NRA's enemies list.

[PopeyesPappy]

ACU was a compromise that didn't work well for shit. I on the other hand was issued OD fatigues and khakis. I had to buy my damn multicam.

I'm wondering when you multicam seeing how you've been out since 87.

What did they call the pattern on the BDU's they made me buy starting in 81? I thought it was multicam. Looked like multicam to me but that could just be faulty memory.

[Anonymous]

Woodland Camo.

[PopeyesPappy]

I looked woodland up. Apparently the marines are starting to issue it again to some units.

[Brian37]

So the military has what 2 million , probably many who also shoot those M-16s, and  I bet if you talked to enough military and former military you'd find just because they share the same label "soldier" does not mean they think you need an assault riffle. But I bet you think everyone who owns a gun, or is or was in the military all if them would agree with you? You are absolutely sure of that? I would bet my life sharing a label wont mean all of them do. So if you wont listen to me go talk to soldiers who disagree with you, but I doubt you'd take the time to do that. You'll just assume there are none.

Secondly tanks and jets are NOT just vehicles, they ARE weapons of war. It is fucking asinine to claim they are not used for violence. Thats like saying a bayonette is just a knife and is not part of the riffle. Word games dont work.

Third, and exactly how do you think under a republican or democratic president, ETHER WAY, do you think you could overthrow the government with even just assault riffles? The reason I talk about tanks and jets IS BECAUSE you would need an equal amount or superior resources as compared to the government. You think you can overthrow the government with just riffles? I think you underestimate the amount of people who think they can, or even want to.

 EVEN GUN owners most, do not want to overthrow the government. There is just a small number of tea party gun nuts, MOST of the country, both left and right don't give one shit about overthrowing the government.

The second amendment was written back then, things have changed since then and weapons are much different than they are today. Thats like applying hitching posts laws to parking lots when no one has a horse.

No one wants to take away all guns. The bottom line is that this is about gun makers and money. This is about gun makers not giving a shit about reducing gun death. This is about money and profits, not safety or gun rights.

And jets are not just vehicles, they ARE flying guns. Their missiles are like the bullets of a gun and the cockpit is the trigger and the pilot is the trigger puller. And tanks are moving guns, the shells are like the bullets of the gun and the driver is the trigger puller. They are both moving guns.   If they were just vehicles they wouldn't need weapons or have them.

[Brian37]

I was born under Nixon, since then we have had Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and now Obama. Power has shifted both ways in that time and GUESS WHAT, the world has not come to an end.

Gun nutters have allowed the extreme right wing and gun industry to scare the shit out of them just so their corporate overlords could make money.

[buttfinger]

But I bet you think everyone who owns a gun, or is or was in the military all if them would agree with you?

You're tho only one claiming this.  Strawman rejected.

Secondly tanks and jets are NOT just vehicles, they ARE weapons of war.

Nobody's claimed this.  It's a second strawman.  Even so, it bears addressing.  The second amendment doesn't guarantee the right to vehicles of war, or to cannons, or mortars, etc.  It guarantees me the right to arm myself as a ground troop for militia purposes.

do you think you could overthrow the government with even just assault riffles?

Yet another strawman.  Strike three, you're a retard.  Nobody's claimed that having a non-assualt-rifle is going to give a small group of people the ability to overthrow the government, only that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves and allow us to try it.

The second amendment was written back then, things have changed since then and weapons are much different than they are today. Thats like applying hitching posts laws to parking lots when no one has a horse.

Bad analogy.  Parking lots are not hitching posts, semiautomatic rifles ARE firearms.  If you don't like it, lobby ot repeal the 2nd amendment.

No one wants to take away all guns.

Bullshit.  Proof of that was already posted here earlier by asshat.  Next you'll be telling me that the nanny-staters aren't trying to outlaw smoking.  But they are, they're just taking baby steps.  This is baby step one in an effort to take our guns, and then move on to pointy knives.  Move to England, they've already taken all those baby steps and are working on the knives.  You can go hang out with people as retarded as yourself and not have to worry about scary looking guns with a black plastic stock.

[buttfinger]

Gun nutters have allowed the extreme right wing and gun industry to scare the shit out of them just so their corporate overlords could make money.

Said the retard who can't see past Feinstein's propaganda and can't make an argument that actually addresses what anyone else said.

[buttfinger]

I see you idiots can't actually address any arguments made.  Keep beating those strawmen.  maybe someday a member will come along who your arguments apply to.

[buttfinger]

Err...You are the idiot that's been slapped around here kiddo.

Those strawmen you've been slapping don't even RESEMBLE me.

You really should change your tone and attitude if you want to communicate with people here.

I did.  I changed my tone from a calm discussion to the shit-slinging that I saw going on around me.  I figured oit was the tone this forum WANTED.

You're in an embarrassing situation.

I'm sorry you're embarrassed.  Maybe if you didn't treat people like shit, they wouldn't embarrass you.

Gain some self awareness. Most people at least wait to see what's froum like to act like the way you do.

I'm actually VERY self aware.  And I did wait to see what the forum was like, then I adjusted my posting style to match it.

Except the religious nuts of course, but they have an agenda. What's your problem?

Just returning the tone that was sent my way up front.  Don't like it?  Don't treat n0o0bs the same way you're complaining I now treat others.

[buttfinger]

You write your opinion or start a debate.

Did that.  Got called names for it.

People do not have to agree with you or even respond to your posts while posting to that thread.

Agreed.  But that's not what's happening.  People who disagree with me just started calling me names, instead of addressing my points.  In this thread, they called me names based on points I never made, and keep addressing something they made up instead of something I said.  I'm just showing you how people respond to that.  When we treated new people like that over at TU, we ended up with a mere 8 members for it.  N00bs wouldn't stay and the old-timers got sick of not having new conversation.  Keep treating new members how you do, and that's what will eventually happen here.

You have no self awareness what's so ever.

And clearly you're psychic enough to know that through a computer.

I have heard that you were just telling how you hated and never believed in 'attacks'. You are the one doing it right now as much as I can see.

Just responding to what I was given in the first place.

I am a reactive person and I sometimes tend to get pissed off and yell around. It doesn't work. I enjoy here now much better since I tried to dropped that attitude. And NO that's not this forum WANTS. Yes sometimes it feels like you are the only one who is seeing the real point in a discussion, or people seem not ot see what they should...blah blah but that doesn't mean anything when you cannot exchange what you see.

Reaction doesn't work for SOME things.  Depends on the goal.  it works fine for some other goals.

:shock: Look at me being resonable and sensible and all about posting style...*Whistles. AITM! Slap me hard dear, something is happening to me! *Fans herself...

I AM shocked.  It's clearly not the norm around here.

[buttfinger]

buttfinger, do you know how old this forum is?

Why should I care if it's a week, a month, or a decade?  A circle-jerk is a circle-jerk.  Or is it that it's so old that's it's not a circle-jerk so much as an old-boy's club?  Either way, it's the same thing really.

You are still making the same mistake. You are seeing here as a little place where similar people are agreeing witch each other on the same topics. NAAH. Sorry to bust your bubble.

And yet name-calling abounds to the those who do not agree, ergo it IS a place where opinions are required to be the same all around.

Go insult back to people who insulted you or better report them. Again, how old are you? You are babbling nonsense. "They called me names over there, so I am insulting eveyone I see!".  

That's where i started, then then buddy-bandwagon got rolling.  So yeah.

Hey look, I can link irrelevant images too!

[Colanth]

The second amendment doesn't guarantee the right to vehicles of war, or to cannons, or mortars, etc.  It guarantees me the right to arm myself as a ground troop for militia purposes.

"Arms" doesn't mean something you can carry in your arms, it means armaments - including tanks, jets and SAMs.  The second, read literally, guarantees your right to bear all of them - as part of a well-regulated militia.

Nobody's claimed that having a non-assualt-rifle is going to give a small group of people the ability to overthrow the government, only that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves and allow us to try it.

It gives us the right to be part of a well-regulated militia and, as a part of that, to bear arms.  Stop quoting half-sentences.

(The SCOTUS is the final arbiter, but that doesn't make it always correct.)

The second amendment was written back then, things have changed since then and weapons are much different than they are today. Thats like applying hitching posts laws to parking lots when no one has a horse.

Bad analogy.  Parking lots are not hitching posts

Good analogy - parking lots and hitching posts are both where transportation is left when we're not using it to travel.

No one wants to take away all guns.

Bullshit.  Proof of that was already posted here earlier by asshat.

Assertions (and incorrect ones at that) aren't proof.

[buttfinger]

"Arms" doesn't mean something you can carry in your arms, it means armaments - including tanks, jets and SAMs.  The second, read literally, guarantees your right to bear all of them - as part of a well-regulated militia.

Then your interpretation of it is that we have the right to own a jet.  They're a bit cost-prohibitive to me personally though.  The fact remains, if you don't like it, the 2nd amendment needs to be appealed.

It gives us the right to be part of a well-regulated militia and, as a part of that, to bear arms.  Stop quoting half-sentences.

You only restated what I did, but in different terms and from a different angle.  I DO have the right to TRY to overthrow the government.  I'm personally not going to get myself burned alive in a cabin on Big Bear mountain, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to TRY it.

Bad analogy.  Parking lots are not hitching posts

Good analogy - parking lots and hitching posts are both where transportation is left when we're not using it to travel.[/quote]
Their function is the same, their form is not, unlike rifles which have the same form, but with upgraded efficiency.

Assertions (and incorrect ones at that) aren't proof.

Assertions are not proof, but video of the forerunner of the whole thing SAYING EXACTLY that IS proof, ergo not a false assertion.

But here, let me share it again, just for you.
[youtubehd:1m7w0jf8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnyc2vzgJE8[/youtubehd:1m7w0jf8]

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Nor am I impressed by slippery slope arguments advanced by the NRA.

Good for you.  The fact remains, it's not a slippery slope fallacy, but the directed goal vocalized by the forerunners of the anti-gun movement.  It's also a slope that we've SEEN in action in Britain.  They're so far down that slope that you have to have DOCUMENTATION of being a butcher or chef in order to transport kitchen knives, and they're currently (or perhaps done, but recently did) debating banning kitchen knives that are too pointy.  Britain is at a place were I don't want to be, and the nanny-staters who are seeking to ban "assault rifles" have openly admitted that it's their goal to legislate us into the same place.

1. You need documentation to transport knives over borders in many countries. Australia and New Zealand to name a few (and for good reason, obviously).

 You do not need any documentation at all to 'transport' knives from one place to another within England and Wales (I don't know about Scotland). You do not need documentation to show that you're a chef or to show that you're a carrying kitchen knives (???). I think you may have just made that up, unless you've got evidence of the legislation? It's certainly not in the Criminal Jusitce Act (1988), or any subsequent amendments to said legislation, that I've ever read.

2. I have never seen any debate in parliament or in any legislative body (local, national or intra national) about banning knives that are 'too pointy' (???). This seems rather nonsensical and so subjective it would disolve under any legislative scrutiny. That said, Evidence please if you think you are right and I will reassess my stance.

3. I fully accept that argument that the US, culturally (if one can use that word), is completely different to the UK and many other states that both outlaw and legalise guns within their state.

The evolution of gun laws in the UK is complex, more complex that many would actually believe. I'm sure most people have heard of Northern Ireland for example, where, despite a de facto outlawing of guns, a large number of terrorist organisations still retained large stockpiles of weapons, garnered (ironically) from donors in the US and from other organisations in South America (eg IRA's and UU's).

The two ways to solve the dilemma of serious gun crime (and more), were either to increase gun control and use other legislative means to restrict the use of weapons (including engaging with communities and fostering a greater sense of unity), or to liberalise gun control, arm more people, and use the logic that a better armed populace is a better prepared one.

They went with the former, and hey presto, 'the troubles' dissolved and instances of gun crime (despite still being evident even till today) reduced dramatically. NI have gone form one of the most deprived areas in Europe to being one of the most affluent in growth terms (prior to the recession). Again, not applicable to the US, but evidence of gun control working to a great degree to the benefit of almost everyone who were tired of guns being fired every other day in their neighbourhoods.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

They're so far down that slope that you have to have DOCUMENTATION of being a butcher or chef in order to transport kitchen knives, and they're currently (or perhaps done, but recently did) debating banning kitchen knives that are too pointy.

This sounds suspiciously extraordinary. Prove this assertion, now.

Here you go.

???

Popeyes, that is a BBC article not a green or white paper published by parliament seeking to exercise a debate for the purpose of forming legislation on the banning of 'blades that are too pointy".

Again, the CJA 1988 and all subsequent legislation amendments through various papers (you can search for them all either through Hansard [debates] or through the home office) has never once done or sought to do anything similar to what was proposed. It is false until proven otherwise p.