My bad. I thought you were wondering what the rationalization would be for owning more than one firearm and a stockpile of ammunition.

To which the answer would be "because I can."

 

OMG you have got to be out of your mind what I was trying to say was a person who enjoys something will have a abundance of the items he uses just because someone has a lot of guns and ammunition does not mean he is a mass murderer but as I heard in a movie once if you best a fool you have done nothing *****end of story

 

Ahem.
The point of the 'stupid comment like above' is stating the point that we should just blare out the people going back and forth with remarks and information that continually gets dumber and dumber.

The second point of the comment is that I realize and so should yall that everyone here is too insignificant to make a difference in a single person much less the issue entirely, and by posting things like I have I am making my own entertainment out of a pointless discussion. Well...more entertainment then yall have already given me with the anti-intelligent things yall have said.

It's a beautiful thing....


Yall have gotten me in the mood now...come on...someone say something else that's less than bright. Gimme something to share a laugh with, one of those things like I've seen a few times now. Something I can show to a buddy and we can both crack up and be like-
"That fool is dumb as hell! You see what he said? HAHA!!"

I got people a'waitin' to here something... don't disappoint me now!

 

back in the old western days he might have shot one then they would have been diging his grave...because people were allowed to carry guns

 

Somehow I get the impression that you never even read a single word of my posts.

I enjoy playing/watching football but I only have one set of boots and two different footballs. Millions of people enjoy thousands of things but they do not have an abundance of the related items.

Where did I say anything remotely like "because someone has a lot of guns and ammunition means he is a mass murderer" ?
Answer, I didn't.

Never mind though as it seems you have no rational answer to anything I've asked.

 

My bunker is not designed to hold out the military or stand up to heavy air strikes it is 12 feet under ground and was built to protect my weapons in the event of a fire or hold my ammo in the even of a fire in my reloading powder on the inside. Most of my weapons were not bought by me they were bought by my dad and he was a survivalist or "prepper" as the newbs call it. Most will never be used for anything and are there for my own enjoyment to look at. Like it or not I have them and won't get rid of them but many have not seen the sun in 15 years or more and won't for a long time if ever again.

 

UMMM I CAME HERE FOR THE PORN

 

I wash my hads of this gun control maddness!
View attachment

 

Alright President Obama Steps Up And Takes A Stand

Once again President Obama goes against all political advice and a lot of public opinion to take a stand on the very serious problem of gun violence in our nation.

Obama Calls For Government Action On Guns In The Wake Of Colorado Shooting

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...gun-control-after-colorado.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

 

Does this mean that obama is going to stop arming Mexican drug cartels with assualt rifles?

 

Obama calls for strengthening gun rules, Reid says no time for debate

Published July 26, 2012
FoxNews.com

• 
  July 25, 2012: President Obama addresses the National Urban League convention in New Orleans. (AP)
  

As President Obama added his voice to the push for stricter gun rules in the wake of the Colorado movie theater massacre, the suggestion made a prompt thud on Capitol Hill when the top Senate Democrat said he can't fit the gun control debate in the schedule.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asked Thursday about Obama's remarks on gun control the night before, said the Senate's packed schedule precludes any action on firearms legislation. Asked if the Senate might debate the issue next year, Reid said, "Nice try."
The president was vague in what specific measures he'd like to see enacted when he touched on the issue Wednesday evening in a speech to the National Urban League. He affirmed his belief in Americans' right to own guns, but he singled out assault rifles as better suited for the battlefield.
"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama said. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities."
He called for stepped-up background checks for people who want to purchase guns and said he would also seek a national consensus on combating violence.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney clarified Thursday that the president is not necessarily talking about new laws.
"He believes that we can enhance the enforcement of existing laws by making it more difficult for those who should not have weapons under existing laws ... to obtain weapons," Carney said.
He noted that Obama supports the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, but said he wants to focus on strengthening background checks "given the stalemate in Congress."
The president, in making the comments Wednesday, still went further than he typically does in suggesting Washington open a new debate on gun control. It's a topic he has handled lightly in the past, but his remarks Wednesday night follow statements from vocal gun control advocates like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg calling for new restrictions.
Republicans, though, have largely said new laws are not the answer. Mitt Romney, pressed on the gun control issue in an NBC News interview during a visit to London, said changing laws won't "make all bad things go away."
"I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this ... young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening," he said.
James Holmes, a 24-year-old grad school dropout, is accused of opening fire in a midnight showing of the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colo., killing 12 and injuring dozens. Police say he used a shotgun, semi-automatic rifle and handgun in the shooting, and another handgun was found in his car -- all purchased legally, as was 6,000 rounds of ammunition.
Some political and media figures have argued that stricter gun laws would make it tougher for would-be gunman to carry out similar attacks, but others have accused gun control advocates of seeking to politicize the massacre.
Obama steered clear of gun policy matters in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and it isn't clear whether he intends to push for such legislation any time soon, especially at the height of his re-election campaign.
The president, however, suggested Wednesday that it "shouldn't be controversial" to make the case that a "mentally unbalanced" person shouldn't be able to get a gun so easily.
But he also added: "We must also understand that when a child opens fire on other children, there's a hole in his heart that no government can fill."
He said responsibility for curtailing bloodshed also rests with parents, neighbors and teachers to ensure that young people "do not have that void inside them."
In 1994, Congress approved a 10-year ban on 19 types of military-style assault weapons. Some Democrats quickly came to believe the legislation contributed to their loss of the House a few months later.
Five years later, Vice President Al Gore cast a tie-breaking Senate vote on legislation to restrict sales at gun shows.
The two events turned out to be the high-water mark of recent Democratic drives to enact federal legislation aimed at reducing gun violence, and some Republicans said they could see the shift coming.
By 2004, when the assault weapon ban lapsed, congressional Democrats made no serious attempt to pass an extension. President George W. Bush was content to let it fade into history.
Public sentiment had swung.
According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.
By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year's sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.
Even so, the call for federal lawmakers to tighten gun laws has intensified following the mass shooting in Colorado.





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-use-in-wake-colorado-massacre/#ixzz21ksDJbbl

 

:excited::excited::excited::excited::excited:
Good one!!!!!

 

They already did as soon as they found out about it.

But going back to the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips will sure help curtail the other 30,000 guns entering Mexico illegally from the US.

 

I wouldn't worry about Mexico. They already have some of the toughest gun control laws in the whole world. I'm sure their doing just fine.

 

Ok I came back, The ban was in 1984 and was a 20 year ban it does not ban all of the weapons only ones made after the ban. It is the reason the government has my prints and a list of my guns on file it's also the reason they check and make sure I still have them because if I were to sell one without going through a FFL holder it would be jail time and a large fine. It is impossible to buy one without a backround check, the signing of the local head of law enforcement such as police chief, and prints and a passport size photo. The AR's and AK's they sell at the local gun shops and sporting stores are NOT assault weapons they are semi automatic sporting rifles.

 

The assault weapons ban was passed by congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. It was for 10 years. It expired in 2004.

 

I'm thinking of a different ban then because the Forum 3 papers for my M60 say I must have them with the weapon after 1984.

 

What you are referring to is an amendment to existing rules regarding class 3 firearms.

Those rules really only apply to FFL holders and people with class 3 firearms.

 

There are more guns in the hands of the general public than in the military. I dare the government to try to take them away.

 

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people









1 of 2. Weapons for sale at a gun show near West Point, Kentucky, April 9, 2005. The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.
Credit: Reuters/Rick Wilking





By Laura MacInnis
GENEVA | Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:57pm EDT

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.
"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.
India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.
Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country's overall civilian gun arsenals.
On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.
France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.
"Firearms are very unevenly distributed around the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being awash with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.
"Weapons ownership may be correlated with rising levels of wealth, and that means we need to think about future demand in parts of the world where economic growth is giving people larger disposable income," he told a Geneva news conference.
The report, which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces.
Five years ago, the Small Arms Survey had estimated there were a total of just 640 million firearms globally.
"Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed," Krause said, attributing the increase largely to better research and more data on weapon distribution networks.
Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828