07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 2526272829 ...
tools
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Lol at military firearm. Do those purchased on the civilian side have 3 round burst... no, then you lack a military weapon just a fancy looking rifle.
    Is it possible to have missed the point any more?
    02-06-2013 07:04 PM
  2. Paul627g's Avatar
    A few posts were removed to stop the bickering.

    We have been very relaxed with the debating and conversation in these political threads. However when things start to get heated and directed personally at one another and flexing your ego's then its time to take a step back and cool off.

    Again we have a sticky thread in the main politics forums and I recommend everyone reads and understands there is limits to what you THINK you can say. I know many of you believe you have freedom of speech but you checked that at the door when you agreed to our TOS when you signed up for an account at Android Central.
    Please read before posting

    Have fun everyone but lets not make it personal, we have enough personal insults and threats happening in our real daily lives and don't need to bring it into our friendly forums here at AC.

    Thanks.
    Aquila, rexxman and msndrstood like this.
    02-06-2013 08:43 PM
  3. PhilSterBoy's Avatar
    I don't know about schools specificity but i think all guns should be banned unless your a police officer. There's honestly no need for guns maybe for protection but that's all I can see. If you hunt go find another hobby or go pay call of duty

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
    02-06-2013 09:15 PM
  4. nolittdroid's Avatar
    So you'd rather limit a persons free choice even if he is an upstanding citizen?
    According to the UN freedom of choice does not extend to deadly weapons. Only in America would people be crying about their rights being infringed upon because they won't have the same access to weapons as the government. How ridiculous. In this day and age everyone has something that they are passionate about politically but the gun control debate is the more ridiculous. I am finished with thread.

    If you're going to the pull the "freedom of choice" card, you'd better be pro-choice and pro-gay rights as well.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So you'd rather limit a persons free choice even if he is an upstanding citizen?
    According to the UN freedom of choice does not extend to deadly weapons. Only in America would people be crying about their rights being infringed upon because they won't have the same access to weapons as the government. How ridiculous. In this day and age everyone has something that they are passionate about politically but the gun control debate is the more ridiculous. I am finished with thread.

    If you're going to the pull the "freedom of choice" card, you'd better be pro-choice and pro-gay rights as well.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So you'd rather limit a persons free choice even if he is an upstanding citizen?
    According to the UN freedom of choice does not extend to deadly weapons. Only in America would people be crying about their rights being infringed upon because they won't have the same access to weapons as the government. How ridiculous. In this day and age everyone has something that they are passionate about politically but the gun control debate is the more ridiculous. I am finished with thread.

    If you're going to the pull the "freedom of choice" card, you'd better be pro-choice and pro-gay rights as well.
    02-06-2013 09:20 PM
  5. nrm5110's Avatar
    I am pro choice, pro gay rights, and for protecting a citizens right to bear arms.

    Just like you're pro smoking an illegal substance.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    02-06-2013 09:27 PM
  6. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I don't know about schools specificity but i think all guns should be banned unless your a police officer. There's honestly no need for guns maybe for protection but that's all I can see. If you hunt go find another hobby or go pay call of duty

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
    And then we live in a police state, no thanks.

    Also the supreme court has ruled that the police do not have to protect individual citizens. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

    02-06-2013 10:45 PM
  7. Markster1's Avatar
    Then the federal government is infringing your civilian rights when it regulates that military firearms are only produced, and distributed, to the military?
    Ahh, but there's the rub, ar15's are not sold to the military, the fully automatic m16 is, and most of these companies don't have government contacts.
    Aquila likes this.
    02-07-2013 04:53 AM
  8. Markster1's Avatar
    According to the UN freedom of choice does not extend to deadly weapons. Only in America would people be crying about their rights being infringed upon because they won't have the same access to weapons as the government. How ridiculous. In this day and age everyone has something that they are passionate about politically but the gun control debate is the more ridiculous. I am finished with thread.

    If you're going to the pull the "freedom of choice" card, you'd better be pro-choice and pro-gay rights as well.

    - - - Updated - - -



    According to the UN freedom of choice does not extend to deadly weapons. Only in America would people be crying about their rights being infringed upon because they won't have the same access to weapons as the government. How ridiculous. In this day and age everyone has something that they are passionate about politically but the gun control debate is the more ridiculous. I am finished with thread.

    If you're going to the pull the "freedom of choice" card, you'd better be pro-choice and pro-gay rights as well.

    - - - Updated - - -



    According to the UN freedom of choice does not extend to deadly weapons. Only in America would people be crying about their rights being infringed upon because they won't have the same access to weapons as the government. How ridiculous. In this day and age everyone has something that they are passionate about politically but the gun control debate is the more ridiculous. I am finished with thread.

    If you're going to the pull the "freedom of choice" card, you'd better be pro-choice and pro-gay rights as well.
    We don't live under the UN!
    Aquila and Live2ride883 like this.
    02-07-2013 05:00 AM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    Agree. The assault weapon ban, as I stated earlier, is solely about making people who don't know anything about arms feel safer. This is a symbolic gesture. I totally disagree that this is a method of furthering a "gun grabbing" cause. Magazine capacity limits are an interesting argument to have, but banning any particular civilian weapon is silly, especially when it's rifles (statistically not used in crimes anywhere near as much as other weapons). If there were to be any ban on civilian weapons, that discussion should center around pistols. I would be opposed to such a ban, but based on the numbers (homicides, suicides, accidental shootings) and the conceal-ability (you'd notice a kid with an AR15 in their lunch box), I would say there is a values argument to be had. With assault weapons, that argument is entirely fantasy.

    If we want to be real, in the current political reality, we can be pretty sure that no ban of any type will happen at a federal level. The only step forward will be to strengthen background checks by enforcing information sharing as required by existing laws and to eliminate loop holes. Both of these are wildly popular, even among NRA members. (last numbers I saw were 88% of the country, 86% of republicans and 82% of NRA members). Does it make a hassle for law abiding citizens to trade and sell guns? Absolutely and that sucks, but it doesn't restrict or infringe upon their rights in any way and it does stop the legal selling of weapons to people who are not legally allowed to purchase them. Now, those sales may continue, but now we're talking about criminals with guns, and the rights of those criminals are very different than those of people who obey the law.
    Markster1 likes this.
    02-07-2013 05:03 AM
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Ahh, but there's the rub, ar15's are not sold to the military, the fully automatic m16 is, and most of these companies don't have government contacts.
    Answer the question which was asked?

    Then the federal government is infringing your civilian rights when it regulates that military firearms are only produced, and distributed, to the military?
    02-07-2013 05:36 AM
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    /hyperbolic misinformation/
    Against multiple assailants, a shotgun would have been a more effective defensive weapon.

    And why do you insist on repeating the lie that anyone is making A-N-Y attempt to prevent you from defending your home and/or family with an effective firearm?
    02-07-2013 07:14 AM
  12. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Against multiple assailants, a shotgun would have been a more effective defensive weapon.

    And why do you insist on repeating the lie that anyone is making A-N-Y attempt to prevent you from defending your home and/or family with an effective firearm?
    Why do you honestly care what anyone owns? Because the political party you agree with tells you to?
    Connecticut had an assault weapons ban since the early 90's I believe.
    Columbine happened during the first ban. Joe Biden has admitted it won't work.

    Why do you try to come across like Bill Maher? I refuse to watch him anymore because of his attitude and snobbishness. FYI, pushing people down to lift yourself up doesn't really work.

    Believe it or not, I respect your views, but you should return the favor when someone offers an opposing view. I don't want to see anyone silenced. But please, don't think yourself above anyone.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    02-07-2013 07:29 AM
  13. Markster1's Avatar
    Against multiple assailants, a shotgun would have been a more effective defensive weapon.

    And why do you insist on repeating the lie that anyone is making A-N-Y attempt to prevent you from defending your home and/or family with an effective firearm?
    You really don't know anything about guns by that statement.
    02-07-2013 07:37 AM
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Why do you honestly care what anyone owns?
    Yes. Because when a neighbor owns a weapon which can destroy the lives of 30 people in less than 15 seconds (Bushmaster AR-15, for example), his/her bullets don't respect property lines ... and it becomes my business. My children have the right to live without threat as well.

    Because the political party you agree with tells you to?
    If you would review posts, it would become painfully obvious that there is no particular political backing for a political party here. Being both pragmatic, reasonable, and secure doesn't have a home in any particular party. Can that be laid aside as a settled matter now?

    Believe it or not, I respect your views, but you should return the favor when someone offers an opposing view. I don't want to see anyone silenced. But please, don't think yourself above anyone.
    I don't. Blunting falsehoods is due to their existence and those who make them. When those falsehoods are only repeated, ad nauseum, even those in agreement with them should ask them to refrain because it only undermines that side's integrity.

    Now then ... Instead of making this something personal, why can't someone intelligently address the central subject of my post?
    02-07-2013 07:42 AM
  15. Serial Fordicator's Avatar

    I don't. Blunting falsehoods is due to their existence and those who make them. When those falsehoods are only repeated, ad nauseum, even those in agreement with them should ask them to refrain because it only undermines that side's integrity.

    Now then ... Instead of making this something personal, why can't someone intelligently address the central subject of my post?
    How about some people feel as strongly about their views as you do of yours. People don't get gunned down with an ar 15 as much as you want to believe. It is a proven statistic. You have more of a chance as someone breaking in your house with a hammer or bat.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    02-07-2013 07:54 AM
  16. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Connecticut had an assault weapons ban since the early 90's I believe. Columbine happened during the first ban. Joe Biden has admitted it won't work.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Care to comment about this?



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    02-07-2013 07:56 AM
  17. nrm5110's Avatar
    Ahh, but there's the rub, ar15's are not sold to the military, the fully automatic m16 is, and most of these companies don't have government contacts.
    Actually there are no full auto m16's in the military. The m16a1 was the only full auto variant it was used during Vietnam the issue was the heat generated melted the barrels to dangerous levels rendering the weapon either unusable or unstable.

    During the same era they switched to the m16a2 which was where they introduced the 3 round burst it allowed far superior stability overall. First off full auto reduces accuracy by leaps and bounds whereas you can accurately keep a shot group with 3 round burst. It also extended the firing ability because of the pause between rounds it allowed reduced heat generation.

    Most m16's are no longer in service as we switch to the m4 just a heads up.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    02-07-2013 08:02 AM
  18. jbzny1's Avatar
    We live in a gun culture, it is almost what makes us American. I do not believe a ban will stop violence in this country. A lot of it comes from illegal weapons owned by criminals so they won't suddenly turn them in because they are now illegal. There is no way to stop them from happening.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    02-07-2013 08:07 AM
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Looks like you'd prefer not to get anywhere near the point of my post ...
    And why do you [live2ride] insist on repeating the lie that anyone is making A-N-Y attempt to prevent you from defending your home and/or family with an effective firearm?


    People don't get gunned down with an ar 15 as much as you want to believe. It is a proven statistic.
    How often is too frequent? When it happens to you, your children, your widow?

    You have more of a chance as someone breaking in your house with a hammer or bat.
    Why not include rocks as instruments of death while you're at it? Clothespins can suffocate you too.
    02-07-2013 08:08 AM
  20. nrm5110's Avatar
    I don't. Blunting falsehoods is due to their existence and those who make them. When those falsehoods are only repeated, ad nauseum, even those in agreement with them should ask them to refrain because it only undermines that side's integrity.

    Now then ... Instead of making this something personal, why can't someone intelligently address the central subject of my post?
    You are the one making it personal by attacking everyone what part of that don't you get.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    02-07-2013 08:08 AM
  21. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Looks like you'd prefer not to get anywhere near the point of my post ...



    How often is too frequent? When it happens to you, your children, your widow?



    Why not include rocks as instruments of death while you're at it? Clothespins can suffocate you too.
    Actually, I'm not worried about anyone as long as I have a gun.


    As far as the rocks and clothespins, I used hammers because they killed more people than assault weapons last year per the FBI.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    02-07-2013 08:14 AM
  22. backbeat's Avatar
    Care to comment about this?
    Sure. Make a particular point based upon hard facts and statistics and I'll be glad to discuss. In the meantime ... read the basis for your point here: Connecticut Law About Firearms Law
    02-07-2013 08:15 AM
  23. backbeat's Avatar
    Actually, I'm not worried about anyone as long as I have a gun.
    When your friendly neighbor's bullets don't respect the property line between you, your gun is of no use. Guess you're satisfied to wade through civil court over the next 3-5 years?

    As far as the rocks and clothespins, I used hammers because they killed more people than assault weapons last year per the FBI.
    "Hammers" is not a line-item on the FBI's stats page. It's a line which includes hammers ... but you knew that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    BAIT
    Ignored.
    02-07-2013 08:20 AM
  24. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Can we agree that criminals do not care about a law you pass? They dont! Passing more legislation will not stop these events. A law will only prevent law abiding citizens from having these firearms. Do you really think a person going to a school intent on killing is going to care about a law? Do you think he will care what weapon he uses?
    So while were at it lets ban cars, fertilizer, knives, baseball bats....the list goes on.
    Its not a weapon problem, its a people problem.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums
    02-07-2013 08:44 AM
  25. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Against multiple assailants, a shotgun would have been a more effective defensive weapon.

    And why do you insist on repeating the lie that anyone is making A-N-Y attempt to prevent you from defending your home and/or family with an effective firearm?
    Because it is my decision what I need to defend my home with not yours, or A-N-Y-O-N-E else's.
    02-07-2013 09:41 AM
4,617 ... 2526272829 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD