Lawmakers to seek ban on military-style weapons

[Lammo]

imported post

kito109654 wrote:

Lammo wrote

SNIP

(I will modify it upon reflection on your reply).

SNIP

I'd say you're wrong. I respectfully suggest you find a new analogy, one that would be widely accepted. Otherwise it's useless, no?

I can't be wrong about my experience and I already said I would change my analogy (see above). That's the thing about analogies - - they aren't perfect. If they were, would they be digital? Actually, I'm not quite sure how "child" slipped in there. I certainly know child pornography is illegal (and believe it should be). I'll still change it but the complete thought is that even in the face of child pornography no one is seriously proposing that we ban the internet (at least not that I know of). Heck, I can just use the example of the internet alone regarding the evolution of freedom of speech without resort to pointing out any of its more vile uses.

 

[Lammo]

imported post

In reply to Coomodore76, tai4de2, OV3RC10CK3D and uncoolperson:

Please see reply to kito109654 on page 3 at 10:51 pm on 12-17-09 and thank you for your feedback. Brain cramp earlier today, now resolved with extra caffeine. Carry on.

 

[.45ACPaddy]

imported post

I'll attempt to come up with a new analogy regarding the framers envisioning things.

"The framers didn't envision semi-automatic weapons"

"Ok, maybe so. Did they envision modern art? Did they envision various forms of dance? Odd body piercings? Wacky hairstyles? No. But they're all protected. And so are semi-automatic firearms."

 

[kito109654]

imported post

Lammo wrote:

kito109654 wrote:

Lammo wrote

SNIP

(I will modify it upon reflection on your reply).

SNIP

I'd say you're wrong. I respectfully suggest you find a new analogy, one that would be widely accepted. Otherwise it's useless, no?

I can't be wrong about my experience and I already said I would change my analogy (see above). That's the thing about analogies - - they aren't perfect. If they were, would they be digital? Actually, I'm not quite sure how "child" slipped in there. I certainly know child pornography is illegal (and believe it should be). I'll still change it but the complete thought is that even in the face of child pornography no one is seriously proposing that we ban the internet (at least not that I know of). Heck, I can just use the example of the internet alone regarding the evolution of freedom of speech without resort to pointing out any of its more vile uses.

Well let's not start that argument here, I apologize, I didn't see that you had already said you'd change it. The topic just caught me off guard a little bit.

 

[Aryk45XD]

imported post

Just in case there is any confusion. Here is my best interpretations of the pic:

Fire selector: HUH? Oh, you mean the safety!?
Scope: to be sure of your target and be accurate. safe handling?
Hand guard: Keep from burning yourself. Safety?
Flash hider: to not be blinded by your own firearm. Safely recover from firing?
Flashlight/ laser: same as scope above.
High capacity clips: better chance to eliminate immediate threat(s).
Folding stock: maneuver through your own home or keep firearm closer to body and away from immediate threat. Safety?

I can't tell what is says in those little bubbles. kinda reads like the teacher's comments in the Charlie Brown comics to me. Overall, I think this would be a great gun for the public! Could be a bit more like the military assault rifles, you know... just in case any mindless zombies ever attack Americas. Hmmm... they may be planning already. Oh wait... that's just a lot of politicians.... or are they?

 

[amlevin]

imported post

G22Paddy wrote:

I'll attempt to come up with a new analogy regarding the framers envisioning things.

"The framers didn't envision semi-automatic weapons"

"Ok, maybe so. Did they envision modern art? Did they envision various forms of dance? Odd body piercings? Wacky hairstyles? No. But they're all protected. And so are semi-automatic firearms."

One thing for certain, the original framers of the Constitution DID FORSEE that if left unchecked Government would definitely try and screw the citizens of this country. They immediately amended the original Constitution with 10 very important limitations on Government. Their forsight was very clear. What they feared has been comming true, little by little.

Sadly, the only way most of the people in this country will recognize this is when each and every one of them has lost enough and they revolt.

When our "representative form of government" sinks so low that a key member of congress is constantly wheeled into capitol chambers for a crucial vote on some leftist program, and he is so far gone he hasn't a clue what he's voting on, we are definitely approaching the day of revolt. As I have said for many years, it's Congress that needs to be changed regularly and the same term limitations should apply to them as they applied to the President.

 

[762]

imported post

I sure hope that picture of the AR is a joke... be here's this:

I ned to return too seplling shcool, fastly.

And after reading the first page like I should have before-hand, I find that the original picture was just a joke.:lol:

 

[Commodore76]

imported post

I lik this pic much more gooder