highball?
i want to buy a tank, can i do it?
i should be able to right.
i should be able to right.
0
-
Bear can mean to 'present' them when need also. But Like I said I do see your point![;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Marc,
If you reread my post about the AH with the AK you will see I ask how this would compare to a person going postal with a fully armed MBT![;)]
My discussion about the unarmed MBT was in response to code's post![:)]
Jim,.......I'm not trying to harass you. I agree with some others here in the respect that I believe you would be good to stand next to in a SHTF situation.
You are SO close![:D]
I will now respond to your exact "question" per se.
I tend to believe like rocklobster,........ANYTHING that can be carried, and used by an individual, should be legal.
Unfortunately for your beliefs, that means FAW, as well as anything else that comes down the pike that fits that description in the future.
I guess the other stuff is open to interpretation as HB has mentioned before.
You can't let the incident with that self converted AK, taint your views of the 2nd Amendment.
Would you have been happier if the sicko was using a semi-auto AK, and still killed the same number?
He was a criminal, and you saved us a lot of money taking care of the guy for life,.........OR the endless appeals.
For that,.....I salute you for a job well done.[;)]0 -
Marc,
It didn't taint my view. And I don't think you are harassing me. I used the publicity I got when I shot this guy and got the Medal Of Valor to let the media know, in no uncertain terms, I thought the current laws on the books which prevent or restrict the citizens from obtaining and carrying weapons were unconstitutional. I just happen to believe no right is absolute, there must and will be exceptions and restrictions because if not the victimizers will miss use the right to victimize others (violate others rights).[:D]
Unfortunately it did not take him out, only three pellets struck him in the face, and none penetrated his skull. He survived. This is why I am no fan of buck shot. This was the second shooting I shot someone with buck shot and they survived![:(]0 -
Sorry HB, I didn't mean to hi-jack YOUR thread, but as you know I have almost as big a mouth as you![8D] 0 -
Geez S. Crist. No wonder the anti-gun crowd has in the past, and will in the future, kicked our gun-owing asses. Here is a lengthy, drawn-out debate, (among pro-gun people for God's sake) about whether or not civilians should own tanks.
Hey people, the anti-gun crowd is not wasting their time, nor fighting among themselves like we do, and they are preparing to kick our asses. YoBama and his crowd will soon be taking our .22's and here some people debate owning tanks.
What the hell, we all deserve to lose because we are stupid.0 -
Me thinks I hear a cricket chirping? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Sorry HB, I didn't mean to hi-jack YOUR thread, but as you know I have almost as big a mouth as you![8D]
[:D] [:D] [:D]0 -
quote:Geez S. Crist. No wonder the anti-gun crowd has in the past, and will in the future, kicked our gun-owing asses.
No, actually it's because fools believe that the NRA is fighting the battle for them, that's why the ass kickin'. Don't let your enemy fight your battle if you want to win.[}:)][:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Geez S. Crist. No wonder the anti-gun crowd has in the past, and will in the future, kicked our gun-owing asses.
No, actually it's because fools believe that the NRA is fighting the battle for them, that's why the ass kickin'. Don't let your enemy fight your battle if you want to win.[}:)][:(!]
You want to guess how many letters I have received in the past weeks from the NRA, as my membership expires in November?
Oh the humanity,........pleading from Wayne concerning possibly missing his other communications, and the opportunity to contribute to his 900K salary.
Almost forgot,.......he is protecting my "rights",..........RIGHT![:0][}:)][;)]0 -
900K[:p]
Where do I apply!!!![8D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Rock,
You are more entertaining than HB. [}:)]
Why don't you try and say something intelligent for a change?[;)]
Coming from a mentally challenged moron who's as articulate as a chimp, I'll take it a compliment. Carry on, tard-o.0 -
Rock,
I don't like you either, but I would let that deter me. There is one like you in every group.[xx(]
But why do you refuse to say ANTHING intelligent?????????0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Geez S. Crist. No wonder the anti-gun crowd has in the past, and will in the future, kicked our gun-owing asses. Here is a lengthy, drawn-out debate, (among pro-gun people for God's sake) about whether or not civilians should own tanks.
Hey people, the anti-gun crowd is not wasting their time, nor fighting among themselves like we do, and they are preparing to kick our asses. YoBama and his crowd will soon be taking our .22's and here some people debate owning tanks.
What the hell, we all deserve to lose because we are stupid.
They will only take them from those willing to turn them in. I, for one do not plan on giving up my arms when BHO and his JBTs pass their pissant unconstitutional gun grab. I'd sooner bury them or any other alternative but to surrender them.0 -
i think this thread is so funny because if we were a couple of guys sitting up at the bar, or guys that grew up near each other we would be good friends.
its just on the internet we bicker and fight. we all have SIMAILAR beliefs but the fine points piss each other off.
this thread was meant to prove the differences, wow. you guy argue too much.
if they come to get the guns, i have a small but signifacant movement ready to go. i will quote one of the guys.
"the government will only kill a few people before the rest of the people start wondering, hey what the hell is going on, why are they killing AMERICAN people"0 -
You are correct. This is one of the point I have been trying to make. "United we stand, divided we fall".[V]
I have all ready contacted several here, via e-mail or PM, who I have trade barbs with and we have agreed to have a few 'cold ones' if we can get together.[8D]0 -
originally posted by trfox:
Geez S. Crist. No wonder the anti-gun crowd has in the past, and will in the future, kicked our gun-owing asses. Here is a lengthy, drawn-out debate, (among pro-gun people for God's sake) about whether or not civilians should own tanks.
Are you still here? You must have titanium testicles. You keep getting kicked, yet keep coming back. When are you going to understand that not everyone is interested in consuming the poison you're distributing.
By the way, careful with how you label everyone here 'pro-gun'. They're not, and that includes yourself. There is the RTKBA, free from government regulation, and then there are 'privileges', made so by government mandates. Which one you choose to believe in will determine how 'pro-gun' you really are.
Hey people, the anti-gun crowd is not wasting their time, nor fighting among themselves like we do, and they are preparing to kick our asses. YoBama and his crowd will soon be taking our .22's and here some people debate owning tanks.
Once again, here we go with the "Obama will take..." rubbish. Obama, or McCain for that matter, will only take what they are allowed to take. I also take issue with the 9th word in that highlighted statement; 'our'. Speak for yourself, because you damn sure neither speak for me, nor represent the views/beliefs I hold to.
What the hell, we all deserve to lose because we are stupid.
'We'? Again, you do not speak for me. Do not lump me and others on here into your ilk. A few of us take the no compromise view of the RTKBA, and many of the same have chosen to or are choosing to exercise that same 'no compromise' stance with our votes.
You want to be an accomplice in the muder of liberty, go ahead, but I'll be damned if I have any part in it.
If you are so blind, and you really believe the garbage you spout on here, then you are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to those who founded this Republic. You are a disgrace to any American who loves liberty, and truly knows what it means. WAKE UP.
Scathing? Maybe, but you earned it, and I meant every GD word of it!
[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Almost forgot. Your post has me so mad, all I can see is red, so I had to come back for a quick edit.
I figured you'd respond with something eluding to 'banging on a keyboard' or 'sitting on the sidelines', so I'll go ahead and anwer the question before it's asked.
Yeah, I do things conducive to the preservation of the RTKBA. I've spent the last 2 evenings doing some reloading I'd been meaning to get around to for a while, and my kids helped me. It was time well spent, and the money invested will pay off a hell of a lot better divendends than if I had pissed it away by sending it to Fairfax, Virginia.
[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]0 -
ws,
BACK AWAY FROM THE KEY BOARD!![}:)]
Take a couple of deep breaths, and count to 100!![;)]
OK, NOW JUMP BACK IN!!![}:)]0 -
Jim,
He deserved it, and he has no one to blame but himself.
He blasted the 'anti-gun' crowd, yet it is a crowd to which he belongs. He's just too damn blind to see it.
Then, he spouts the old 'they're gonna take our guns' bit. I swear, I get so sick of hearing that, and it seems more and more folks are subscribing to that 'theory'. Bullschit, that's all it is. One is disarmed only if he allows it. Are there any friggon men left?
'What the hell, we all deserve to lose because we are stupid.'
That was my favorite part.[:(!] 'We' deserve to lose? Because 'we' are stupid? What's with the 'we' schit?
He (tr) is the one supporting an organization that does everything in it's power to undermine the RTKBA.
He (tr) is the one supporting a candidate that has voted AGAINST that very right.
He (tr) is the one criticizing those of us who have chosen to do what's best for the Republic.
Then, he has the balls to proclaim that 'we' are all in this together. He needs to search himself, and decide which side he is on.
And yeah, almost 7 hours later, and I am still as mad as hell. When you throw gasoline onto a fire, you shouldn't be suprised at the resulting conflagration[:(!]0 -
Any other questions ? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Marc,
You are missing the point. The 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with a tracked vehicle, UNLESS IT IS EQUIPED WITH 'ARMS'.[;)]
You can take a large construction vehicle, rock truck comes to mind, and run over and into a lot of things and cause a lot of damage. No comparison to what a FULLY armed MBT can do with it's firepower![:(]
JEFF, where did you go?????[8D]
I am here Jim. Did you miss me?[:o)]0 -
Jeff,
Yes I did.[;)]
We are going to have to stop meeting like this, people are gong to talk!!![8)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Yes I did.[;)]
We are going to have to stop meeting like this, people are gong to talk!!![8)]
[:D][:D][:D]0 -
High Ball,
Did you delete my other thread?? I am hurt!! Were you upset because you only had one thread???[}:)]0 -
I prefer to have no threads at all;
This discussion is NOT about 'me'.
Personally, I would that NOBODY discuss who I am, where I come from, or how often I change my shorts ..these things having no bearing on the validity of the things I say.
That being said...I have absolutely no power to do ANYTHING to somebody elses' posts or threads ..the limit being posting on their threads.
I enjoy no 'inside deal' with Admin, moderators, nor any other person on these forums ..save for the bond of brothers we that support the Constitution enjoy.
That appease the part of your mind devoted to `investigations'...?
Odd thing...apropos of nothing in particular;
Much was made of Ron Pauls weak chin and high, whiney voice...the meek, mild Casper Milktoast appearance he cast.
A Nation wedded to the belief that a movie star appearance is necessary to actually have anything important to say.
If I am 3 foot tall and speak in the voice of a munchkin SHOULD made not one damn thing to an intelligent being...one accustomed to thinking for oneself.
An intelligent being would analyze the things being said and accept or reject them based on the validity therein...not the appearance or what title the presenter holds.
Nor should the fact that I am 6 foot tall and Burt Reynolds resembles me make a damn bit of difference in the scheme of things.0 -
HB,
Lighten up. What part of [}:)] did you not understand? I don't care either. You started it, you can end it. I have done the same several times. Don't you wish you do the same to other things in life???[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Is your name Jeff????????????[}:)]
Secondly, if this is the one in CA. He was shot dead by a LEO, ONLY AFTER HE HIGH CENTERED THE TANK ON A MEDIAN BARRIER, AND THE LOCK WAS CUT OFF THE HATCH!!!This just shows how little you know about and understand the REAL world!!![:(]
Sorry to interupt but how do you lock a tank on the outside while you are inside?0 -
With a chain and a paddle lock.[;)] He enterd throught the drivers hatch, and secured it from the inside. The main hatch was locked from the outside.[;)] 0 -
This thread exemplifies a recurring theme in these forums. There are "pro-gun" advocates that just aren't quite comfortable with anybody having anything they want, even if those anybodies are stellar citizens with no criminal history or an inkling of criminal intent. The line is drawn at different places for different people, some are fine with full-auto restrictions, for others it is the hi-cap magazine bans that are okay. I even know shotgunners that can't fathom any reason why you would need more than two 12-gauge shells at a time.
I posted a thread about this quite a while back:
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=112979
I think that thread demonstrated that many of our "pro-gun" cohorts have an inner gun-grabber somewhere. I personally used to be squeamish about citizens owning full-autos, but then I came to the understanding that ANY restriction against arms WILL deny the possession and use of those arms for lawful and legitimate purposes. It does not sit well with me to deny the masses of basic rights so that a small and determined minority may be inconvenienced before commiting a crime. I would rather preserve my right to keep and bear arms so that I may be better equipped to defend myself against those rogue individuals. Anyone telling me that they are deny me that right for my own good or benefit, and that they are taking on that responsibility themselves, is either a liar or dillusional.
-WoundedWolf0 -
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
This thread exemplifies a recurring theme in these forums. There are "pro-gun" advocates that just aren't quite comfortable with anybody having anything they want, even if those anybodies are stellar citizens with no criminal history or an inkling of criminal intent. The line is drawn at different places for different people, some are fine with full-auto restrictions, for others it is the hi-cap magazine bans that are okay. I even know shotgunners that can't fathom any reason why you would need more than two 12-gauge shells at a time.
I posted a thread about this quite a while back:
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=112979
I think that thread demonstrated that many of our "pro-gun" cohorts have an inner gun-grabber somewhere. I personally used to be squeamish about citizens owning full-autos, but then I came to the understanding that ANY restriction against arms WILL deny the possession and use of those arms for lawful and legitimate purposes. It does not sit well with me to deny the masses of basic rights so that a small and determined minority may be inconvenienced before commiting a crime. I would rather preserve my right to keep and bear arms so that I may be better equipped to defend myself against those rogue individuals. Anyone telling me that they are deny me that right for my own good or benefit, and that they are taking on that responsibility themselves, is either a liar or dillusional.
-WoundedWolf
Good post WW!0 -
Good read. I brings up the question of evolution of weaponry!!
Did the founding Fathers even imagine, in their wildest dreams, the advancements in weponry we have witnessed in the last 100+ years. They had no 'repeating' armes when they draftded the 2nd! At that time the military and hunting arms were basicly the same.
Even through the Civil War there was very little to any difference between the arms of the 'armies' and the the 'civilans'.
It was not until the use of smokeless powder and 'machine' guns until the weapons took on two very differnt complections!
When the weapons were basicly the same the idealogy fit. When the weapons changed it changed the 'reality' factor and thus the application of the 'ideal'.
When the weapons/tools of both military and civilians were the same the literal or ideal translation of the 2nd applied. But unless you want to deny reality and human nature, you must admitt the weapons and there uses are nowhere near the same as when the Bill of Rights was adopted.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
64 comments