everyonebothersme wrote:
he also put a limit to how much ammo retailers can have, he is trying to make full lead rounds illegal since they can penetrate basic body armor
I think only cops should have armor-piercing guns.
---
Some people just don’t understand the Golden Rule.
everyonebothersme wrote:
good thing i have real armor piercing rounds, got them a long time ago, of course, theyre for my Mosin Nagant, a Russian sniper rifle
I’ve got about 5 different rifles, and 2 or 3 shotguns.
Come to my house if there’s a zombie outbreak.
---
Some people just don’t understand the Golden Rule.
everyonebothersme wrote:
cause he wants to take away our guns, he made it so you can only buy 2 boxes of ammo per purchase
While that is kind of stupid, I do applaud him for making stem cell research legal.
he also put a limit to how much ammo retailers can have, he is trying to make full lead rounds illegal since they can penetrate basic body armor
...what is wrong with that.
Why should people be allowed to sell BODY ARMOR PIERCING bullets to civilians?
They shouldn’t.
You’re an idiot, as always.
its unconstitutional.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." second amendment of the constitution
--- "You’ll never know how strong you really are until being strong is the only choice you have left”
Last edited 29 Jun 2009 03:01 pm by Abaddon angel of destruction
everyonebothersme wrote:
cause he wants to take away our guns, he made it so you can only buy 2 boxes of ammo per purchase
While that is kind of stupid, I do applaud him for making stem cell research legal.
he also put a limit to how much ammo retailers can have, he is trying to make full lead rounds illegal since they can penetrate basic body armor
...what is wrong with that.
Why should people be allowed to sell BODY ARMOR PIERCING bullets to civilians?
They shouldn’t.
You’re an idiot, as always.
close range a full lead slug can possibly pierce basic body armor, nowadays very few guns can use a full lead round, so why should it be illegal, i have an 1892 model Lever Action Winchester .357 mag and it can only use a full lead round because it has a tube type magazine, if i want to buy ammo for my cowboy rifle, i should be able to, keeping me from firing a gun is as bad as taking the gun away, in other, its unconstitutional
The right to bear arms was never made so people can just buy guns for fun.
The reason it was even added AT ALL was so that if the US government ever became corrupt as the British government did during the revolution, the citizens would be able to defend themselves against soldiers.
Since there’s virtually no way for that to happen, the right to bear arms is a moot point. You have NO NEED AT ALL for a body-armor piercing gun, in fact if anything that should be against the law.
Even if you want to keep the right to bear arms, that shouldn’t mean shit that ridiculous. It’s unnecessary and only dangerous to put that kind of weaponry in the hands of civilians.
basically, I’m calling you a redneck bastard that needs to stop acting like your basic human rights are being infringed upon and stop acting like a bitch, you have no need for your “1892 model Lever Action Winchester .357 mag” and you know it.
everyonebothersme wrote:
cause he wants to take away our guns, he made it so you can only buy 2 boxes of ammo per purchase
While that is kind of stupid, I do applaud him for making stem cell research legal.
he also put a limit to how much ammo retailers can have, he is trying to make full lead rounds illegal since they can penetrate basic body armor
...what is wrong with that.
Why should people be allowed to sell BODY ARMOR PIERCING bullets to civilians?
They shouldn’t.
You’re an idiot, as always.
its unconstitutional.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." second amendment of the constitution
they are not infringing your right to have guns,only AP rounds.
Besides we need to limit the weapons we have,otherwise we would have drive bys done with grenade launchers,you do NOT want that.
everyonebothersme wrote:
cause he wants to take away our guns, he made it so you can only buy 2 boxes of ammo per purchase
While that is kind of stupid, I do applaud him for making stem cell research legal.
he also put a limit to how much ammo retailers can have, he is trying to make full lead rounds illegal since they can penetrate basic body armor
...what is wrong with that.
Why should people be allowed to sell BODY ARMOR PIERCING bullets to civilians?
They shouldn’t.
You’re an idiot, as always.
its unconstitutional.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." second amendment of the constitution
they are not infringing your right to have guns,only AP rounds.
Besides we need to limit the weapons we have,otherwise we would have drive bys done with grenade launchers,you do NOT want that.
trust me, for a lot of people rules are meant to be broken. even if stuff like that were illegal it would still be going around. but its true we dont want that, and obama is pretty smart... finding a way around it... wow
--- "You’ll never know how strong you really are until being strong is the only choice you have left”
Your only “civil” hope is to convince your police and military servicemen/personnel that their “Constitution” is more valuable to their “health and wealth” than their money.
-And to defend that “Constitution” more fiercely than they would their own wallets.
everyonebothersme wrote:
cause he wants to take away our guns, he made it so you can only buy 2 boxes of ammo per purchase
While that is kind of stupid, I do applaud him for making stem cell research legal.
he also put a limit to how much ammo retailers can have, he is trying to make full lead rounds illegal since they can penetrate basic body armor
...what is wrong with that.
raep wrote:
The right to bear arms was never made so people can just buy guns for fun.
The reason it was even added AT ALL was so that if the US government ever became corrupt as the British government did during the revolution, the citizens would be able to defend themselves against soldiers.
Since there’s virtually no way for that to happen [???????????], the right to bear arms is a moot point. You have NO NEED AT ALL for a body-armor piercing gun, in fact if anything that should be against the law.
Even if you want to keep the right to bear arms, that shouldn’t mean shit that ridiculous. It’s unnecessary and only dangerous to put that kind of weaponry in the hands of civilians.
Solipsist idiots, correct.
However, these material implications reach far beyond the level of individuals you’re addressing.
[IMPORTANT NOTE: If you cannot understand the following, then you are hardly qualified to discuss these matters. Don’t vote.]
wikipedia wrote:Military-industrial complex (MIC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and industrial support they obtain from the commercial sector in political approval for research, development, production, use, and support for military training, weapons, equipment, and facilities within the national defense and security policy. It is a type of iron triangle.
The term is most often played in reference to the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address speech of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure. It is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, and the Congress and Executive branch. This sector is intrinsically prone to principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity.
A similar thesis was originally expressed by Daniel Guerin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government support to heavy industry. It can be defined as, “an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets, and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs”
U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower
In other words: In order for these gigantic global corporate alliances to be able maintain their “iron fist” monopoly on the multi-trillion dollar international military industrial markets, they need YOU to maintain prolonged and continuous international conflict (a viable use for their military products/services).
That “empire” is now readily expanding into “civil” affairs through the continuous 'militarization' of your local law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
Pay closer attention.
(not to your local news networks)
Find out exactly what events got your (unwilling) nation involved in each of its major wars through recent history.
Why such important events aren’t well covered, and often not even mentioned at all, in your history classes.
The facts of these events are no longer “classified”. It’s all easily accessible public documentation.
These parasitic industries are counting on your lazy apathy and ignorance.
“Connect the dots”.
Follow allegiances.
(who or what is it that your “law enforcement” and “national defense” bodies realistically yield to/serve/favor? Do its “loyalties” truly lie within its “civilian” sector?).
Don’t be too afraid to see every level.
You own your nation. YOU are responsible for its affairs.
If it is, that such power (fatal weapons, technology. etc.) should in fact exist, should it not be entrusted only into the hands of “civil” minded individuals, and/or those for whom, it will bear its greatest impact?
A cop’s judgment is not necessarily any better (lol?) or more qualified than that of any other citizen of your nation. I would not allow yourself to ever be convinced otherwise, by them.
On-Topic 
What’s he planning! We have a right to bear arms!
