is a professional marksman and tactics, swat or whatever. he returned and now is employed with the campus PD. We were having a good conversation and i am not sure how it got on the subject of Newton but he thinks anyone who believes it happened is a fool. I still like the guy but i know where to draw the line for conversation with him now. but it amazes me at how such a professional down to earth person can fall for such s***. like he really needs to believe it never happened. I understand. There are people in my family that swear up and down that Obama is a super-sekrit Muslim. I love 'em, but I make it a point to avoid discussing politics. I believe he is a closet Muslim. It doesn't condone his actions one way or the other. Just my opinion. That's not an opinion. It's what you believe to be a fact. It's also beyond ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 a couple of months ago i was taking a test at a community college. ran into an old hunting buddy. always liked him. He is the definition of a gun nut. retired cop, spent a couple of years in afganistan training LE. He is a professional marksman and tactics, swat or whatever. he returned and now is employed with the campus PD. We were having a good conversation and i am not sure how it got on the subject of Newton but he thinks anyone who believes it happened is a fool. I still like the guy but i know where to draw the line for conversation with him now. but it amazes me at how such a professional down to earth person can fall for such s***. like he really needs to believe it never happened. I understand. There are people in my family that swear up and down that Obama is a super-sekrit Muslim. I love 'em, but I make it a point to avoid discussing politics. I believe he is a closet Muslim. It doesn't condone his actions one way or the other. Just my opinion. That's not an opinion. It's what you believe to be a fact. It's also beyond ridiculous. He may not be a muslim. I'm not certain he's anything religiously. What is he is though, is sympathetic to them and their "cause" such as it is. He has continually sided with Hamas and the Palestinians against Israel and us for that matter. He believes the Israelis and the United States are bullies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,890 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Funny that you brought up the conspiracy theorists. Haven't seen any of them here in a while. Wasted a lot of time arguing with them. You must be new. I need to introduce you to this dude named homer. Homer? Not even close. 78 is just butt hurt cause I caught him lying. I've been following it. Gets a tad nonsensical and vindictive from time to time, doesn't he? You can get by making smart a$$ comments from time to time with some folks. Others, not so much. Need I say more? Nope. You don't. Rarely do as a matter of fact. Well thank you for showing affection. Tis the season.......... And yet, you never resist saying more..... :-\ Simply irresistible......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 He may not be a muslim. I'm not certain he's anything religiously. What is he is though, is sympathetic to them and their "cause" such as it is. He has continually sided with Hamas and the Palestinians against Israel and us for that matter. He believes the Israelis and the United States are bullies. #1 Explain "their cause" please. #2 Can you provide a quote or action that shows sympathy toward said "cause"? (ISIS and Bin Lades family say otherwise) #3 Are you saying that every single muslim alive should be treated as a terrorist? (slippery question is it not???) #4 Can you provide evidence and explain to me how he has sided with Hamas on anything? #5 Is being sympathetic for a Palestinian evil? #6 Does Obama think that Israel and the United States are bullies? I ask because I have never heard him say this. I have heard him agree with the fact that we (US and Israel) are considered bullies by most of the world. Which leads to my last question... #7 Do people in the middle east and Europe view the US and Israel as "bullies"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,411 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If i hear that: 1) Obama is a muslim... 2) Obama is a Kenyan... 3) Obama is the anti-christ... I am going to go postal and shoot up some random building somewhere, hurting no one...with weapons from multiple manufacturers...then: 1) i am going to sue the claimant of said screwy theory.. 2) Sue ALL of the weapon manufacturers... 3) Retire independently wealthy. There, i have fulfilled what will soon be the inevitable actions of crazies from now on. Look, most problems with Obama is...he is black. Most of the people that hate the guy have zero understanding of any policy he has put forth. I personally think he is simply incompetent, about as incompetent as Bush43. He is not part of some grand black helicopter conspiracy theory. He is not a manchurian candidate. He is just way in over his head on most subjects. Implementation of PPACA is ground zero exhibit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If i hear that: 1) Obama is a muslim... 2) Obama is a Kenyan... 3) Obama is the anti-christ... I am going to go postal and shoot up some random building somewhere, hurting no one...with weapons from multiple manufacturers...then: 1) i am going to sue the claimant of said screwy theory.. 2) Sue ALL of the weapon manufacturers... 3) Retire independently wealthy. There, i have fulfilled what will soon be the inevitable actions of crazies from now on. Look, most problems with Obama is...he is black. Most of the people that hate the guy have zero understanding of any policy he has put forth. I personally think he is simply incompetent, about as incompetent as Bush43. He is not part of some grand black helicopter conspiracy theory. He is not a manchurian candidate. He is just way in over his head on most subjects. Implementation of PPACA is ground zero exhibit. No this is not incompetence. Everything that has happened has happened on purpose. All you have to do is go back to his writings and speeches and everything in his life and who he was associated with. His influences as a youth and into early adulthood and even beyond were people that did not like this country. His own father was one who hated America. You don't sit in Jeremiah Wrights' church for 20 years if you aren't all in for the things he believes. He has a chip on his shoulder about this country and he's going to make it pay for its' sins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If i hear that: 1) Obama is a muslim... 2) Obama is a Kenyan... 3) Obama is the anti-christ... I am going to go postal and shoot up some random building somewhere, hurting no one...with weapons from multiple manufacturers...then: 1) i am going to sue the claimant of said screwy theory.. 2) Sue ALL of the weapon manufacturers... 3) Retire independently wealthy. There, i have fulfilled what will soon be the inevitable actions of crazies from now on. Look, most problems with Obama is...he is black. Most of the people that hate the guy have zero understanding of any policy he has put forth. I personally think he is simply incompetent, about as incompetent as Bush43. He is not part of some grand black helicopter conspiracy theory. He is not a manchurian candidate. He is just way in over his head on most subjects. Implementation of PPACA is ground zero exhibit. No this is not incompetence. Everything that has happened has happened on purpose. All you have to do is go back to his writings and speeches and everything in his life and who he was associated with. His influences as a youth and into early adulthood and even beyond were people that did not like this country. His own father was one who hated America. You don't sit in Jeremiah Wrights' church for 20 years if you aren't all in for the things he believes. He has a chip on his shoulder about this country and he's going to make it pay for its' sins. I tried but can't resist... Do you think that a muslim would have been in Jeremiah Wrights' church for over 20 years? Because FOX would love you to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If i hear that: 1) Obama is a muslim... 2) Obama is a Kenyan... 3) Obama is the anti-christ... I am going to go postal and shoot up some random building somewhere, hurting no one...with weapons from multiple manufacturers...then: 1) i am going to sue the claimant of said screwy theory.. 2) Sue ALL of the weapon manufacturers... 3) Retire independently wealthy. There, i have fulfilled what will soon be the inevitable actions of crazies from now on. Look, most problems with Obama is...he is black. Most of the people that hate the guy have zero understanding of any policy he has put forth. I personally think he is simply incompetent, about as incompetent as Bush43. He is not part of some grand black helicopter conspiracy theory. He is not a manchurian candidate. He is just way in over his head on most subjects. Implementation of PPACA is ground zero exhibit. No this is not incompetence. Everything that has happened has happened on purpose. All you have to do is go back to his writings and speeches and everything in his life and who he was associated with. His influences as a youth and into early adulthood and even beyond were people that did not like this country. His own father was one who hated America. You don't sit in Jeremiah Wrights' church for 20 years if you aren't all in for the things he believes. He has a chip on his shoulder about this country and he's going to make it pay for its' sins. I tried but can't resist... Do you think that a muslim would have been in Jeremiah Wrights' church for over 20 years? Because FOX would love you to. Sometimes he gets confused. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Everyone feel free to continue with the topic hijack and Obama bashing [not to mention fellow poster bashing] as you like. All I'll say toward that is my feelings/beliefs are more in line with DKW's comments re Obama and Bigben's video. But back to the original topic. I also don't expect this lawsuit to get anywhere in court, although I suspect if it goes to court it will end up in the Supreme Court because I don't expect the either side will not stop until they have exhausted all avenues of appeal. So anyway, while I don't expect the plaintiffs will be successful, in this litigious nation anything is possible. I'm no lawyer and no expert, but the plaintiffs may arguably have at least some precedent: 1. The success of lawsuits against tobacco companies may have lowered the bar in terms of establishing manufacturer culpability for the products they produce. 2. The opening article/link itself mentions the Washington sniper case: In a lawsuit over the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings that killed 10 people in 2002, Bushmaster and a gun dealer agreed to pay $2.5 million to two survivors and six families in a 2004 settlement. It was the first time a gun manufacturer had agreed to pay damages to settle claims of negligent distribution of weapons, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In that settlement, Bushmaster paid $550,000 and the Washington state gun dealer, where the sniper's rifle came from, paid $2 million. With no legal expertise, I don't know what this means in terms of precedent. It may mean nothing since that case was settled out of court, or it may be significant.As for my personal opinion: Personally, I believe the right to manufacture, sell, or own an AR-15 is currently protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment gives carte blanch permission to own any type of weapon. The 2nd Amendment certainly doesn't give me the right to possess nerve gas, a nuke in my basement, or weaponized anthrax! So I don't consider it a constitutional crisis or the end of democracy as we know it if similar restrictions are placed on other "weapons of mass destruction" (as some might classify assault weapons with high-volume magazines). I also believe the AR-15, basically a civilian model of the military's M-16, was designed for only one job: killing humans in combat settings. For hunting, there are other rifles and shotguns that are more effective. For home defense, shotguns are more effective and less likely to cause collateral damage (e.g., innocent victims down range or on the other side of a wall) . For portable self-defense (carry), pistols are obviously more convenient and make more sense. So while the 2nd Amendment may protect the right to own/sell an AR-15, I see no purpose for its existence or in owning one...other than to satisfy a sense of "macho" in owning a military-class weapon. [Again, my opinion...blast away if you like (pun intended), you are certainly entitled to yours and it won't offend me or concern me.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 As for my personal opinion: Personally, I believe the right to manufacture, sell, or own an AR-15 is currently protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment gives carte blanch permission to own any type of weapon. The 2nd Amendment certainly doesn't give me the right to possess nerve gas, a nuke in my basement, or weaponized anthrax! So I don't consider it a constitutional crisis or the end of democracy as we know it if similar restrictions are placed on other "weapons of mass destruction" (as some might classify assault weapons with high-volume magazines). I also believe the AR-15, basically a civilian model of the military's M-16, was designed for only one job: killing humans in combat settings. For hunting, there are other rifles and shotguns that are more effective. For home defense, shotguns are more effective and less likely to cause collateral damage (e.g., innocent victims down range or on the other side of a wall) . For portable self-defense (carry), pistols are obviously more convenient and make more sense. So while the 2nd Amendment may protect the right to own/sell an AR-15, I see no purpose for its existence or in making or owning one...other than to satisfy a sense of "macho" in owning a military-class weapon. [Again, my opinion...blast away if you like (pun intended), you are certainly entitled to yours and it won't offend me or concern me.] As an owner and collector of several "military-class weapons" (I prefer AK variants myself), I can at least tell you why I own them: they are fun to shoot. Even the semi-automatic varieties are fun to shoot. There is no shotgun or conventional hunting rifle that can match the fun of several mag dumps at the range. I have no illusions about an AK being useful for hunting, as I do not own any of the magazines required to legally hunt with one in most states. I enjoy the sport of shooting. The individuals I know personally that are owners and collectors of such firearms are also shooters. That may not qualify to you as a purpose for their existence in the civilian market, but people do indeed have varying opinions on firearms. My opinion of them is that they are nothing more than a tool. Like a hammer or a knife, they are dangerous weapons when handled recklessly or placed in the wrong hands. If I could be presented with a rational argument for why "assault weapons" or magazines need to be restricted, then I could likely be brought on board with said restrictions. However, I usually find such arguments knee-jerk reactions to whatever the new shooting incident was, and I do not support knee-jerk legislation. Such restrictions only affect those that were already inclined to obey the existing laws in the first place. I can understand the perspective behind supporting such restrictions, but I do think that energy and those resources could be better focused elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Everyone feel free to continue with the topic hijack and Obama bashing [not to mention fellow poster bashing] as you like. All I'll say toward that is my feelings/beliefs are more in line with DKW's comments re Obama and Bigben's video. But back to the original topic. I also don't expect this lawsuit to get anywhere in court, although I suspect if it goes to court it will end up in the Supreme Court because I don't expect the either side will not stop until they have exhausted all avenues of appeal. So anyway, while I don't expect the plaintiffs will be successful, in this litigious nation anything is possible. I'm no lawyer and no expert, but the plaintiffs may arguably have at least some precedent: 1. The success of lawsuits against tobacco companies may have lowered the bar in terms of establishing manufacturer culpability for the products they produce. 2. The opening article/link itself mentions the Washington sniper case: In a lawsuit over the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings that killed 10 people in 2002, Bushmaster and a gun dealer agreed to pay $2.5 million to two survivors and six families in a 2004 settlement. It was the first time a gun manufacturer had agreed to pay damages to settle claims of negligent distribution of weapons, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In that settlement, Bushmaster paid $550,000 and the Washington state gun dealer, where the sniper's rifle came from, paid $2 million. With no legal expertise, I don't know what this means in terms of precedent. It may mean nothing since that case was settled out of court, or it may be significant.As for my personal opinion: Personally, I believe the right to manufacture, sell, or own an AR-15 is currently protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment gives carte blanch permission to own any type of weapon. The 2nd Amendment certainly doesn't give me the right to possess nerve gas, a nuke in my basement, or weaponized anthrax! So I don't consider it a constitutional crisis or the end of democracy as we know it if similar restrictions are placed on other "weapons of mass destruction" (as some might classify assault weapons with high-volume magazines). I also believe the AR-15, basically a civilian model of the military's M-16, was designed for only one job: killing humans in combat settings. For hunting, there are other rifles and shotguns that are more effective. For home defense, shotguns are more effective and less likely to cause collateral damage (e.g., innocent victims down range or on the other side of a wall) . For portable self-defense (carry), pistols are obviously more convenient and make more sense. So while the 2nd Amendment may protect the right to own/sell an AR-15, I see no purpose for its existence or in owning one...other than to satisfy a sense of "macho" in owning a military-class weapon. [Again, my opinion...blast away if you like (pun intended), you are certainly entitled to yours and it won't offend me or concern me.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 Everyone feel free to continue with the topic hijack and Obama bashing [not to mention fellow poster bashing] as you like. All I'll say toward that is my feelings/beliefs are more in line with DKW's comments re Obama and Bigben's video. But back to the original topic. I also don't expect this lawsuit to get anywhere in court, although I suspect if it goes to court it will end up in the Supreme Court because I don't expect the either side will not stop until they have exhausted all avenues of appeal. So anyway, while I don't expect the plaintiffs will be successful, in this litigious nation anything is possible. I'm no lawyer and no expert, but the plaintiffs may arguably have at least some precedent: 1. The success of lawsuits against tobacco companies may have lowered the bar in terms of establishing manufacturer culpability for the products they produce. 2. The opening article/link itself mentions the Washington sniper case: In a lawsuit over the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings that killed 10 people in 2002, Bushmaster and a gun dealer agreed to pay $2.5 million to two survivors and six families in a 2004 settlement. It was the first time a gun manufacturer had agreed to pay damages to settle claims of negligent distribution of weapons, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In that settlement, Bushmaster paid $550,000 and the Washington state gun dealer, where the sniper's rifle came from, paid $2 million. With no legal expertise, I don't know what this means in terms of precedent. It may mean nothing since that case was settled out of court, or it may be significant.As for my personal opinion: Personally, I believe the right to manufacture, sell, or own an AR-15 is currently protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment gives carte blanch permission to own any type of weapon. The 2nd Amendment certainly doesn't give me the right to possess nerve gas, a nuke in my basement, or weaponized anthrax! So I don't consider it a constitutional crisis or the end of democracy as we know it if similar restrictions are placed on other "weapons of mass destruction" (as some might classify assault weapons with high-volume magazines). I also believe the AR-15, basically a civilian model of the military's M-16, was designed for only one job: killing humans in combat settings. For hunting, there are other rifles and shotguns that are more effective. For home defense, shotguns are more effective and less likely to cause collateral damage (e.g., innocent victims down range or on the other side of a wall) . For portable self-defense (carry), pistols are obviously more convenient and make more sense. So while the 2nd Amendment may protect the right to own/sell an AR-15, I see no purpose for its existence or in owning one...other than to satisfy a sense of "macho" in owning a military-class weapon. [Again, my opinion...blast away if you like (pun intended), you are certainly entitled to yours and it won't offend me or concern me.] :clap:/> my opinions are very similar. I did give up on the gun control debate. We tried we lost, common sense lost, so i accept that and moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 As an owner and collector of several "military-class weapons" (I prefer AK variants myself), I can at least tell you why I own them: they are fun to shoot. Even the semi-automatic varieties are fun to shoot. There is no shotgun or conventional hunting rifle that can match the fun of several mag dumps at the range. I have no illusions about an AK being useful for hunting, as I do not own any of the magazines required to legally hunt with one in most states. I enjoy the sport of shooting. The individuals I know personally that are owners and collectors of such firearms are also shooters. That may not qualify to you as a purpose for their existence in the civilian market, but people do indeed have varying opinions on firearms. My opinion of them is that they are nothing more than a tool. Like a hammer or a knife, they are dangerous weapons when handled recklessly or placed in the wrong hands. If I could be presented with a rational argument for why "assault weapons" or magazines need to be restricted, then I could likely be brought on board with said restrictions. However, I usually find such arguments knee-jerk reactions to whatever the new shooting incident was, and I do not support knee-jerk legislation. Such restrictions only affect those that were already inclined to obey the existing laws in the first place. I can understand the perspective behind supporting such restrictions, but I do think that energy and those resources could be better focused elsewhere. I can completely understand your stance and respect it. Please understand that I am not trying to debate just asking "the next question". How far does this go? Example using an extreme... What if I enjoy shooting rockets and blowing stuff up? (I also ask the same question about redefining the definition of marriage. How far are we willing to go?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 As an owner and collector of several "military-class weapons" (I prefer AK variants myself), I can at least tell you why I own them: they are fun to shoot. Even the semi-automatic varieties are fun to shoot. There is no shotgun or conventional hunting rifle that can match the fun of several mag dumps at the range. I have no illusions about an AK being useful for hunting, as I do not own any of the magazines required to legally hunt with one in most states. I enjoy the sport of shooting. The individuals I know personally that are owners and collectors of such firearms are also shooters. That may not qualify to you as a purpose for their existence in the civilian market, but people do indeed have varying opinions on firearms. My opinion of them is that they are nothing more than a tool. Like a hammer or a knife, they are dangerous weapons when handled recklessly or placed in the wrong hands. If I could be presented with a rational argument for why "assault weapons" or magazines need to be restricted, then I could likely be brought on board with said restrictions. However, I usually find such arguments knee-jerk reactions to whatever the new shooting incident was, and I do not support knee-jerk legislation. Such restrictions only affect those that were already inclined to obey the existing laws in the first place. I can understand the perspective behind supporting such restrictions, but I do think that energy and those resources could be better focused elsewhere. A rational and reasoned response. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 As an owner and collector of several "military-class weapons" (I prefer AK variants myself), I can at least tell you why I own them: they are fun to shoot. Even the semi-automatic varieties are fun to shoot. There is no shotgun or conventional hunting rifle that can match the fun of several mag dumps at the range. I have no illusions about an AK being useful for hunting, as I do not own any of the magazines required to legally hunt with one in most states. I enjoy the sport of shooting. The individuals I know personally that are owners and collectors of such firearms are also shooters. That may not qualify to you as a purpose for their existence in the civilian market, but people do indeed have varying opinions on firearms. My opinion of them is that they are nothing more than a tool. Like a hammer or a knife, they are dangerous weapons when handled recklessly or placed in the wrong hands. If I could be presented with a rational argument for why "assault weapons" or magazines need to be restricted, then I could likely be brought on board with said restrictions. However, I usually find such arguments knee-jerk reactions to whatever the new shooting incident was, and I do not support knee-jerk legislation. Such restrictions only affect those that were already inclined to obey the existing laws in the first place. I can understand the perspective behind supporting such restrictions, but I do think that energy and those resources could be better focused elsewhere. I can completely understand your stance and respect it. Please understand that I am not trying to debate just asking "the next question". How far does this go? Example using an extreme... What if I enjoy shooting rockets and blowing stuff up? (I also ask the same question about redefining the definition of marriage. How far are we willing to go?) I do not personally consider all gun control legislation to be a bad idea. Under current law, it is legal to own a rocket launcher. They are difficult to find, they are expensive when you do find them, and ATF paperwork must be completed (with a tax). The same law applies to rocket launchers that applies to automatic weapons (which are also legal to own). The cost, difficulty in obtaining one legally, and penalties for having one illegally deter most people. Those that would not be deterred by such things can find one illegally. You can legally own rocket launchers, grenade launchers, automatic weapons, and even mortars. If you are asking, should they be completely illegal, then I would say no. What we have now is an effective means of controlling them, which is why you haven't heard of legal ones used in a crime. Legal ownership of such weapons is generally discouraged by the process, but not prevented, and I think that is as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If i hear that: 1) Obama is a muslim... 2) Obama is a Kenyan... 3) Obama is the anti-christ... I am going to go postal and shoot up some random building somewhere, hurting no one...with weapons from multiple manufacturers...then: 1) i am going to sue the claimant of said screwy theory.. 2) Sue ALL of the weapon manufacturers... 3) Retire independently wealthy. There, i have fulfilled what will soon be the inevitable actions of crazies from now on. Look, most problems with Obama is...he is black. Most of the people that hate the guy have zero understanding of any policy he has put forth. I personally think he is simply incompetent, about as incompetent as Bush43. He is not part of some grand black helicopter conspiracy theory. He is not a manchurian candidate. He is just way in over his head on most subjects. Implementation of PPACA is ground zero exhibit. No this is not incompetence. Everything that has happened has happened on purpose. All you have to do is go back to his writings and speeches and everything in his life and who he was associated with. His influences as a youth and into early adulthood and even beyond were people that did not like this country. His own father was one who hated America. You don't sit in Jeremiah Wrights' church for 20 years if you aren't all in for the things he believes. He has a chip on his shoulder about this country and he's going to make it pay for its' sins. I tried but can't resist... Do you think that a muslim would have been in Jeremiah Wrights' church for over 20 years? Because FOX would love you to. I don't know what he is honestly when it comes to religion. I really don't think he is much of any particular faith. I believe he has some belief but for the life of me I don't know what it is. He is certainly hostile toward religious freedom. He has proven that quite sufficiently. The fact that this nation ratified the constitution while not getting rid of slavery makes it immoral, unjust and illegitimate in his mind. We've stolen the wealth from the poor nations and on and on it goes down the list of sins we must pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.