billvon 2,990 #26 April 21, 2011 >Please explain "hunting weapons" Weapons usually used by hunters - rifles, shotguns, bows etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wsd 0 #27 April 21, 2011 Can you give an example of rifles or shotguns you do not think qualify as OK with you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #28 April 21, 2011 >Can you give an example of rifles or shotguns you do not think qualify as OK >with you? ?? You asked me to explain hunting weapons, and I gave you some examples. Do you want examples of things I would not consider hunting weapons? If so, here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20-mm-AA-cannon.gif Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #29 April 21, 2011 Quote Can you give an example of rifles or shotguns you do not think qualify as OK with you? "Are you in favor of private firearms ownership? " This was your question. So which differentiation do you want? And why, suddenly? You're trolling. That's all. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 April 21, 2011 QuoteI think that here in the US, any sane, law abiding adult has a right to own personal weapons. (i.e. handguns and hunting weapons.) The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. AR15's are used for hunting, so are you okay with ownership of what some people call "assault weapons"? What about firearms used for target shooting? How about .50-caliber rifles? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 April 21, 2011 QuoteWhy did you start with a weapon question? Isn't it a skydiving site, first of all? He didn't - he started with an Obama topic. And this particular forum is for non-skydiving topics, so why are you complaining about it? If you want to talk about skydiving, go somewhere else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #32 April 21, 2011 >The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Didn't say it was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tmarine253 0 #33 April 21, 2011 Quote Tanks really don't apply here, nor would a howitzer or MLRS. What about ATR's or M203's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #34 April 22, 2011 Yes. QuoteIf so please state if you are in favor of any restrictions to ownership, other than being a felon or adjudicated as mentally unstable or incompetent. No other restrictions QuoteIf you are in favor are there any firearms you think should be bannned? None QuoteIf you are in favor of the complete removal of private gun ownership please opine why. N/A QuoteIf you are in favor of restricting firearms ownership more than what is federally required please state why. N/A I'd like to thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we passed the auditionMy reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 April 22, 2011 Quote Yes. Quote If so please state if you are in favor of any restrictions to ownership, other than being a felon or adjudicated as mentally unstable or incompetent. No other restrictions Quote If you are in favor are there any firearms you think should be bannned? None Quote If you are in favor of the complete removal of private gun ownership please opine why. N/A Quote If you are in favor of restricting firearms ownership more than what is federally required please state why. N/A I'd like to thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we passed the audition Congratulations as you have passed the audition. Also, because of your answers, you have been officially placed on the, you are a loonie so you can not own any guns, list (by kallend) Thank you for playing"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 April 22, 2011 Quote>The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Didn't say it was. You didn't say it wasn't, either. Thank you for now clarifying your position on that. But you omitted other categories of firearms by using hunting firearms as an example of acceptable arms. So, now it's time for you to answer the other part of my questions which you ignored: What about those AR-15's and .50-cal's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 April 22, 2011 Quote Quote >The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Didn't say it was. You didn't say it wasn't, either. Thank you for now clarifying your position on that. But you omitted other categories of firearms by using hunting firearms as an example of acceptable arms. So, now it's time for you to answer the other part of my questions which you ignored: What about those AR-15's and .50-cal's? John.. if you need a .50 Cal to go quail huntin.. yall just go right ahead... Good thing Cheney was not usin one of those down there in Texas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Niki1 1 #38 April 22, 2011 The best thing would be if there were NO guns at all. But that's not ever going to happen. So the next best thing is if EVERYONE had a gun. Any 2nd Ammendment question is for another thread.Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done. Louis D Brandeis Where are we going and why are we in this basket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #39 April 22, 2011 Quote Quote Why did you start with a weapon question? Isn't it a skydiving site, first of all? He didn't - he started with an Obama topic. And this particular forum is for non-skydiving topics, so why are you complaining about it? If you want to talk about skydiving, go somewhere else. He didn't - he started this thread with a weapon question. You got lost somewhere ...? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wsd 0 #40 April 22, 2011 No you are wrong, my first post was on the topic about Obama. Please try and refrain from rewriting history to suit yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #41 April 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote You entered this site just few days ago. Why did you start with a weapon question? Isn't it a skydiving site, first of all? He didn't - he started with an Obama topic. And this particular forum is for non-skydiving topics, so why are you complaining about it? If you want to talk about skydiving, go somewhere else. He didn't - he started this thread with a weapon question. You got lost somewhere ...? No, it is you who are lost. You accused him of making his first post since joining the site a weapon question. That's untrue. If you go to his profile, and click "show User's Posts", you'll clearly see that his first post was in an Obama thread. So you're wrong. And given that, then you suddenly clarify your statement to specify "this thread", which you didn't state before. And that goes to my second statement, about this forum being for non-skydiving topics, so a "weapons" thread is perfectly in-place here. Thus, if you have some objection to weapon threads, and wish to see skydiving threads instead, you should go look somewhere else. Try and keep up, dear. Oh, and if somewhere along the way you actually want to make some kind of point, you should take this opportunity to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #42 April 22, 2011 QuoteJohn.. if you need a .50 Cal to go quail huntin.. yall just go right ahead... Good thing Cheney was not usin one of those down there in Texas... Strawman argument. I mentioned .50's in relation to target shooting. You seem to be resorting to putting words in my mouth, and then criticizing what I didn't say. Did you have some kind of point about .50-caliber firearms that you wanted to make? My kingdom for a rational argument! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #43 April 22, 2011 It is indeed ironic that a gun supporter asked for this thread to remain on topic - and it is the gun supporters who have begun the usual cycle of attacks and misdirections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #44 April 22, 2011 QuoteIt is indeed ironic that a gun supporter asked for this thread to remain on topic - and it is the gun supporters who have begun the usual cycle of attacks and misdirections. Wrong again! You have failed to answer my questions in posts #30 & #36. What are you hiding? Are you afraid to reveal your positions because you don't want to face possible criticism for them? Doesn't that make you an ambiguous no-guts game-player just like kallend? That's exactly the kind of behavior that the original poster mentioned in his starter message. At any rate, that's three strikes in a row here from the anti-gun folks. You're out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #45 April 22, 2011 >You have failed to answer my questions in posts #30 & #36. What are you hiding? I have stated that I support private gun ownership - and you've attacked me for that, for not being enough of an extremist. No wonder gun nuts aren't taken very seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #46 April 22, 2011 Quote>You have failed to answer my questions in posts #30 & #36. What are you hiding? I have stated that I support private gun ownership - and you've attacked me for that, for not being enough of an extremist. No wonder gun nuts aren't taken very seriously. I simply asked for clarification from you about your views on certain controversial types of firearms. And since you haven't answered, I don't know whether or not "you aren't enough of an extremist". Is this now an admission that you ARE opposed to those kinds of firearms? And just because someone thinks AR-15's and .50-caliber firearms should remain legal, that doesn't make them "an extremist". However, it does make you a biased partisan in using that kind of language to characterize those with whom you disagree. No wonder that anti-"assault weapon" nuts aren't taken very seriously. (Just returning your own cheap shot.) If you oppose those types of firearms, you shouldn't be afraid to say so, along with your reasoning for your opposition. But you seem to prefer to remain ambiguous, so that you don't have to justify your position. And maybe that's because you can't? It's so much easier to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at others, rather than stand on the firing line yourself, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #47 April 22, 2011 Quote Quote John.. if you need a .50 Cal to go quail huntin.. yall just go right ahead... Good thing Cheney was not usin one of those down there in Texas... Strawman argument. I mentioned .50's in relation to target shooting. You seem to be resorting to putting words in my mouth, and then criticizing what I didn't say. Did you have some kind of point about .50-caliber firearms that you wanted to make? My kingdom for a rational argument! You do not deal well with humor do you John.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #48 April 22, 2011 >Is this now an admission that you are opposed to those kinds of firearms? Nope. I am opposed to private ownership of military weapons - nuclear bombs, antiaircraft weapons, rocket propelled grenades, armed Predator drones, Sarin dispensers, four inch naval guns. I support Second Amendment protections for hunting weapons, handguns and other personal weapons. The stuff in between - your AR-15's and .50-caliber firearms - should be up to the states and cities where people live. Now, how about you? Do you also oppose private ownership of nuclear bombs, antiaircraft weapons, rocket propelled grenades etc? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #49 April 22, 2011 Quote If you oppose those types of firearms, you shouldn't be afraid to say so, along with your reasoning for your opposition. But you seem to prefer to remain ambiguous, so that you don't have to justify your position. And maybe that's because you can't? It's so much easier to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at others, rather than stand on the firing line yourself, eh? This illustrates my point at the beginning of this thread. Is it not ok to be undecided on an issue or particular portion of an issue? Can't somebody decide, "that really is not for me to decide?" It's ok for a person to not be as passionate about a particular topic as yourself and therefore be undecided. It is rarely a good way to promote your argument if you attack those that are supporting your stance (at least mostly)......unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Whatever. I support your stance too. Fire away.Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #50 April 22, 2011 Quote .... You accused him of making his first post since joining the site a weapon question. That's untrue. If you go to his profile, and click "show User's Posts", you'll clearly see that his first post was in an Obama thread. So you're wrong. .... JohnRich, my dear, I did not. Usually, when replying to a thread, I MEAN THE ACTUAL THREAD. Like everybody does. I do not refer to the post anyone made with his very *first post since joining the site* .... Man, you really must be lost. Sorry dude, you're not half as smart as you think you are.... bwahahahaahaha .... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
