- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bump/Slide stocks are flying off the shelves
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:42 am to swamplynx
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:42 am to swamplynx
quote:
Have you paid any attention to Iraq and Afghanistan? Not saying that we lost/are losing, but they are doing a mighty fine job giving us some fits with their Ak47s against all of our state of the art equipment.
Have you paid attention? Talk to a member of the Republican Guard. Ask them how they fared when the US brought the full might of our military technology to bear against them. I can promise you they won't use language like, they "gave us some fits". It was an arse whipping of the highest magnitude. And they had a lot more firepower at their disposal than just AKs. Oh wait. You can't talk to the RG because they're all dead!
quote:
You can draw the line where ever you desire, but a ban on bumpstocks (which this thread is about) would not have resulted in any less carnage that if he didn't have one. He had the time, firepower and desire to do as much damage as he did if he was using only 10 round magazines. He was literally shooting fish in a barrel.
No, he was shooting human beings, not fish. Fathers, mothers, sons and daughters of people like us. My reply to the OP was only asking that he have some sensitivity for the feelings of those who lost loved ones. I felt it was just too soon to talk about buying bump stocks because they were flying of the shelf. Not once did I mention banning bump stocks.
My last post was in reply to someone who apparently believes the only way to assure our freedom is to arm up to the same level as our military. So that we are prepared to defend ourselves against our own military. Which in my opinion is an invalid 2nd amendment argument. Why? Because I can't afford F-18s and Bradley fighting vehicles. Please. If you are going to argue the 2nd amendment, don't sound like a fool. That only gives the other side more ammunition.
As a side note, Cabela's has their tin foil hats on sale. And they're flying off the shelves! God help us.
2
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:12 pm to Tigerhead
quote:
My last post was in reply to someone who apparently believes the only way to assure our freedom is to arm up to the same level as our military. So that we are prepared to defend ourselves against our own military. Which in my opinion is an invalid 2nd amendment argument. Why? Because I can't afford F-18s and Bradley fighting vehicles. Please. If you are going to argue the 2nd amendment, don't sound like a fool. That only gives the other side more ammunition.
So you don't believe the founding fathers had it right with the Bill of Rights? check
so who is the fool here?
2A was written exactly the way it was for a specific reason...whether or not we could monetarily keep up in the arms race against our own overbearing government has ZERO relevance as to what the 2A's provides for.
To argue otherwise is a fools thoughts.
Without 2A there may one day be no other Constitutional rights...as 2A protects all the others. otherwise they are just words with "No Teeth"
Just as a law against murder is only words to a criminal, the Constitution is just words to a rogue or rights violating government.
In essence the 2A is there to keep the government in fear of it's people, so they will honor our rights.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:17 pm to Tigerhead
quote:
My last post was in reply to someone who apparently believes the only way to assure our freedom is to arm up to the same level as our military. So that we are prepared to defend ourselves against our own military. Which in my opinion is an invalid 2nd amendment argument. Why? Because I can't afford F-18s and Bradley fighting vehicles. Please. If you are going to argue the 2nd amendment, don't sound like a fool. That only gives the other side more ammunition.
The VC and NVA didn't use F-18s and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Now, we beat them, but at what cost? Took 8 years. And they won the sequel (the important one, as it turns out) war against our proxy anyway, rendering all our efforts, blood, treasure, sacrifice, moot.
And don't get me started on all the asymmetrical threats that have given us so many fits 30 years or more now, armed with little more than AK-47s and improvised explosives.
The threat of armed resistance is more credible when backed by a citizenry of riflemen than a citizenry with smartphones and Antifa flags. The Founders understood that. I wonder why so many folks today cannot.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News