AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
Gun Appreciation Day "Backfires"
- Thread starter Red7227
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
a) it's just cosmetics? the example I gave, the photo I posted, is a semi-auto carbine M4. Sold by Colt. You know Colt right? The company that makes the M4s your army uses? They even brag in the sales blurb about how it boasts the features of its 'military brother the M4'.Bocefish said:
b) deer hunting rifles often don't have side rails for tactical lights, aiming lasers, picatinny rails for red dot and tactical scopes, and underbarrel rails to mount foregrips, bipods, shotguns, (potentially grenade launchers too) - you know, WARFARE STUFF. Go ask a soldier using an M39 EMR that since his weapon is semi-automatic and all the other shit is just cosmetics if he wouldn't mind trading it in for a hunting rifle on the battlefield. Semi-automatic doesn't ALWAYS mean less lethal, and rate of fire is HARDLY the only defining factor between weaponry.
c) did you see the shotguns on that list? not one of them, not ONE was made for anything other than the battlefield.
Blah, Blah, Blah, same old shit. Unless it has select fire with burst or auto capabilities, it still only shoots one bullet per trigger squeeze just like the century old Winchesters do. All the rest IS cosmetic window dressing that does nothing to change how the weapon fires. These two weapons fire exactly the same but only one is on the ban list. It's idiotic, plain and simple.
As for the hunting references, when will you get it through your thick skull that the 2A has NOTHING to with hunting. The gun grabbers keep conveniently forgetting that little critical FACT!
As for the shotguns on her stupid list, most of them would be great for home defense.
As for the hunting references, when will you get it through your thick skull that the 2A has NOTHING to with hunting. The gun grabbers keep conveniently forgetting that little critical FACT!
As for the shotguns on her stupid list, most of them would be great for home defense.
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
You are correct. It has nothing to do with hunting. I also has nothing to do with individual's possessing firearms.
It has to do with the right of the states to arm their militias (national guard).
It has to do with the right of the states to arm their militias (national guard).
Nordling said:
It has nothing to do with an individual possessing firearms? :lol:
What part of the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed do you not understand?
Even this buffoon understands that much.
It's little to do with the 2nd Amendment, it all about making money, sheesh. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Oh look. A less edited version including Biden telling Philip DeFranco to buy a shotgun.Bocefish said:
Amazing... 7 pages of.. stuff thats the same as the last time this was "debated" here. :thumbleft:
Yes yes, it's about the tyrannical dictatorship thing.
First they take your guns, then they force you to buy health insurance in a competitive market so that those who can't afford health insurance currently aren't being subsidised by everyone else's tax dollars when they get sick. It's been the socialist dream for decades, if it wasn't for you darn meddling middle-aged white men they would have gotten away with it too.
Btw, there are, according to the Supreme Court, limits to what the 2nd amendment means by 'arms', Justice Scalia - yea you know THAT guy right? lol - said in Heller that it did not for instance mean a citizen had the right to a bazooka (btw I don't think they've called rocket-launchers 'bazookas' since WWII but you know what he means).
Two serious questions (and then a light-hearted statement):
1. If you're all so uptight about 2nd amendment rights giving you the right to any gun you want, why aren't you currently fighting a civil war over the illegality of select-fire weapons?
2. If the only different between an M4 semi-auto and a WW2 rifle is cosmetic, then why as soon as there's a list of guns to be banned that you CLAIM are no different, you all bitch like whiny babies? Are cosmetic differences really that important to you? Maybe they should call this the Barbie Dress-up Weapons Ban.
3.Btw, did you realise that if you outlaw anything then by definition only outlaws will use them? It's fun - try it: e.g. If you outlaw bananas, only criminals will have bananas.
To sum up:
If you outlaw guns that look cosmetically cool (but are functionally no different I swear!), only criminals will have cool looking guns.
Edit: oh and just because you guys are angry and unreasonable let me take this opportunity to rub your nose in the fact that since the majority of your countrymen support the gun regulation that's been suggested, and because the NRA proved in the last election that their supposed political power is a complete joke, you WILL have stricter gun controls and I'm sure Obama will enjoy the salty richness of your angry tears.
First they take your guns, then they force you to buy health insurance in a competitive market so that those who can't afford health insurance currently aren't being subsidised by everyone else's tax dollars when they get sick. It's been the socialist dream for decades, if it wasn't for you darn meddling middle-aged white men they would have gotten away with it too.
Btw, there are, according to the Supreme Court, limits to what the 2nd amendment means by 'arms', Justice Scalia - yea you know THAT guy right? lol - said in Heller that it did not for instance mean a citizen had the right to a bazooka (btw I don't think they've called rocket-launchers 'bazookas' since WWII but you know what he means).
Two serious questions (and then a light-hearted statement):
1. If you're all so uptight about 2nd amendment rights giving you the right to any gun you want, why aren't you currently fighting a civil war over the illegality of select-fire weapons?
2. If the only different between an M4 semi-auto and a WW2 rifle is cosmetic, then why as soon as there's a list of guns to be banned that you CLAIM are no different, you all bitch like whiny babies? Are cosmetic differences really that important to you? Maybe they should call this the Barbie Dress-up Weapons Ban.
3.Btw, did you realise that if you outlaw anything then by definition only outlaws will use them? It's fun - try it: e.g. If you outlaw bananas, only criminals will have bananas.
To sum up:
If you outlaw guns that look cosmetically cool (but are functionally no different I swear!), only criminals will have cool looking guns.
Edit: oh and just because you guys are angry and unreasonable let me take this opportunity to rub your nose in the fact that since the majority of your countrymen support the gun regulation that's been suggested, and because the NRA proved in the last election that their supposed political power is a complete joke, you WILL have stricter gun controls and I'm sure Obama will enjoy the salty richness of your angry tears.
Why don't second amendment champions ever seem to care about the first, forth, fifth, or sixth amendments? Those seem to be under constant attack, but all those people yelling about their rights never seem to care. Their guns do not seem to do a whole lot if they are in danger of waking up one day in a holding cell with no right to a trial.
OK.. just for shits n giggles.. here's a lil bit from an articles in an Australian e-paper....
I have no idea if this is left/ right or dead in the center of whatever political factions you guys have down under. I do however find it interesting that certain espoused 'things' in this thread are also mentioned here...
gentlemen.. you have 3 minutes for rebuttal. :whistle:
http://www.dailypaul.com/268567/austral ... law-update
I have no idea if this is left/ right or dead in the center of whatever political factions you guys have down under. I do however find it interesting that certain espoused 'things' in this thread are also mentioned here...
gentlemen.. you have 3 minutes for rebuttal. :whistle:
Posted that already on the last page (6). Pay attention to details dammit, lol :-D
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Shaun__ said:
I posted early that while I don't really care about gun rights, and would support modify the 2nd amendment to allow some restriction on gun owners, I care deeply the other amendments 4,5,6, 8,9,10, 14,19,21 in particular. But because I care about the others I stick up for the rights of gun owners.
Of the ones you mentioned, I only find the fourth, and fifth to be under much of attack. In the case of the 4th amendment this is because of technology as much as any other reason GPS, webcam, which makes surveillance easy. The 5th is under attack because of some rulings regarding emminent domain, and a drone policy which seems to make no differentiation between killing a foreign terrorist, and a American born citizen.
But still in general the court has been pretty protective of the bill of rights except for regarding criminal matters. Our first amendment rights are stronger now than any time in my lifetime. I can watch or make porn. I can publish an e-magazine praising Nazi values , or I can publish one advocating that all Nazi should have their balls cuts off. I have no fear of government prosecution no matter which position I advocate. As a atheist/agnostic no pressure to take part in any religious ceremony, but my Christian friends are allowed to have Boy Scout meeting in public buildings. I compare our freedom of expression rights to countries in Europe, Asia, and Middle East where the government have clamped down on free speech and I am thankful we have a written bill of rights.
Many of the laws proposed by Obama are already in effect in Chicago, such as the ban on assault weapons and the limited rounds per magazine, etc.. Those laws worked so well that over 500 people were murdered in Chicago last year, making it the highest in the nation exceeding some death rates in actual war zones. Just this past weekend, eight people were shot to death, 5 others injured and so far 40 people have been murdered via guns since January 1st.
Now Chicago wants to enact more laws that are ineffective and unenforced.
Make more laws... brilliant.
But wait, there's more... Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel is pushing two major financial institutions to stop their financial backing of gun makers, unless those companies support “commonsense reforms, including requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales.”
Strong arming the free market in the typical corrupt Chicago liberal fashion. And this is different from tyranny how?
All while the sale of firearms continue to soar! Well done Obama!
No wonder Obama's state is worst in the nation in terms of gun homicides and crappy credit ratings.
Now Chicago wants to enact more laws that are ineffective and unenforced.
Make more laws... brilliant.
But wait, there's more... Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel is pushing two major financial institutions to stop their financial backing of gun makers, unless those companies support “commonsense reforms, including requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales.”
Strong arming the free market in the typical corrupt Chicago liberal fashion. And this is different from tyranny how?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/25/ ... un-makers/
All while the sale of firearms continue to soar! Well done Obama!
No wonder Obama's state is worst in the nation in terms of gun homicides and crappy credit ratings.
I don't know if I've ever read so much liberal horseshit in one place in my life. I think I've seen it all here.
3 accidental gun show injuries aren't even a shadow of the abysmal failure that is Chicago gun legislation. Among the toughest gun laws in the country, murder capital of the United States. 'Nuff said.
I'm having a good laugh at the hypocrisy of gun ban enforcement, too. You're actually advocating that our guns be banned and that this be enforced by men with guns. Really?
The militia isn't a standing army, it's the whole of the people. “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” -George Mason. If you understood American history, this would already be clear.
Civilians have no use for high capacity magazines or military-style rifles with military-grade accessories? The whole spirit of the Second Amendment is to keep the people abreast of a standing army so that we may adequately defend ourselves from said Army. So why did we allow ourselves to be barred the use of automatic weapons or large artillery? We shouldn't have and the generation that did should be ashamed because now we're weaker for it.
It's an irrational fear and a conspiracy theory that our government would usurp its people? Yeah, that's what the Germans thought. That's what the Russians thought. That's what the Cambodians thought. That's what the Chinese thought. The U.S government is somehow above this? They weren't above it in the 60s when they turned guns and dogs on black citizens. They weren't above it in the 40s when they interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps simply for being ethnically Japanese. They weren't above it in the 1860s when posse comitatus was suspended and tens of thousands of Americans were murdered by federal troops. They don't seem to be above it now, seeing how American citizens and their children are being murdered in drone strikes or indefinitely detained without due process or so much as a warrant.
Why haven't you risen up against your government already, one idiot asked. I can't answer that, but I can say that's not justification for disarming Americans and preventing us from doing it in the future.
The same idiot suggests that if such a thing did happen, we'd have to run away and fight a small-scale guerrilla war with little chance of success. Oh, yeah? You mean like George Washington did? You mean the same type of guerrilla war that has toppled empire after empire in Afghanistan? The same type of guerrilla war that sent the mighty American military home, beaten and demoralized, from South East Asia in 1975? Samuel Adams said, quite correctly, that "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
The very same idiot, who is just on a roll right now, said it's immoral to let people die. Peaceful gun owners didn't let anybody die, you twit. 80 million American gun owners killed no one last year. The government let them die by disarming them and allowing people who have no regard for the law single them out as victims.
One person suggested, quite reasonably, I might add, that guns should be treated like cars as far as registration goes. The problem with that is this: The purpose of motor vehicle registration isn't primarily safety. It's revenue. Registration fees are collected to cover (some of) the costs of public highway maintenance, not to make sure someone can get your plate number if you commit a crime. Cars can be owned and operated on private property without a license or registration. Firearms aren't generally operated in the public domain, rather the private one. Before the argument is made that people take their guns in public all the time (this seems like something a liberal would suggest), remember that your person and the property you keep on your person is private and not considered public domain. Registration of guns is a 4th Amendment issue. By your logic, only police and military should have to register their guns since they're the only guns used specifically for the public by men acting in a public capacity.
What about tests, you say? Background checks? These things were done before here in America. We refer to them now as Jim Crow Laws.
I'm neck deep in freedom-hating, Commie bullshit at the moment, so if you have any more completely ridiculous logical fallacies you'd like me to utterly destroy. run 'em by me.
Oh, and for the record, any new gun laws don't mean shit to me. I have no intention of obeying them. I'll happily go shopping at that black market everyone keeps telling me so much about; I just hope they sell Coach bags big enough to fit my 30-round AR mags. If you don't like it, back that tough talk up and come take 'em from me. Better bring some guns, though.
3 accidental gun show injuries aren't even a shadow of the abysmal failure that is Chicago gun legislation. Among the toughest gun laws in the country, murder capital of the United States. 'Nuff said.
I'm having a good laugh at the hypocrisy of gun ban enforcement, too. You're actually advocating that our guns be banned and that this be enforced by men with guns. Really?
The militia isn't a standing army, it's the whole of the people. “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” -George Mason. If you understood American history, this would already be clear.
Civilians have no use for high capacity magazines or military-style rifles with military-grade accessories? The whole spirit of the Second Amendment is to keep the people abreast of a standing army so that we may adequately defend ourselves from said Army. So why did we allow ourselves to be barred the use of automatic weapons or large artillery? We shouldn't have and the generation that did should be ashamed because now we're weaker for it.
It's an irrational fear and a conspiracy theory that our government would usurp its people? Yeah, that's what the Germans thought. That's what the Russians thought. That's what the Cambodians thought. That's what the Chinese thought. The U.S government is somehow above this? They weren't above it in the 60s when they turned guns and dogs on black citizens. They weren't above it in the 40s when they interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps simply for being ethnically Japanese. They weren't above it in the 1860s when posse comitatus was suspended and tens of thousands of Americans were murdered by federal troops. They don't seem to be above it now, seeing how American citizens and their children are being murdered in drone strikes or indefinitely detained without due process or so much as a warrant.
Why haven't you risen up against your government already, one idiot asked. I can't answer that, but I can say that's not justification for disarming Americans and preventing us from doing it in the future.
The same idiot suggests that if such a thing did happen, we'd have to run away and fight a small-scale guerrilla war with little chance of success. Oh, yeah? You mean like George Washington did? You mean the same type of guerrilla war that has toppled empire after empire in Afghanistan? The same type of guerrilla war that sent the mighty American military home, beaten and demoralized, from South East Asia in 1975? Samuel Adams said, quite correctly, that "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
The very same idiot, who is just on a roll right now, said it's immoral to let people die. Peaceful gun owners didn't let anybody die, you twit. 80 million American gun owners killed no one last year. The government let them die by disarming them and allowing people who have no regard for the law single them out as victims.
One person suggested, quite reasonably, I might add, that guns should be treated like cars as far as registration goes. The problem with that is this: The purpose of motor vehicle registration isn't primarily safety. It's revenue. Registration fees are collected to cover (some of) the costs of public highway maintenance, not to make sure someone can get your plate number if you commit a crime. Cars can be owned and operated on private property without a license or registration. Firearms aren't generally operated in the public domain, rather the private one. Before the argument is made that people take their guns in public all the time (this seems like something a liberal would suggest), remember that your person and the property you keep on your person is private and not considered public domain. Registration of guns is a 4th Amendment issue. By your logic, only police and military should have to register their guns since they're the only guns used specifically for the public by men acting in a public capacity.
What about tests, you say? Background checks? These things were done before here in America. We refer to them now as Jim Crow Laws.
I'm neck deep in freedom-hating, Commie bullshit at the moment, so if you have any more completely ridiculous logical fallacies you'd like me to utterly destroy. run 'em by me.
Oh, and for the record, any new gun laws don't mean shit to me. I have no intention of obeying them. I'll happily go shopping at that black market everyone keeps telling me so much about; I just hope they sell Coach bags big enough to fit my 30-round AR mags. If you don't like it, back that tough talk up and come take 'em from me. Better bring some guns, though.
In case it wasn't clear and my "idiot" references were too tongue-in-cheek, I'm referring to Jupiter551. Turn in your man card, Hillary.
Bocefish said:LMFAO here...
I'm genuinely not trying to be funny. I mean, what kind of a man not only refuses to arm himself in defense of himself, his family, his country or his property, but rallies against it? The ancient Spartans had a word for such a person. They called them "women".
Could we please stop with the personal attacks ON BOTH SIDES? That would be fabulous. Debate the issue, discuss the issue, or just play with yourself if you want , but let's at least pretend we're not so childish as to resort to this kind of bickering and try to get along.
Alexandra Cole
Inactive Cam Model
CarolinaCutie said:Bocefish said:LMFAO here...
I'm genuinely not trying to be funny. I mean, what kind of a man not only refuses to arm himself in defense of himself, his family, his country or his property, but rallies against it? The ancient Spartans had a word for such a person. They called them "women".
Sounds like a compliment. Aristotle famously claimed that Spartan men were "ruled by their wives."
And its quite entertaining.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
