"Why Gun Nuts Lie", or, why just owning a gun doesn't make your opinion more valid [Archive]

Koshinn

06-29-16, 15:55

Here's another installment of "What The Idiots On The Other Side Are Reading," by Koshinn. This time, it's by someone that claims to be "one of our own".

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2016/06/why-gun-nuts-lie-i-know-from-experience/

Title: "Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience"

Supposed qualifications for trusting his opinion:

I live in Texas. I’m a gun owner. I have a concealed handgun license. I’ve taught my kids how to fire weapons.
I also understand and appreciate our Constitution. I’m fully aware of the 2nd Amendment, and how its authors wanted to prevent government tyranny. Considering what they had gone through, they had every right to demand such a thing.
I know enough about weapons to have a near perfect score on my firing test, to know that the “c” in SR9c stands for “compact” to make the weapon easier to hide; and to know that the AR in AR-15 doesn’t stand for ‘Assault Rifle,’ but ‘Armalite’ after the original company who made the gun.

Main argument:

At this nation’s beginning, it made sense for the citizens to be armed similarly to the government to prevent tyranny. Today, that’s ridiculous. The very concept is outdated. Some have said to me; the point is for the citizens to be “as armed as well as the government.”

Supporting points:
- You don't have full-autos like the military has, nor other goodies like IFVs, MBTs, and armed aircraft.
- Even if you had 50 AR-15s, 1000 IEDs, a few tanks, "bazookas", and 500 friends, you'd still lose to the government.

Conclusion:
- "Stop acting like your little AR-15 is going to stop tyranny."

He proposes:
Treat guns like cars.
Mandatory licenses
License renewals
Mandatory training
Mandatory insurance
Operating laws
Operating age limits
Restrict some models
Require safety inspections
Mandatory registration
Background checks

Choice quotes:
- "Just be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place."
- "[Gunowners]—and their families—are at significantly increased risk of successfully taking their lives with a gun."
- "Let’s play a little research game. Google: “man fights off gang of bad guys with AR-15” and the first thing that pops up is a video of criminals shooting at a moving car with handguns."
- "The weapons we can purchase today are useless against our government. However, they are extremely useful in the hands of people who want to do harm to others, and inflict damage beyond our imagination."
- "Your fantasy of wiping out those 14 burglars, like Rambo spraying bullets from your AR-15, just isn’t going to happen. It doesn’t happen. Period."
- "Please, for the love of logic, stop using outdated ridiculous concepts of tyranny to defend the dying dinosaur that is our 2nd Amendment."

With the above, you shouldn't have to visit the article and give it more hits. Although the comment section is just about at 1000 posts and is filled with quotes like "Oddly, that omnipotent US military you talk about has been held at bay by 3rd world zealots armed with little more than you could find in the US, for 15 years."

The author also wrote an article 2 weeks ago that blames Christians for the Orlando shooting.

SteyrAUG

06-29-16, 16:11

At this nation’s beginning, it made sense for the citizens to be armed similarly to the government to prevent tyranny. Today, that’s ridiculous. The very concept is outdated. Some have said to me; the point is for the citizens to be “as armed as well as the government.”

Let me go ahead and torpedo his main argument.

1. It doesn't matter what he thinks, it matters what the constitution says. I think he should lose his right to express his opinion on anything more advanced than a printing press because the FF could never had imagined the internet.

2. The idea that you can't take on an army with small arms is absurd. If it was true we'd have taken care of Vietnam within a year and Iraq and Afghanistan might have taken a few months.

3. At Waco we were treated to a very good example of how an AR-15 stops tyranny. According to the government they completely failed to raid the compound or prevent a mass suicide by fire.

And finally just because you own a gun, that doesn't mean you get to speak for gun rights or the Constitution.

SomeOtherGuy

06-29-16, 16:12

JC5188

06-29-16, 16:29

Here's another installment of "What The Idiots On The Other Side Are Reading," by Koshinn. This time, it's by someone that claims to be "one of our own".

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2016/06/why-gun-nuts-lie-i-know-from-experience/

Title: "Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience"

Supposed qualifications for trusting his opinion:

Main argument:

Supporting points:
- You don't have full-autos like the military has, nor other goodies like IFVs, MBTs, and armed aircraft.
- Even if you had 50 AR-15s, 1000 IEDs, a few tanks, "bazookas", and 500 friends, you'd still lose to the government.

Conclusion:
- "Stop acting like your little AR-15 is going to stop tyranny."

He proposes:
Treat guns like cars.
Mandatory licenses
License renewals
Mandatory training
Mandatory insurance
Operating laws
Operating age limits
Restrict some models
Require safety inspections
Mandatory registration
Background checks

Choice quotes:
- "Just be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place."
- "[Gunowners]—and their families—are at significantly increased risk of successfully taking their lives with a gun."
- "Let’s play a little research game. Google: “man fights off gang of bad guys with AR-15” and the first thing that pops up is a video of criminals shooting at a moving car with handguns."
- "The weapons we can purchase today are useless against our government. However, they are extremely useful in the hands of people who want to do harm to others, and inflict damage beyond our imagination."
- "Your fantasy of wiping out those 14 burglars, like Rambo spraying bullets from your AR-15, just isn’t going to happen. It doesn’t happen. Period."
- "Please, for the love of logic, stop using outdated ridiculous concepts of tyranny to defend the dying dinosaur that is our 2nd Amendment."

With the above, you shouldn't have to visit the article and give it more hits. Although the comment section is just about at 1000 posts and is filled with quotes like "Oddly, that omnipotent US military you talk about has been held at bay by 3rd world zealots armed with little more than you could find in the US, for 15 years."

The author also wrote an article 2 weeks ago that blames Christians for the Orlando shooting.

So, since the main advancement of radical Islamic ideas takes place across the Internet, I wonder if he would conclude that we should license, etc those who are "allowed" to use it? In his case, I think it SHOULD.

Fortunately for him, the 1A tells me the same thing the 2A tells him...FACK OFF!!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

THCDDM4

06-29-16, 16:30

Everything that guy wrote is complete bullshit...

It gets extremely tiring this constant wave of idiocy people stream from their troglodyte brains into the ether and onto the interwebs.

Firefly

06-29-16, 16:39

Honu

06-29-16, 17:02

this forum IMHO has some trolls that are not on our side about terrorism ?

like the left wont FAKE to be something they are not to do damage

Koshinn

06-29-16, 17:08

Remember, the other side has no qualms about lying, none at all. They get caught and they treat it like a badge of honor.

Interestingly, the title is "why gun nuts lie", then claims himself as a "gun nut". Therefore, he is a self-described liar.

I mean...I'm sure all these girls buying guns really worry how big their penises are.
Something something Freud something something

ColtSeavers

06-29-16, 17:18

Interestingly, the title is "why gun nuts lie", then claims himself as a "gun nut". Therefore, he is a self-described liar.

All it was missing was a Howdy!

Outlander Systems

06-29-16, 17:19

He's wrong. I'm running on two hours' sleep, or I'd come up with better.

I would like to know his opinion on the politics of North Korea, were the population as heavily armed as us.

The 2A was the final arbitrary voice in checks and balances between a government and its people.

The right to forcibly eject Tyranny, through the use of violence, if necessary, is the difference between a citizen and a subject.

I'd argue that, should this country ever face a true tyrant, that author of said piece can be the first to line up for internment camp. He can sing Kumbaya, and tell the guards that guns would've done him "no good."

What a joke. Is there something in the tap water that is producing these invertebrate jellyfish en masse?

ETA: I took the clickbait.

Dude's a joke. Seals are what I see at Sea World. SEALs are what jump out of helicopters and shoot terries in the dome.

He also forgets one really simple aspect of his argument:

The "Seals", FBI, Army, Marines, etc. ARE US!

I don't know about anyone else's oath of enlistment, but there was something about a Constitution in there if I remember correctly, and foreign and domestic enemies. If .gov wants to round people up, and gut due process, UCMJ be damned, even dumb 18-year-old PFC me could figure out who the "enemies" would be at that point.

Dude likes ding dongs so much? I suggest he obtain a sackful and get to gagging on 'em.

Straight Shooter

06-29-16, 17:22

this forum IMHO has some trolls that are not on our side about terrorism ?

like the left wont FAKE to be something they are not to do damage

Oh- we've got our share of J-udenrat here, fo' sho'.

Koshinn

06-29-16, 17:24

Is there something in the tap water that is producing these invertebrate jellyfish en masse?

I don't know, I don't live in Texas.

Shots fired, officer in need of assistance. :help:

Firefly

06-29-16, 17:28

I think it depends on which part of Texas...East California, North Mexico, or South Oklahoma.

Outlander Systems

06-29-16, 17:30

ETA: double-tap

Outlander Systems

06-29-16, 17:32

I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that chicken dick is in the greater Austin area...

I think it depends on which part of Texas...East California, North Mexico, or South Oklahoma.

http://youtu.be/9CdVTCDdEwI

I don't know, I don't live in Texas.

Shots fired, officer in need of assistance. :help:

Sensei

06-29-16, 17:37

Let me go ahead and torpedo his main argument.

1. It doesn't matter what he thinks, it matters what the constitution says. I think he should lose his right to express his opinion on anything more advanced than a printing press because the FF could never had imagined the internet.

2. The idea that you can't take on an army with small arms is absurd. If it was true we'd have taken care of Vietnam within a year and Iraq and Afghanistan might have taken a few months.

3. At Waco we were treated to a very good example of how an AR-15 stops tyranny. According to the government they completely failed to raid the compound or prevent a mass suicide by fire.

And finally just because you own a gun, that doesn't mean you get to speak for gun rights or the Constitution.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate with some of your analogies even though I agree with your overall premise as expressed in example #1. First, the NVA was not limited to small arms as it had a sophisticated military including air defense and artillery (just ask John McCain). Moreover, most of our causalities in the GWOT came from the IED, not small arms. Finally, I'not sure that AR-15s had anything to do with causing or preventing Waco, but perhaps I misunderstood you on that one.

BoringGuy45

06-29-16, 17:49

Why does everyone think people associate guns with genitals?

Really. Nobody has explained that. The two concepts are totally divorced. I equate firearms with gadgetry. Something like....okay... ever see Hackers? You know you did. 90s teenybopper heroin chic Angelina Jolie, hell yess you did. And they are at a party and somebody brings out a new computer and she goes immediatly from making out with some dude to geeking out over the computer?

Just. Like. That.

Also....if AR-15s are no good against hooligans then why do they find themselves in police cars?

Plus equating cars with guns is lame. guns existed before cars and really....I don't think people have the need to inspect my stash.

If he wants to limit himself, he is free to do that but I am not on the same page. Plus once you take a debate to the sexual, you lose credibility.

I mean...I'm sure all these girls buying guns really worry how big their penises are.

Because the writings of Sigmund Freud are considered holy scripture in the leftist bible. Everything is about sex or compensating for weakness or insecurity. If it has to do with guys, it's all about penis size or struggling with homosexuality. Oh, you really like guns? Well, guns have long, hard barrels, which some could equate to a penis. Therefore, the reason you like guns is because you have a small penis. Or maybe it's just because you like handling things with long, hard barrels because you think they fulfill your repressed desire to handle another man's wiener.

Firefly

06-29-16, 17:52

Firefly

06-29-16, 18:06

Because the writings of Sigmund Freud are considered holy scripture in the leftist bible. Everything is about sex or compensating for weakness or insecurity. If it has to do with guys, it's all about penis size or struggling with homosexuality. Oh, you really like guns? Well, guns have long, hard barrels, which some could equate to a penis. Therefore, the reason you like guns is because you have a small penis. Or maybe it's just because you like handling things with long, hard barrels because you think they fulfill your repressed desire to handle another man's wiener.

Yeah...but in today's society it is almost emcouraged to be gay and if I really wanted larger genitals, I could get a surgery.

So in a society of people who can openly be homosexual or modify their body, why are so many people, including women, more interested in guns than ever before?

They have no real answer. Plus Freud was greatly discredited and the guy was an ephebophile and a coke fiend.

Maybe, just maybe.....I like to punch holes or kill paint cans. And perhaps I like the bonus of having a worthy weapon right there ready to go instead of relying on someone else 30 mins away.

I think these people are the ones projecting their insecurities onto others.

I'm not Dirk Diggler by any means but I've honestly never once worried or cared about my genitalia. Nor have I cared about another man's. Nor have I considered a weapon to be phallic. Nor would I want to.

Those are two different forms of emotion that have no crossover for me.

brushy bill

06-29-16, 18:06

Choice quotes:
- "Just be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place."

Actually, he's wrong there too, just like everywhere else. Here's what Freud actually said (Dreams in Folklore (1958), p. 33), "The representation of the penis as a weapon, cutting knife, dagger etc., is familiar to us from the anxiety dreams of abstinent women in particular and also lies at the root of numerous phobias in neurotic people."

Don Kates summarized it as, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

Folks like him have become such intellectual prostitutes that the media has zero remaining credibility.

Averageman

06-29-16, 18:08

How many times in the last 150 years has one man, with one gun changed history?
If you cannot think of six off hand, you're doing it wrong.

SteyrAUG

06-29-16, 18:09

Anyone who writes like this in a supposedly serious essay has mental problems, and should be kept far away from children.

Yep, no different than somebody who uses drugs, has a problem with domestic violence or is racist and assumes everyone else is too but they just say they aren't. People who think everyone is "just like them" have serious issues.

I know very few people who think like me, seeing how they act, I don't think "I" am the problem.

SteyrAUG

06-29-16, 18:18

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate with some of your analogies even though I agree with your overall premise as expressed in example #1. First, the NVA was not limited to small arms as it had a sophisticated military including air defense and artillery (just ask John McCain). Moreover, most of our causalities in the GWOT came from the IED, not small arms. Finally, I'not sure that AR-15s had anything to do with causing or preventing Waco, but perhaps I misunderstood you on that one.

True but guys with SKS rifles sure did screw the French hard at DBP.

My point was army vs. army the most tanks usually wins. Army vs. insurgency makes things a bit more difficult.

At Waco it the the BDs who had the AR-15s and forced a standoff.

Flankenstein

06-29-16, 18:21

Echo chambers...

ABNAK

06-29-16, 18:28

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate with some of your analogies even though I agree with your overall premise as expressed in example #1. First, the NVA was not limited to small arms as it had a sophisticated military including air defense and artillery (just ask John McCain). Moreover, most of our causalities in the GWOT came from the IED, not small arms. Finally, I'not sure that AR-15s had anything to do with causing or preventing Waco, but perhaps I misunderstood you on that one.

Why yes, yes they did (unfortunately for our guys in the GWOT).

Outlander Systems

06-29-16, 18:29

...of resounding infantile stupidity and faux expertise.

#WorldOfWimpcraft

Echo chambers...

ABNAK

06-29-16, 18:33

Per Waco, a lot of the Davidians had ARs and AKs, I think they even had a Barrett or two.

In that infamous video of the ATF going in the window with MP5s, every agemt who went inside died. The only ones who survived was the guy smart enough to roll off the roof.

It didnt go TU for the Davidians until they brought in APCs and set them on fire.

When the Viet Minh fought the French, their weapons were modest.

As per IEDs, that's another can of worms that TPTB wouldn't want to open up.

Correct. It only takes a rearward glance at the last 15 years of our history to realize that when an enemy is outgunned/out-teched they will resort to what works to attempt to bleed you dry. Faced with drones, Apaches, Abrams tanks, artillery, fast-movers, etc. the opposition thinks "BOOM > BANG". It breaks my heart to think of the folks we've lost fighting Islamic fanaticism in this manner, but I'm not sure how much hand wringing would take place if myself and a couple million others were about to be imprisoned or killed because of an object we owned.

Koshinn

06-29-16, 18:42

Echo chambers...

Which can be said of almost anywhere, to be fair.

It's good to constantly, or at least periodically, reassess your beliefs by questioning why you feel that way, what are the supporting facts, and if you should consider changing them.

It's good to look at what those opposing to your beliefs say, fairly assess their arguments, then consider revising your point of view if their arguments have some weight.

That's why I keep making threads like this. Not just to prepare everyone for arguments or to laugh at the other side, but to break the echo chamber here.

In the end, after saying all of that, I'm obviously still in the same place, as is probably everyone who has read this thread. The arguments made in the linked article are poor.

Averageman

06-29-16, 19:12

Correct. It only takes a rearward glance at the last 15 years of our history to realize that when an enemy is outgunned/out-teched they will resort to what works to attempt to bleed you dry. Faced with drones, Apaches, Abrams tanks, artillery, fast-movers, etc. the opposition thinks "BOOM > BANG". It breaks my heart to think of the folks we've lost fighting Islamic fanaticism in this manner, but I'm not sure how much hand wringing would take place if myself and a couple million others were about to be imprisoned or killed because of an object we owned.

And the irony in that is as we throttled back, they throttled forward.
If you take the Abrams off of the streets, I can multiply the number of my bombs by three and make attacks on Humvee's.
If you move back, we move forward. The further in to your gates you move, the closer I can plant a bomb.
If you have an idea, we have a media event. These events usually went the other way?

Do you want to fight this or not?

ABNAK

06-29-16, 19:20

And the irony in that is as we throttled back, they throttled forward.
If you take the Abrams off of the streets, I can multiple my bombs by three on a Humvee.
If you move back, we move forward. The further in to your gates you move, the close I can plant a bomb.
If you have an idea, we have a media event. These events usually went the other way?

Do you want to fight this or not?

The pinheads like the OP linked to will wholeheartedly send someone else's son (or daughter) to do the shit-work they suggest, of course by proxy of who they vote for. They have no idea what they would be asking for and quite likely receive. Like living in a constant state of turmoil? How long can you endure your little libtard world being turned upside down?

WillBrink

06-29-16, 19:20

Whats worse: ignorance fudds who don't have a clue what they are talking about and throw other gun owners under the bus with this nonsense, or the anti gun/anti 2A types?

Straight Shooter

06-29-16, 19:24

Whats worse: ignorance fudds who don't have a clue what they are talking about and throw other gun owners under the bus with this nonsense, or the anti gun/anti 2A types?

The Fudds are worse. J-UDENRATS they are.

Straight Shooter

06-29-16, 19:24

Double post..sorry.

ABNAK

06-29-16, 19:25

Whats worse: ignorance fudds who don't have a clue what they are talking about and throw other gun owners under the bus with this nonsense, or the anti gun/anti 2A types?

Yep, and how long before their trusty scoped bolt action becomes a "sniper rifle" or their beloved shotgun a "multiple-projectile-spewing machine of death"?

Straight Shooter

06-29-16, 19:55

Yep, and how long before their trusty scoped bolt action becomes a "sniper rifle" or their beloved shotgun a "multiple-projectile-spewing machine of death"?

Was telling someone yesterday how the anti's have derogatory names for nearly all types of guns...Saturday Night Specials, Sniper Rifles, "High Caliber Guns"...Assault Rifles/Guns..ect.
Would like to hear more names yall have heard.

_Stormin_

06-29-16, 20:21

I know a fool like the author of the linked article...

Huge firearms enthusiast. Owns a number of SBRs, cans, and some full auto weapons as well. He happens to have a seemingly limitless pile of family money, and the only work he has done in his life is attempting to turn daddy/grandad's large fortune into a small one. There is little beyond his reach fiscally, and he is a HUGE supporter of more gun control. He loves the idea of mandatory training, registrations, insurance, etc... All of these schemes that might make it harder for the average person to acquire weapons because he feels it's WAY TOO EASY to get all of the things he has. None of us can convince him that his absurd wealth and small army of lawyers are what make his firearm lifestyle "EASY." Convincing the guy with a Koenigsegg Agera that the average firearms owner can't just trot out and buy a $25k full auto firearm because he did, is shockingly difficult. His logic is that they could, because they can go buy a $25,000 car, and people do that all the time. You just can't fix stupid...

williejc

06-29-16, 21:38

Google this idiot to read about him.

Endur

06-29-16, 22:07

This would be a good time to quote the dialogue from the debate scene in Billy Madison.

Sometimes I wish we had a "purge" like day, but only for going on a throat punching spree of imbeciles like this.

The "state" has no real power but what we the people consent to them, and these slack jaws just continue to allow them to dictate rights as if that is within the scope of their authority. I wake up everyday and read or hear this verbal feces being spewed about, it feels like Karl Marx is on a throat punching spree from beyond the grave.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

rocsteady

06-30-16, 04:49

I think it's more simple to point out how many people have been killed at the hands of their own governments after they were disarmed...

Moose-Knuckle

06-30-16, 05:02

BoringGuy45

06-30-16, 12:43

The author of the article is the very embodiment of that bumper sticker; "Some people are alive simply because it's illegal to kill them."

I'm sure the guy really isn't a gun owner, a Conservative, or ever put in an honest days work.

This is what propaganda is . . .

you're probably right, but actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is actually "conservative" gun owner. Believe it or not, being ultra-conservative has, in my experience, sometimes lent itself to supporting semi-auto bans. I've found that fudds are often ultra-conservative types.

My explanation is this: Many ultra-cons blame society's problems on the progress of society past whatever era they have declared to be the pinnacle of our society. Every development since then has been a step downhill: Political-social views, entertainment, fashion, child rearing, education, and technology. Regardless of how old the AR design actually is, it looks new and advanced. In the eyes of a fudd, if it's not wood and blued steel, it's new fangled plastic junk. Therefore, it's one of the new developments that's screwing up America. They give as their point that we supposedly didn't have mass shooting before these "damned plastic machine guns" were invented.

So while fudds may hate Obama and most liberal policies, they may support his anti-gun stance on the grounds that it rescues the purity of firearms from the tainting of the ugly black guns. Also, in their mind, it turns back the clock to a time when people generally only owned revolvers and "sporting" guns, which is a step in the direction in turning EVERYTHING back to that time.

SomeOtherGuy

06-30-16, 12:49

you're probably right, but actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is actually "conservative" gun owner. Believe it or not, being ultra-conservative has, in my experience, sometimes lent itself to supporting semi-auto bans. I've found that fudds are often ultra-conservative types.

I would consider this more if it weren't for the author's sexual focus and perverted description. I can certainly see fudds thinking as you describe. In fact, I've known fudds who were national service rifle competitors and yet anti-black-guns, a pretty hypocritical stance. But I have not met a single fudd who uses infantile language to describe guns as sexual compensation. That aspect of the piece makes me 100% sure this is entirely fake, written by some left-wing anti who has zilch to do with any aspect of shooting or hunting culture.

BoringGuy45

06-30-16, 13:46

I would consider this more if it weren't for the author's sexual focus and perverted description. I can certainly see fudds thinking as you describe. In fact, I've known fudds who were national service rifle competitors and yet anti-black-guns, a pretty hypocritical stance. But I have not met a single fudd who uses infantile language to describe guns as sexual compensation. That aspect of the piece makes me 100% sure this is entirely fake, written by some left-wing anti who has zilch to do with any aspect of shooting or hunting culture.

Agreed. I just meant to point out that there are those among "conservatives" who are not our friends, and for, in my opinion, even more moronic and selfish reasons. At the end of the day, they hold their position for the same reason the leftist anti-gunners hold theirs: I don't like this, and because I don't want to own one, I want to make it so nobody is allowed to it either.

But you're right. Reaching for the small penis insult is a hallmark of the left, so in all likelihood, this was a lame attempt by an anti-gunner to play the whole fake subversion game.

Firefly

06-30-16, 13:49

BG45 brings up an excellent point.

The holier than thou "conservative" bunch who would've fit in at Nazi Germany.

"Oh I'm pro gun but with restrictions"

Their stuff is okay but your stuff isn't.

Much like the perennial "What do you need with something like that?"

That's when I look 'em in the eye like I'm finna punch em or beat em up and say "Boyhood dreams".

If/When I ever decide to get that personal suppressor I think about getting, that's what I'm putting on the form.

"Boyhood Dreams"

Not self defense, not collection , not anything else. Because it defines essentially my "collection". I saw A-Team or Tour of Duty or Miami Vice and I wanted it.

Some people get tranny surgeries, some people get all mid-life and buy a Corvette, and me....I just liked modern guns. I remember being forced to watch westerns and they were SO DULL. The guns were lame. It was boring. Then I saw the Wild Bunch. And I was all "Why couldn't they all be like this?"

So yeah off on a tangent but I liked futuristic (to me anyway) modern stuff.

The weapons now make the guns 30 years ago look quaint

Maybe, I just like stuff because I associate it with nostalgia. Maybe, just maybe I'm not 'afraid' or 'questioning my sexual adequacy'.

Maybe I just want things, for me, that I enjoy. If people can't capisce that then F em

MegademiC

06-30-16, 15:08

When people equate things to phallic endowment, all I can think is that they feel inadequate (not in that way, just in general - like life is boring), and assume others are looking for a way to feel bigger and more exciting like them.

I like being prepared, I like eating things I killed or grew myself. If you collect Mellon ballers, great. I don't feel the need to prove I'm not compensating for something by not buying anything fun. People pull that crap with anything good and performance based- power tools, muscle cars, guns, etc.

It's an old, uninspired claim.

platoonDaddy

06-30-16, 15:13

From MD's AG

They are weapons of war designed to kill people on the battlefield. There is no reason for a citizen to own an assault rifle unless he is planning an assault.

Within days of the Orlando shooting, the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans in New York and Connecticut.

Maryland has similar bans, and my office defended them last month in an en banc hearing before the entire 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

We must do whatever it takes to stop the killing. We need to reinstate the federal ban on military style assault weapons. We need to limit high-capacity magazines that hold the bullets that allow these mass murders to take place. We need background checks and licensing requirements.

EDIT - Full ad, with his highlighted text:

Dear MD serf,

After the horror that unfolded in Orlando this month, directed at the LGBT community and made possible by ready access to weapons of war, many of my friends are demanding action.

This week, I joined Congressmen Chris Van Hollen, Elijah Cummings, John Sarbanes and Dutch Ruppersberger, along with Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, for a National Day of Action to disarm hate and prevent further gun-fueled carnage.

We cannot become desensitized to the horror of Orlando. We cannot accept a status quo enabled by a Republican majority unwilling to stand up to the gun lobby.

The facts are inescapable: A military-style assault weapon was used to slay 49 young, vibrant nightclub patrons in Florida, who may have been targeted because of their sexual orientation.

A similar weapon was deployed in the slaughter of 20 innocent children and 6 adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut; in the murder of 12 people with 70 more wounded in a theater in Aurora, Colorado; and in too many other mass killings.

Assault weapons equipped with large capacity magazines are the weapons of choice for mass murderers. They make it too easy for a single individual to inflict mass casualties and drive up the death toll in minutes.

These weapons are not needed for hunting, or property protection.

They are weapons of war designed to kill people on the battlefield. There is no reason for a citizen to own an assault rifle unless he is planning an assault.
Within days of the Orlando shooting, the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans in New York and Connecticut.

Maryland has similar bans, and my office defended them last month in an en banc hearing before the entire 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

We must do whatever it takes to stop the killing. We need to reinstate the federal ban on military style assault weapons. We need to limit high-capacity magazines that hold the bullets that allow these mass murders to take place. We need background checks and licensing requirements.

As Attorney General, I am fully committed to defending Maryland’s assault weapons ban, and to supporting the courageous votes of state and federal legislators who work every day to protect public safety and reduce the risk of deadly gun violence.

I am asking you today for your help. Please join my fight against gun violence, and help me build the support we need to make progress. It is only with your assistance that we can lead in this truly life-and-death struggle.
This year’s election – and those to come – will pit us against those who would roll back our efforts, and who wrongly think that the only answer is to put more guns in people's’ hands.

We can’t let that happen. I fought for common sense gun laws when I was in the state Senate. I am fighting today, in the courts, and with my partners.
Please give what you can today, and thank you for being part of this effort.

By Authority: Citizens for Brian Frosh, James Blumenthal, Treasurer.

Firefly

06-30-16, 15:37

Okay, yo' honor.

Explain Baltimore.

SomeOtherGuy

06-30-16, 16:40

From MD's AG
They are weapons of war designed to kill people on the battlefield. There is no reason for a citizen to own an assault rifle unless he is planning an assault.

Well actually it's a sturmgewehr, and:

40246

Within days of the Orlando shooting, the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans in New York and Connecticut.

This is getting WAY too much attention from people who don't know better, but someone with the title "AG" should know better. The SCT simply didn't take up the issue, probably because it is deadlocked and knew it would be a 4-4 decision. That has the effect of leaving those bans in place, for now, but is nothing like an affirmation.

We need to limit high-capacity magazines that hold the bullets that allow these mass murders to take place. We need background checks and licensing requirements.

Bullets, you say? Dillon needs to make some posters "Dillon XL 650: Come and Take It."

Koshinn

06-30-16, 17:51

I'm curious, do they ban magazines but not belts?

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-30-16, 18:08

With out build-up and with out malice, ask them to explain Paris. Everything they want from Gun control and one of the biggest mass shootings ever in a western city.

Don't let them change the subject, just get them to answer.

ABNAK

06-30-16, 18:19

I'm curious, do they ban magazines but not belts?

You know, that is a damned good idea (er, uh, question). Hmmmm........:rolleyes:

So a semi-auto that uses belts instead of magazines, eh? :dirol:

Outlander Systems

06-30-16, 18:23

You're welcome:

http://www.aresdefense.com/?page_id=126

If I can find one in .308 I'll build the technical of my dreams.

You know, that is a damned good idea (er, uh, question). Hmmmm........:rolleyes:

So a semi-auto that uses belts instead of magazines, eh? :dirol:

Koshinn

06-30-16, 18:24

You're welcome:

http://www.aresdefense.com/?page_id=126

If I can find one in .308 I'll build the technical of my dreams.

Dammit I was JUST going to link that

SteyrAUG

06-30-16, 18:26

You're welcome:

http://www.aresdefense.com/?page_id=126

If I can find one in .308 I'll build the technical of my dreams.

Lot's of semi only 1919's rechambered for .308 out there.

SteyrAUG

06-30-16, 18:27

I'm curious, do they ban magazines but not belts?

In ban states you can't link more than 10 rounds at a time. Yes, I'm serious. One of the best examples of regulation folly related to firearms.

Koshinn

06-30-16, 18:27

Oh just did a quick search, the definition of "detachable magazine" in california includes belted and linked ammunition.

Outlander Systems

06-30-16, 18:46

Ohhhhhh rlllllllllyyy!??

Might have to rethink me life. That is the highlight news of my day, right there...

Lot's of semi only 1919's rechambered for .308 out there.

Moose-Knuckle

06-30-16, 19:19

From MD's AG

They are weapons of war designed to kill people on the battlefield. There is no reason for a citizen to own an assault rifle unless he is planning an assault.

Or a counter-assault . . . DUH!

ABNAK

06-30-16, 19:27

Lot's of semi only 1919's rechambered for .308 out there.

Oh yeah, an M1919A3 (or is it A4?) in 7.62 sounds like an idea. Ohio Ordnance makes them (the ones with the buttstock) and they're maybe half the price of the BAR semi-auto they make.

The "shorty" RPD some companies make would also be tits!

rocsteady

06-30-16, 21:22

"Assault weapons equipped with large capacity magazines are the weapons of choice for mass murderers. They make it too easy for a single individual to inflict mass casualties and drive up the death toll in minutes.

These weapons are not needed for hunting, or property protection.

They are weapons of war designed to kill people on the battlefield. There is no reason for a citizen to own an assault rifle unless he is planning an assault."

I am dying to get some of these pols face to face and ask how they can justify all the effort to ban a weapon that, for all it's media hype, still is used less than 3% of all gun crimes.

Or is this just their m.o., championing whatever tiny segment of anything that becomes the political not button?

Or do they think that no one would ever come up with the notion to set a place like Pulse on fire or use a bomb or just drive a dump truck through the place?

It's just mind numbing that so many can get behind ideas that are so stupid.

VooDoo6Actual

06-30-16, 21:51

Anti-Gun nuts lie for several reasons.

They think they are intellectually superior to people of the Gun Culture. Their psychopathology & number of violent attacks indicate & support that. Especially if they are taking SSRI's / SSNRI's & Mood stabilizers i.e. Xanax, Zoloft, Prozac et al. (The sooner the Government actually decides to do some real formal testing the better imo.)

They are void of rationalizing & comprehending that you cannot parse or Cherry Pick the Constitution or BOR. Therefore indicates a discernment, logic or ratiocination component they lack in fundamental critical thinking. It's an immutable inalienable right.

They hate facts / truth & show a almost sophomoric adolescence about adult rational discussions. Some psychologist's attribute this to the Amygdala not functioning normally or hyper active over the neocortex or mixed signals from the hippocampus. Their Air Traffic Controller is messed up for any number or reasons. Drugs, emotionally underdeveloped et al etc.

They could careless about encroaching on other citizen's rights & not even on their radar or a consideration.

Of course some people just like to pour gasoline on fires & embrace schadenfraude or false power of victim or other reasons. The government, leaders, politicians know this & use the "Polyezniy Idiots" as political Canon Fodder. Lenin & Stalin knew this & used this tactic to seize & centralize more power.

So they will attack the language of the document, attack the lexicon, recreate new definitions by deception et al etc.

At the end of the day it's all about control & splintering the US into smaller Balkan like regions if they can. All written about many years ago & Neo-Feudalism is the goal. The Central Banks want to kill American exceptionalism & know this axiom:

Nothing kills like poverty...

Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit

One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

The goal of Socialism is communism.

Socialism is by ignorance & communism is by force.

SomeOtherGuy

06-30-16, 22:48

Or do they think that no one would ever come up with the notion to set a place like Pulse on fire or use a bomb or just drive a dump truck through the place?

The deadliest nightclub incidents, BY FAR, have all been fires. Some were tragic accidents, but several have been arson/murder, though not with political motivations.

The anti's don't actually care about people's lives, or guns. They care about political power and control. Many of them also have psychological issues about independence and freedom of action, and supporting totalitarian measures makes them feel better.

The_War_Wagon

06-30-16, 22:55

Here's another installment of "What The Idiots On The Other Side Are Reading," by Koshinn.

You just gave an idiot, waaaay too much space in our forum.

Ran into one JUST like him at Taco Bell the other night. Retired Army, no less. Thinks ONLY cops and active duty troops need to carry weapons. :rolleyes:

I thanked him for his service at that point, and walked on...

BoringGuy45

06-30-16, 23:19

On a good note, my normally ultra liberal former high school just had a rare moment of common sense. Starting this coming school year, they are arming their security team (and having them trained, obviously). Surprisingly, most of the anti-gun teachers and former students have been posting on Facebook that they approve of this. Hopefully it sparks that bit of logic that maybe a good guy with a gun is actually a good way to stop a mass shooter, and thus it's a good idea to let people conceal carry. I doubt it though.

At any rate, I have to say that it's about damn time. The town has no police force; all they have is the State Police, which means 20 to 30 minute response time to any emergency on a good day. Given that the school has about 1,700 students, a shooter could easily double or triple the body count of Orlando before the first troopers arrived. Back in 2000, when I was a freshman there, we had a credible threat of a planned shooting. Luckily, the plan was stopped before it got off the ground, and the State Police had about 3-4 troopers patrolling the campus for the week. However, even after this, they didn't even get a security team until after I graduated. I'm glad they're doing this BEFORE something happened, and not as a reaction to it.