Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Obama's "executive action" gun control.
123
Obama's "executive action" gun control.
2013-01-16, 3:55 PM #1
Well. what can i say? this all actually sounds like very reasonable stuff.

www.businessinsider.com

when i first heard about the idea that he was going to take executive action on gun control, i wont lie, it made me VERY nervous. But, hey this stuff i can live with.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-01-16, 4:20 PM #2
Yeah, nothing bad in there. I wasn't really concerned about him using executive actions for actual gun control because that would immediately result in legal challenges, both for "attacking the 2nd amendment" and for circumventing Congress. Stuff like "high capacity" magazines and the bogus "assault weapon" bans will have to go through Congress, and it's not very likely that'll it'll clear the House.
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2013-01-16, 5:18 PM #3
He punted the issue, these are fluff. Result...nothing will happen. I just hope the complete insanity that's going through in New York right now gets struck down, and I believe it will.
2013-01-16, 5:40 PM #4
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
He punted the issue, these are fluff. Result...nothing will happen. I just hope the complete insanity that's going through in New York right now gets struck down, and I believe it will.


Please explain.
>>untie shoes
2013-01-16, 5:53 PM #5
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
He punted the issue, these are fluff. Result...nothing will happen. I just hope the complete insanity that's going through in New York right now gets struck down, and I believe it will.


Please explain in your own words, citing precedent and taking into account the likely composition of a US Supreme Court by the time such a case is heard.
2013-01-16, 5:59 PM #6
What exactly do you want me to explain? I think the New York law is unconstitutional because it bans firearms that have already been established as constitutionally protected.
2013-01-16, 6:07 PM #7
If clarifying the scope of mental illness coverage means more people will be able to afford/access the care they need, this is excellent.

In terms of a national awareness campaign, I hope that it takes some cues from some of the rape prevention programs. ie, "To reduce gun violence, stop shooting people."

Further, direction to media could be helpful as well. Stop obsessing over shootings on the news ad nauseum, so that people watching won't see perpetrating a shooting as a way to go out in fame.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2013-01-16, 6:13 PM #8
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
What exactly do you want me to explain? I think the New York law is unconstitutional because it bans firearms that have already been established as constitutionally protected.
Gosh, well, your whole point I guess.

How about "firearms [...] established as constitutionally protected". I suppose you're talking about US v. Miller, which ruled that the term "arms" in the Second Amendment refers to any firearm which could be plausibly used by a well-regulated (trained and outfitted) militia. But, of course, that must be a mistake because that interpretation of the amendment means that virtually all weapons in use by civilians are actually illegal, because they either have no credible purpose in a militia, or because their use would be a war crime (e.g. expanding ammunition). So I'm assuming your thoughts are more nuanced here and as a foreigner I would be very interested to hear your interpretation of constitutional law w.r.t. the "insanity in New York".
2013-01-16, 6:17 PM #9
Originally posted by Dormouse:
If clarifying the scope of mental illness coverage means more people will be able to afford/access the care they need, this is excellent.


Agreed, but as always, I hope nobody withholds information about their own mental state out of fear of getting reported and losing rights.

Quote:
Further, direction to media could be helpful as well. Stop obsessing over shootings on the news ad nauseum, so that people watching won't see perpetrating a shooting as a way to go out in fame.


I brought this up in a debate one time. The person I was talking to said "I don't really think the resulting fame from murdering mass amount of people factors much into the decision to commit such acts." I didn't really know what to say since I couldn't really argue against that claim.
2013-01-16, 6:36 PM #10
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
I brought this up in a debate one time. The person I was talking to said "I don't really think the resulting fame from murdering mass amount of people factors much into the decision to commit such acts." I didn't really know what to say since I couldn't really argue against that claim.


I can only assume that they had all the attention, appreciation, and respect that they need, then. Otherwise the draw would be obvious.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2013-01-16, 6:50 PM #11
Question,

can anybody seriously come up with a plausible situation in which they would need over 30 bullets in a self defense situation?

I mean, if you are the kind of person who would attract the attention of a group of people who determine they need more than ten people in a home invasion to kill you, then you are either a major crime lord (in which case, you would probably be living in a compound protected by walls and bullet resistant windows), or are in a political position that would probably grant you a secret service detail or something similar.
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2013-01-16, 7:06 PM #12
Originally posted by alpha1:
can anybody seriously come up with a plausible situation in which they would need over 30 bullets in a self defense situation?

your home invader has three glowing weak points, which must each be hit 10 times.
2013-01-16, 7:17 PM #13
I'm actually referring to Heller (but you knew that) and the protections it outlines for arms in common use. Several weapons that would be banned under the new law are in common use and therefore protected. In my opinion that makes the law unconstitutional.

The law bans firearms based on cosmetic features that relate in no way to their function. That does nothing except make politicians look good to people who don't know the difference. And please explain to me why grandfathering existing 10 round magazines, but only allowing them to be filled to 7 rounds, even inside ones own home, isn't completely idiotic. How can this possibly prevent a crime?
2013-01-16, 7:50 PM #14
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
I'm actually referring to Heller (but you knew that) and the protections it outlines for arms in common use. Several weapons that would be banned under the new law are in common use and therefore protected. In my opinion that makes the law unconstitutional.
Really? The majority of legal professionals and scholars regard the DC v. Heller decision as extremely poor, motivated by party politics and historical revisionism with no actual basis for their decision in the constitution. For example, the majority rationalized their decision by citing the Miller judgement about "weapons in common use" but deliberately ignored that their decision was moderated thus: "weapons in common use by a well-regulated militia". It shouldn't surprise you then that the decision fell entirely to Republican appointees vs. the World. If you're comfortable calling a Bush Jr. fiat decision 'constitutional' that is your choice, but I prefer the term 'temporarily set by legal precedent'.

With upcoming retirements, the Supreme Court may end up being Democrat-dominated by the end of Obama's last term. If that happens there is basically zero chance that your 'constitutionally-protected' weapons will stay that way.
2013-01-16, 7:56 PM #15
Originally posted by alpha1:
Question,

can anybody seriously come up with a plausible situation in which they would need over 30 bullets in a self defense situation?

I mean, if you are the kind of person who would attract the attention of a group of people who determine they need more than ten people in a home invasion to kill you, then you are either a major crime lord (in which case, you would probably be living in a compound protected by walls and bullet resistant windows), or are in a political position that would probably grant you a secret service detail or something similar.


This kind of hits on one of my... i don't know what you would call it exactly. I am fine with magazine round caps. to be perfectly honest, 7-9 realistically sounds like a good number to me. on the one hand if you are in a defensive position you are really not going to want to be exposed for longer than it will take to fire off that number of rounds anyways. Also speaking from experience it really only takes a few seconds (less than 10) to change out a clip if you have any practice at all with guns. However in a situation where you have a shooter in a school, that 5-10 seconds can mean the difference between life or death for a lot of people.

however if you are talking about only allowing people to own < 30 rounds then i am absolutely against that. Call me crazy or paranoid if it makes you feel better, and i am sure some of you will have some choice words for me, but If **** ever really hits the fan I refuse to rely on "public security" for my protection. Whether you are inclined to admit it or not societal collapse is a real possibility, granted not at all likely, but entirely possible. Hurricanes, "super storms" earthquakes, riots, major pandemic, or heaven forbid we get hit by a CME/electromagnetic storm from hell or even worse an EMP... all it takes is roughly a week without power and things start going to **** REAL quick. Like i said the likelihood of something like that happening are remote, but the ability to own what i personally feel is an adequate amount of ammunition is something i feel strongly about and am willing to fight for.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-01-16, 7:57 PM #16
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Really? The majority of legal professionals and scholars regard the DC v. Heller decision as extremely poor, motivated by party politics and historical revisionism with no actual basis for their decision in the constitution. For example, the majority rationalized their decision by citing the Miller judgement about "weapons in common use" but deliberately ignored that their decision was moderated thus: "weapons in common use by a well-regulated militia". It shouldn't surprise you then that the decision fell entirely to Republican appointees vs. the World. If you're comfortable calling a Bush Jr. fiat decision 'constitutional' that is your choice, but I prefer the term 'temporarily set by legal precedent'.

With upcoming retirements, the Supreme Court may end up being Democrat-dominated by the end of Obama's last term. If that happens there is basically zero chance that your 'constitutionally-protected' weapons will stay that way.


All we can do is wait and see.
2013-01-16, 8:03 PM #17
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
The law bans firearms based on cosmetic features that relate in no way to their function. That does nothing except make politicians look good to people who don't know the difference.
They do the same thing here. I'm not a fan, but I see the reason for it. For example, on review the RCMP usually declares bullpup rifles as prohibited. The reason they do this is because they don't want compact rifles on the market. Existing laws try to implement this with a barrel length restriction, but certain gun manufacturers and importers have been using shorter stocks to flout the spirit of the law.

I don't know why they chose the features they did. Maybe they have a good reason, or maybe they just want to make gun ownership less 'cool'.

Do you really need a flash suppressor? I'm guessing not.

Quote:
And please explain to me why grandfathering existing 10 round magazines, but only allowing them to be filled to 7 rounds, even inside ones own home, isn't completely idiotic. How can this possibly prevent a crime?
Probably because making people discard their 10 round magazines could be seen as an illegal seizure of private property.

Maybe they have some statistic that shows those three extra cartridges make a difference.

I know in a different thread I said that people in government are primarily motivated by self-interest, and I stand by that. But that doesn't mean they don't necessarily have a good reason for the decisions they do make. Maybe you can send the NY governor's office a letter asking for clarification?
2013-01-16, 8:11 PM #18
Originally posted by alpha1:
Question,

can anybody seriously come up with a plausible situation in which they would need over 30 bullets in a self defense situation?


Nobody should have to. Your question sets a dangerous precedent for the erosion of liberties.

If you've ever gone out to the woods and shot cans then you know that with a couple hours practice the time it takes to swap out a new magazine, of any size, is barely more, or even about the same amount of time it takes it acquire a new target. One of the Columbine shooters used a carbine with 13 10-round magazines. If the limit at the time was 7, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have used multiple 7 round magazines to a similar end. Even if a shooter has a single shot weapon, ie, loading one bullet at a time, it's still not very tactically difficult for him to walk around a classroom blowing away cowering 6 yr olds one by one.
2013-01-16, 8:20 PM #19
Originally posted by Dormouse:
In terms of a national awareness campaign, I hope that it takes some cues from some of the rape prevention programs. ie, "To reduce gun violence, stop shooting people."


:/ generally i don't imagine the people who would listen and respond to an awareness campaign are the same people committing most of the gun crimes.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-01-16, 8:38 PM #20
Originally posted by Jon`C:
They do the same thing here. I'm not a fan, but I see the reason for it. For example, on review the RCMP usually declares bullpup rifles as prohibited. The reason they do this is because they don't want compact rifles on the market. Existing laws try to implement this with a barrel length restriction, but certain gun manufacturers and importers have been using shorter stocks to flout the spirit of the law.

I don't know why they chose the features they did. Maybe they have a good reason, or maybe they just want to make gun ownership less 'cool'.


We've been dealing with the same cosmetic ban crap in California here for the last 20 years and it's a complete disaster. Most cops don't understand the law despite REPEATED attempts to educate them and people are getting arrested on multiple felony "assault weapon" charges that turn out to be completely bogus charges on 100% legal guns. In the meantime they spend a month or two in jail and rack up tens of thousands of dollars of legal defense fees. This ruins people's lives.

They invented this term "assault weapon" for guns that look scary to people who are ignorant of the issue and they keep trying to ban them and they keep failing because the reality is they function exactly like guns that don't look scary and they can't effectively ban the "assault weapons" without banning MOST civilian guns.


Quote:
Do you really need a flash suppressor? I'm guessing not.


I agree. But that's a bad reason to ban something.

Quote:

Probably because making people discard their 10 round magazines could be seen as an illegal seizure of private property.

Maybe they have some statistic that shows those three extra cartridges make a difference.

I know in a different thread I said that people in government are primarily motivated by self-interest, and I stand by that. But that doesn't mean they don't necessarily have a good reason for the decisions they do make. Maybe you can send the NY governor's office a letter asking for clarification?


Statistics? I'm sure they have statistics that show monkeys fling more poo when Saturn is in Taurus, just as I'm sure that somebody else has statistics that show they don't.

I believe round limits are mostly stupid anyway, but that aside, why not just allow people who already have standard magazines to load them to their full potential? The law abiding citizens who will follow the law and only load 7 are not the people who are going to commit a crime. A criminal who intends on committing the much more serious crime of armed robbery or murder surely doesn't care about whatever misdemeanor is associated with pushing those extra couple rounds into the magazine of the gun he is using.
2013-01-16, 8:43 PM #21
Honestly, the thing that pisses me off the most is the way people flip their **** when they hear "executive order." An executive order is just a directive from the President to other actors (Cabinet-level departments, administrative agencies, etc.) within the executive branch of the government. Executive orders are subject not only to the limitations of the Constitution, but often also to the authority of the Congress that delegated power, or discretion over the use of that power, to those executive actors in the first place. There's nothing inherently threatening about executive orders, and when a President says he's going to use one, it almost always means he's taking less sweeping action than he could if he had the cooperation of Congress.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2013-01-16, 8:47 PM #22
Is it weird that as soon as I hear someone say something about a "clip" I completely disregard their opinion on the subject of guns?
>>untie shoes
2013-01-16, 8:49 PM #23
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
Honestly, the thing that pisses me off the most is the way people flip their **** when they hear "executive order." An executive order is just a directive from the President to other actors (Cabinet-level departments, administrative agencies, etc.) within the executive branch of the government. Executive orders are subject not only to the limitations of the Constitution, but often also to the authority of the Congress that delegated power, or discretion over the use of that power, to those executive actors in the first place. There's nothing inherently threatening about executive orders, and when a President says he's going to use one, it almost always means he's taking less sweeping action than he could if he had the cooperation of Congress.


As somebody who frequents a few firearms forums, let me give you a huge fist pound for that one. It's like half the population suddenly forgets everything they know about the legislative process when EO is mentioned.

[If I may backpedal...I SOMEWHAT understand. See Executive Order 9066.]
2013-01-16, 8:50 PM #24
Originally posted by Antony:
Is it weird that as soon as I hear someone say something about a "clip" I completely disregard their opinion on the subject of guns?


No. In fact it's usually the reason I never make it to the end of a gun-related article in any given news outlet.
2013-01-16, 8:53 PM #25
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
No. In fact it's usually the reason I never make it to the end of a gun-related article in any given news outlet.


Well, in all honesty, ammunition clips should not be available to the general public. If you're that ****ing lazy, you don't deserve a gun. I do agree, however, that all clips should be outlawed. If you're too ****ing lazy to load the magazine one round at a time, then I'm sorry about your luck.

Stipulation: If you own a gun that actually takes clips: e.g. M1 Garand. And in that case, you don't call it a clip anyway. You call it a bandolier. Or you hate history. And if you hate history, why do you own that gun?
>>untie shoes
2013-01-16, 8:58 PM #26
Originally posted by Antony:
Well, in all honesty, ammunition clips should not be available to the general public. If you're that ****ing lazy, you don't deserve a gun.

lol
2013-01-16, 9:00 PM #27
damn gummet trying to take away my bullets!

(just the bullets, still get to keep the casing, powder, and cap. they're just bored and looking for something to keep themselves busy i guess.)
2013-01-16, 9:01 PM #28
Originally posted by Antony:
Is it weird that as soon as I hear someone say something about a "clip" I completely disregard their opinion on the subject of guns?


Maybe if we had any idea why that is, we could determine if it's weird or not.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2013-01-16, 9:03 PM #29
Originally posted by Dormouse:
Maybe if we had any idea why that is, we could determine if it's weird or not.

Because a clip is something you use for speedloading magazines. A magazine is the little ammo box thing that you put on the bottom of the gun so you can make bad man fall down.
2013-01-16, 9:18 PM #30
Originally posted by Dormouse:
Maybe if we had any idea why that is, we could determine if it's weird or not.


A clip and a magazine are two very different things. A clip is a small piece of metal that holds several rounds together, which is sometimes used to load a weapon, but mostly used to quickly load a magazine (even if it doesn't really work that well). A magazine is a metal sleeve that holds rounds and is inserted into a weapon, feeding the rounds into the chamber. It's a matter of simple nomenclature. When someone says something about a "high capacity clip", they actually mean "high capacity magazine". It makes me think they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

EDIT: Hell, I didn't see Joncy's post. I said the same thing, essentially, but with much less condescension.
>>untie shoes
2013-01-16, 9:20 PM #31
I wasn't trying to be condescending, I've been drinking and I thought it was funny.
2013-01-16, 9:25 PM #32
Originally posted by alpha1:
Question,

can anybody seriously come up with a plausible situation in which they would need over 30 bullets in a self defense situation?

I mean, if you are the kind of person who would attract the attention of a group of people who determine they need more than ten people in a home invasion to kill you, then you are either a major crime lord (in which case, you would probably be living in a compound protected by walls and bullet resistant windows), or are in a political position that would probably grant you a secret service detail or something similar.


According to this article, the number of firearm incidents showed a 20% spike in people firing guns at attacking dogs.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf

And on page 23 it shows average shots fired per incident. 31% only one shot was fire and 14% had 3 shots fired. Next highest was 11% with 13 shots fired. 61% of incidents had 5 or fewer shots fired.

And thanks Jon for the clarification.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2013-01-16, 9:32 PM #33
Originally posted by Antony:
Well, in all honesty, ammunition clips should not be available to the general public. If you're that ****ing lazy, you don't deserve a gun. I do agree, however, that all clips should be outlawed. If you're too ****ing lazy to load the magazine one round at a time, then I'm sorry about your luck.

Stipulation: If you own a gun that actually takes clips: e.g. M1 Garand. And in that case, you don't call it a clip anyway. You call it a bandolier. Or you hate history. And if you hate history, why do you own that gun?


1. in the case of the M1 Garand (and a few others with a similar loading system) it is a clip a bandolier is a "pocketed belt for holding ammunition" in the case of the M1 Garand the clips were packed into bandoliers and then inside cans which were then packed in crates to be shipped to the front... the bandoliers would be passed out to the individual soldiers

2. clips are the proper way to load many non detachable magazines found on bolt action (and some semi auto) rifles... i keep loaded clips for my mosins, mausers, and sks ready for when i want to head to the range... i even have loaded clips of .303 for the SMLE i used to have which are ready for when i eventually get another
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2013-01-16, 9:34 PM #34
Thanks for the corrections and expanding on my post, Jim.
>>untie shoes
2013-01-17, 12:30 PM #35
Originally posted by Jon`C:

Do you really need a flash suppressor? I'm guessing not.


I'm having trouble seeing why this matters. Most of them don't provide a particularly large tactical advantage, they just make it more comfortable to shoot in low light. A muzzle brake, however, I could see being a more restricted feature, but even then, they're heavily used in competition shooting.

Personally, I don't need more than 8 rounds for 'home defense' because I am not a ****ing moron who would use a high powered rifle or even a pistol inside a house built out of drywall. I have a shotgun with 000 buckshot in my closet. Even duck hunting guns don't tend to have much larger magazines. With a pistol outside of the home, if I had my anxiety under control enough to carry mine, I can reload so fast, even from concealment, that having two ten round magazines instead of a 10-16 round magazine is hardly a difference. I can train a 110 pound girl who has never touched a gun to do the same thing.

I know it's cool to think that the cops can shoot the bad guy while he is reloading, but reality doesn't consistently work like television shows. It offers no assured advantage to someone responding to an active shooter in an unknown environment to assume that you can get them when they reload. Especially since bad guys tend to travel in packs. (Insert 'BUT ALL THESE LONE MASS SHOOTERS!') You know what does help though? Solid training and a well made weapon. But what helps even more is effective GSW and shock treatment for victims after the crazy has been shot by the police, themselves, or The Punisher.

Fortunately, I also have much more sensible home defense features like locked doors, windows, and a habit of not obliviously opening the door after 10 if I am not expecting someone. I also have the common sense to move away from gunfire unless I am by myself. In which case, I totes have a responsibility to investigate.

But in the end, I want my 30 round magazines because I like going out to the desert and shooting at targets. I am used to 30 round magazines. They are more fun, and I like them. And since it is highly likely that I will only ever use any of my firearms for shooting at paper grocery bags stapled to sticks, I would really appreciate it if we could focus on treating the underlying causes of gun violence instead of wasting precious administrative calories on deciding whether or not a pistol grip and a flash hider will allow a shooter to kill .5 more people.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2013-01-17, 2:28 PM #36
The pistol grip and flash suppressor aren't the things that kill people. They're things that a lot of weapons have which allow those weapons to be easily pigeonholed. The lightweight, semi automatic, large capacity, low recoil nature of these weapons makes it easy to kill a lot of people with them.
>>untie shoes
2013-01-17, 2:33 PM #37
Wrong, the self contained propellant and projectile cartridge makes it easy to kill a lot of people with them.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2013-01-17, 4:37 PM #38
Quote:
Probably because making people discard their 10 round magazines could be seen as an illegal seizure of private property.


They are making people discard their mags over 10 rounds.

Quote:
can anybody seriously come up with a plausible situation in which they would need over 30 bullets in a self defense situation?


Quote:
I don't know why they chose the features they did. Maybe they have a good reason, or maybe they just want to make gun ownership less 'cool'.

Do you really need a flash suppressor? I'm guessing not.


Quote:
Maybe they have some statistic that shows those three extra cartridges make a difference.


Quote:
But that doesn't mean they don't necessarily have a good reason for the decisions they do make.


When Bush II was taking us into Iraq, were you all saying "Guys, it might not be clear why they are doing the things they are doing, but I'm sure they have a good reason, so we should trust them!" Or what about the PATRIOT act? Warrant-less wiretapping of Americans? Why this blind faith despite ADMITTING that you don't see why they are doing some of it?

I don't know why they want guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but they show repeatedly with bad laws that that's all they're trying to do. Just one more law...and we'll be safer. It's been going on for almost a century now. 20 years from now, after a few more massacres, they'll say we need just one more law to keep us safe. It never ends. They won't stop until guns are completely banned, and there will still be massacres and they will find something else to vilify, some other freedom to erode, so we'll all be "safer". This reason is why despite my personal feeling that there are a few control options that DO make sense, I will oppose any and all gun control legislation because anti gunners have shown time and time again that if you give an inch they take a mile and keep trying to take more.

"The problem with being a gun rights activist is the Left hates guns and the Right hates rights." -unknown
2013-01-17, 5:31 PM #39
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
They are making people discard their mags over 10 rounds.


So earlier when you said:

"grandfathering existing 10 round magazines, but only allowing them to be filled to 7 rounds"

were you wrong or does grandfathering mean something different than I understand?

Quote:
I don't know why they want guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but they show repeatedly with bad laws that that's all they're trying to do.
Please don't bring up this paranoid survivalist bull****.

"They" don't give a **** whether you have a gun or not. "They" send their kids to private schools with security guards, and if "they" actually thought gun owners were a threat to their power, "they" wouldn't come in the night to take your guns away... "they" would kill you with Hellfire missiles. So let's not pretend it's a great conspiracy to rob you of some god-given right, ok?

The reason "they" are acting against gun violence is because concerned individuals are demanding action. The reason "you" are being targeted by legislation is because, unfortunately, at the moment the only thing anybody knows about these shooters is "middle class, male, gun enthusiast". Sucks, but you know, at least you'll get a better perspective on how NRA members have made Arab-Americans feel since 9/11.

Quote:
"The problem with being a gun rights activist is the Left hates guns and the Right hates rights." -unknown
All of this constitution talk, like any of it matters to you people. Up here in Canada we don't treat our constitution like it's just some laundry list of what we're allowed to do, like a list of toys we're allowed to **** around with when we're bored. Our rights aren't just rights, they come with responsibilities.

You will never solve your gun problems as long as the level-headed hobbyists are unwilling to entertain mild inconvenience for the sake of eliminating the vocal minority of irresponsible and incompetent gun owners and sellers.
2013-01-17, 5:51 PM #40
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Sucks, but you know, at least you'll get a better perspective on how NRA members have made Arab-Americans feel since 9/11.


This is one of the best things I've ever read on this forum.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
123

↑ Up to the top!