I refuse to live in fear!

[Horn89]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GreenDragonSix]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[texas_ex2000]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn89]

You're making all kinds of assumptions about "my guns" that aren't true...

In reply to:

---

---

 

[texas_ex2000]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn89]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[texas_ex2000]

89, I'm tired of your runaround, so this is my last post on this thread.

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[cmtsip]

I got a new sling shot today.
A damn nice one.
I know I'll sleep better tonight,
but you squirrels better get ready to dance tomorrow!

BAM BAM

 

[Horn89]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[texas_ex2000]

You know 89, I tried tried to stay away, but you brought me back.

I don't think you own a gun at all. Why don't you tell us what guns you own...I'm especially interested in these "black guns." You keep feigning indignancy that I'm making wild assumptions about your guns when analyzing your so called definition of "weapons of war," yet after ample opportunity, you continue to evade.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn89]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Hookem123]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

 

[123456789012345]

1. I have been firmly convinced for a long time that Hookem123 is a stealth liberal trying to make conservatives on this board look idiotic. He's just way too textbook stereotype perfect. Note the times he's gotten flack from the right leaners on the board.

2. Horn89, you are completely and truly wasting your keystrokes on this topic. You might as well be debating religion with the Taliban as common sense firearm limits wiith the gun nuts.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Horn89,
I think you miss the point of the second amendment. It wasn't about hunting or self-defense or sport. It was about a young nation that had been dictated to by a king. That king was able to do that because he controlled the means of violence (the army and the weapons). The second amendment is about the population having the means to resist a potentially oppressive government.

You could argue that todays weapons force us to make new choices. Todays military has access to a generation of weapons that are capable of destroying city blocks with a single pull of a trigger. We obviously can't allow individuals to keep pace with that, so do they still serve the same purpose. But you could also argue that the citizens having access to automatic weapons still serves as a deterrent in the event of the evolution of an oppressive government.

 

[Hookem123]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn89]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn89]

In reply to:

---

---