namelesstavern.net

Why do you care so much abot these damn guns Min?

Minrott
NT Deity
hillbilly

lol.

I don't mind peeps owning them but I don't, prolly never will.

See but the thing is Minrott isn't some ignant hillbilly country kid. He's actually kinda smart. But he's just so fixated on guns and keeping them and flipping off any government that imposes even the most reasonable restrictions.

I have a this one buddy... Grew up in a tiny little town, moved to the big city where I met him. He is now a lawyer here in town.

But when we go down to visit his parents or a float trip that man is all about guns, shootn'-killn'-eatin' whatever he can see, going in on half a cow with his brother and putting in the deep freezer ect.

He is an odd dude

I am a safe, responsible hunter and the only time I take either of my two guns out of the safe is when I hunt, the rest of the year they are locked up. Unless theres some huge jail penalty or something for being caught with them someday, they are most likely staying in that safe.

I doubt very much anyone is going to come looking for your rifle Gaazy, but do you really need a bazooka to go hunting for a deer?

Zanchief wrote:flipping off any government that imposes even the most reasonable restrictions.

There are no "reasonable" restrictions for small arms. The very idea is based in a determination of what you "need". I'll decide what I need, that is not the job of government. And hey maybe I don't need a fully automatic assault rifle, but if I decide I want one, that is also my perogative as a law abiding citizen.

Of course it's not only assault weapons that there are "reasonable" restrictions on. Take for instance clip sizes for .22 rifles. While it is still legal to sell and own 30 or 50 round clips, some of these "reasonable" restrictions prohibit the manufature of more... which is just another way to get rid of them. This on a weapon that you generally wouldn't even consider extremly viable as a self defense weapon or hunting larger game... For the most part small game and target shooting.

/shrug its a 243, hardly a bazooka I do the vast majority of my hunting with bow though. My other gun is a shotgun my grandpa gave me thats real old, and they can take that from my dead body.

there was a guy here last year who was caught hunting with some kind of assault rifle and I wanted to lynch the fucking guy for giving hunters such a shitty name from it.

Lueyen wrote:

Zanchief wrote:flipping off any government that imposes even the most reasonable restrictions.

There are no "reasonable" restrictions for small arms. The very idea is based in a determination of what you "need". I'll decide what I need, that is not the job of government. And hey maybe I don't need a fully automatic assault rifle, but if I decide I want one, that is also my perogative as a law abiding citizen.

Of course it's not only assault weapons that there are "reasonable" restrictions on. Take for instance clip sizes for .22 rifles. While it is still legal to sell and own 30 or 50 round clips, some of these "reasonable" restrictions prohibit the manufature of more... which is just another way to get rid of them. This on a weapon that you generally wouldn't even consider extremly viable as a self defense weapon or hunting larger game... For the most part small game and target shooting.

Limits have to be imposed at some point. You don't want average citizens driving tanks down the street or owning airfields full of fighter jets do you?

Your line in the sand is just a little further down crazy town than mine is.

I don't want a gun but now that you mention it Zanchief I want a GD F-117!

WTS Black Jetta Turbo, I got a new way to work now!

Zanchief wrote:

Lueyen wrote:

Zanchief wrote:flipping off any government that imposes even the most reasonable restrictions.

There are no "reasonable" restrictions for small arms. The very idea is based in a determination of what you "need". I'll decide what I need, that is not the job of government. And hey maybe I don't need a fully automatic assault rifle, but if I decide I want one, that is also my perogative as a law abiding citizen.

Of course it's not only assault weapons that there are "reasonable" restrictions on. Take for instance clip sizes for .22 rifles. While it is still legal to sell and own 30 or 50 round clips, some of these "reasonable" restrictions prohibit the manufature of more... which is just another way to get rid of them. This on a weapon that you generally wouldn't even consider extremly viable as a self defense weapon or hunting larger game... For the most part small game and target shooting.

Limits have to be imposed at some point. You don't want average citizens driving tanks down the street or owning airfields full of fighter jets do you?

Your line in the sand is just a little further down crazy town than mine is.

too late. i know people that have tanks and half-tracks etc. there was a program on WHYY that was showing these millionares with super-sonic jet fighters. Like F-105's etc.. was kinda cool

Yep was just gonna say I recently read an article about a guy who litterally drives a tank to work.

And that's ok with you?

I had no idea you were a crackpot lueyen

just because you want to own various weapons (of mass destruction omg) doesn't mean that you should be allowed to

Zanchief wrote:And that's ok with you?

these guys are collectors. the tank cannot fire etc its just a working model. same with his half track and his howitzer. they are all ww2 relics he restored. I dont see anything wrong with that. they arent using the tank to rob banks etc mostly they are in parades. the fighter collectors arent even in the US they are in S africa cause civialians arent arent allowed to own military jets of this type in the US.

Evermore wrote:

Zanchief wrote:And that's ok with you?

these guys are collectors. the tank cannot fire etc its just a working model. same with his half track and his howitzer. they are all ww2 relics he restored. I dont see anything wrong with that. they arent using the tank to rob banks etc mostly they are in parades. the fighter collectors arent even in the US they are in S africa cause civialians arent arent allowed to own military jets of this type in the US.

BAM there you go. The government unreasonably telling me I can't own a fucking fighting jet. Those meddlesome bastards.

Tikker wrote:I had no idea you were a crackpot lueyen

just because you want to own various weapons (of mass destruction omg) doesn't mean that you should be allowed to

Lueyen wrote:There are no "reasonable" restrictions for small arms.

I was not advocating the right of civilians to own a fully functional M1A1 or something of that nature.

So you believe the government should tell people what they can and cannot own?

Lueyen wrote:

Tikker wrote:I had no idea you were a crackpot lueyen

just because you want to own various weapons (of mass destruction omg) doesn't mean that you should be allowed to

Lueyen wrote:There are no "reasonable" restrictions for small arms.

I was not advocating the right of civilians to own a fully functional M1A1 or something of that nature.

The line between 1 item that fires a bullet, and another that fires a bullet slightly faster is kind of a foolish line

a gun is a gun

I have fairly long arms...just for the record.

So you believe the government should tell people what they can and cannot own?

Yes, there has to be some limitations. You can't say "common sense" anymore. Using the analogies above some could own a fully operational A-bomb if they so wished. (As a collector obv )

As long as we take away their uranium?

Tikker wrote:

Lueyen wrote:

Tikker wrote:I had no idea you were a crackpot lueyen

just because you want to own various weapons (of mass destruction omg) doesn't mean that you should be allowed to

Lueyen wrote:There are no "reasonable" restrictions for small arms.

I was not advocating the right of civilians to own a fully functional M1A1 or something of that nature.

The line between 1 item that fires a bullet, and another that fires a bullet slightly faster is kind of a foolish line

a gun is a gun

so you are saying that a .22 is the same as a 155mm howitzer?

When it comes to reasonable gun controll there really is no such thing. Yes i spose i think there should be missle and artillery controll but none whatso ever on personel arms. Only people who are effected by these gun laws are people that prolly werent gonna commit a crime in the first place. CRIMINALS DONT CARE ABOUT LAWS and when there is a market for something people are going to get it. Gun controll is feal good legislation that has no effect on crime at all.

My god... if I read that right I think I agree with spazz.

Gaazy wrote:My god... if I read that right I think I agree with spazz.

I was kind of thinking the same thing...

But it goes further than that even. Gun freaks don't even want to register their guns to help solve crimes.

Plus criminals aren't always shady minorities with illegal weapons bought out of an el camino.

Sometimes they're just normal dudes that get made and walk into their closet, get a gun and start firing.