The debate and firearms

The NRA doesn't represent gun owners, just to let you know. The NRA is more about using fear to make progress with its own agenda. This happens every time you politicize something.

For some reason we just don't use the Constitution anymore and it has fucked us up badly. What part of the government having no power to limit any kind of firearm possession whatsoever is so hard to understand? What part of use gold and silver as money and only Congress having the power to coin it did we not understand when we instituted a private corporation to do it for us?

I'm sure those "Founding guys" had no idea what type of "firearms" we would have today

Originally Posted by londonfog

I'm sure those "Founding guys" had no idea what type of "firearms" we would have today

The type of firearms that shoot . . . bullets ?

Originally Posted by canndo

I thought the "assault weapons" portion of the debate was rather interesting. I think Romney skirted the difficult issue, he appears to want regulations regarding "assault" weapons. Obama was even more cautious and he said NOTHING about added anti-firearm laws yet, very curious, the NRA will continue to back Romney and claim that sooner or later Obama will take our guns.


another distortion of reality from the right.

Imo even using the term "assault weapon" is offensive. No soldier worth [his] salt would accept what the media so blithely call an "assault weapon". An assault weapon, by definition, has a select-fire provision. cn

Originally Posted by GreatwhiteNorth

Types of firearms that shoot . . . bullets ?

You can't be this dumb ^^^^ Muskets vs AR-15.

Originally Posted by NoDrama

The NRA doesn't represent gun owners, just to let you know. The NRA is more about using fear to make progress with its own agenda. This happens every time you politicize something.

For some reason we just don't use the Constitution anymore and it has fucked us up badly. What part of the government having no power to limit any kind of firearm possession whatsoever is so hard to understand? What part of use gold and silver as money and only Congress having the power to coin it did we not understand when we instituted a private corporation to do it for us?

Very interesting Nodrama, I had not considered that the NRA doesn't really represent gun owners and what you say makes sense. I am not sure that what you say is true about congress's constitutional ability to limit firearm posession. congress does have the power to alter even amendments to one extent or another.

Originally Posted by cannabineer

Imo even using the term "assault weapon" is offensive. No soldier worth [his] salt would accept what the media so blithely call an "assault weapon". An assault weapon, by definition, has a select-fire provision. cn

the right calls rich people "job creators", the left calls everything that looks scary and has attachments as "assault weapons". They like that term because it sounds ominous. Put a fake flash supressor and a bananna clip on a .22 and it becomes an instrument of mass murder.

Originally Posted by GreatwhiteNorth

The type of firearms that shoot . . . bullets ?

they took a mintute to reload back then, today you can have a clip with over 10 bullets, they would have wet their pants if they saw the modern firearm.