Freepers Freak At Assault On Their Beloved Assault Weaons

[K8-EEE]

Lots of gun-nut crybabies throwing tantrums over there! They are calling for an official Freeper Freakout Campaign on the GOPs who voted the anti-insane vote today.

For myself intend to write all of these guys and thank them for voting for what's right.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1089248/posts

btw if somebody like me who protested the Iraq war is "pro-Saddam" what do they call themselves, "Pro-Columbine?" Why the heck do they think we need military assault rifles on the streets?

[Beetwasher]

1. Only Insane Morons Want Assault Weapons

If Bush signs this bill, and hopefully he will, a lot of his base is gonna freak! Hehehehehe...

[slackmaster]

3. An Amateur Internet Psychiatrist!

Pleased to meet you. It's reassuring knowing there are people who can diagnose psychiatric disorders and evaluate my intelligence without any face-to-face contact.

I own a few assault weapons. They weren't AWs when I bought them, but turned into AWs based on legislative FIAT.

BTW I thought only wannabe baby-killers read Free Republic forums.

:evilgrin:

[Beetwasher]

6. It's my opinion

not psychiatric diagnoses. I stand by it though.

Why the fuck do you need an assault weapon? That's just plain fucked up. Planning to slaughter some deer at a record pace? Yup, I stand by my original comment. The only reason to want an assault weapons is out of some twisted psychological desire for sheer destructive power. You want a legal assault weapon? Join the army, they got plenty. :shrug:

[Goldmund]

8. Amen.

[pnb]

18. What does "need" have to do with anything?

Since when do we "need" something for it to be legal.

Go ahead and stand by your diagnosis...unfortunately, its grossly inaccurate.

[Beetwasher]

22. If you don't need it, then you should have no problems w/ the ban

If you have problems w/ need, then substitute want. Makes no difference. Why the fuck do you WANT an assault weapon? What's it for?

[slackmaster]

32. I use mine for target shooting

What do you use your discretionary purchases for?

[Beetwasher]

40. Why do you want an assault weapon for that?

A regular weapon won't do? Too bad for you.

I want anthrax for biological experiments I perform in my basement. Is that ok w/ you?

[slackmaster]

45. Do you know the difference between "regular" and "assault" weapons?

I doubt very much that you do.

I use an AR-15 for target shooting because of its inherent accuracy and reliability, the wide range of barrel, site, etc. configurations available, and the relatively inexpensive ammunition.

[Beetwasher]

56. I Don't Really Care, and It's Irrelevant

Obviously the gov't can, does and should determine that there are certain things that citizens should not be able to possess. I see no reason why they should allow people to possess assault weapons, which is a fire arm the sole purpose of which is to kill better, more and quicker and I have yet to see anyone give me a good reason as to why they should be allowed to possess such a weapon. I see LOT'S of good reasons why the gov't should deny people access to more efficient killing mechanisms.

[lapislzi]

67. Because, Beetwasher, we should be preserving freedoms

as distasteful as we at DU might find some of them. I completely agree with you that assault weapons are awful. So I won't own one. I'm not gay, so I have no need of laws protecting the rights of gays to marry. I won't have an abortion either.

But you can't apply the logic to one issue and not to others.

I honestly don't think this is our fight.

[Beetwasher]

70. Again

Obviously the gov't can, does and should determine that there are certain things that citizens should not be able to possess. I see no reason why they should allow people to possess assault weapons, which is a fire arm the sole purpose of which is to kill better, more and quicker and I have yet to see anyone give me a good reason as to why they should be allowed to possess such a weapon. I see LOT'S of good reasons why they should deny people access to more efficient killing mechanisms.

[slackmaster]

71. You don't know, you don't care, yet you insist on imposing your will

On other people.

How sad. How un-Progressive of you.

[DoNotRefill]

96. yup....just like the government should be able to outlaw....

subversive literature, or books with more than a certain number of pages, or require registration of all books legally held....

[FeebMaster]

98. Don't give them any ideas! (nt)

...

[pnb]

59. Of course he doesn't know the difference...

...he/she just knows they're "bad"!!!

[Beetwasher]

69. You have yet to make a single point as to why

people should be allowed to have them.

Should people be allowed to possess anything they want?

Obviously, that's idiotic and the gov't can, does and should determine that there are certain things that citizens should not be able to possess. I see no reason why they should allow people to possess assault weapons, which is a fire arm the sole purpose of which is to kill better, more and quicker and I have yet to see anyone give me a good reason as to why they should be allowed to possess such a weapon. I see LOT'S of good reasons why they should deny people access to more efficient killing mechanisms.

[slackmaster]

75. You admit that you don't even know what they are

Yet you insist that people should not be allowed to have them.

...which is a fire arm the sole purpose of which is to kill better...

Pure regurgitprop, and nonsense. I wish you would calm down, learn the facts, and think for yourself.

[Beetwasher]

80. Uh Huh...Still waiting for a point...

So far all you've done is make ad-hominems.

Seems like you actually don't have an argument except "I should be able to have it cuz I want it!"

[slackmaster]

84. And what is wrong with being allowed to have something I want?

That's how things are supposed to work in a free society. Burden of proof is on the wannabe banners to show why banning something is in the public's best interest.

You haven't done that.

So far all you've done is make ad-hominems.

Excuse me, but you are the one who started the ad homs with your broad-brush remark about people being "Insane Morons".

[Beetwasher]

89. I want I want I want!

You can't have everything you want. The ban is there and for good reason.

I guess all the gun deaths in this country mean nothing to you. How about the DC sniper?

[slackmaster]

94. More illogical arguments

The ban is there and for good reason.

Which is...?

I guess all the gun deaths in this country mean nothing to you. How about the DC sniper?

The DC "sniper" did not use an assault weapon. The rifle is a post-ban Bushmaster and therefore not covered by the AWB.

[pnb]

81. You've yet to offer a legitimate reason why they should...

... be banned. The fact they could kill is illogical. You keep saying you see LOTS of reasons why but have not brought any of them up.

People should be allowed to have them until there is actually PROOF that they shouldn't. It's not the other way around...aka, "let's ban anything until we can prove its a positive thing". That's nothing but BS.

[Beetwasher]

85. Wrong

Obviously the gov't can, does and should determine that there are certain things that citizens should not be able to possess (deadly chemicals, explosives, child pornography). I see no reason why they should allow people to possess assault weapons, which is a fire arm the sole purpose of which is to kill better, more and quicker and I have yet to see anyone give me a good reason as to why they should be allowed to possess such a weapon. I see LOT'S of good reasons why they should deny people access to more efficient killing mechanisms.

[slackmaster]

91. You're very skilled with cutting and pasting your own post repeatedly

Got an original thought?

[Beetwasher]

97. Still Waiting for Yours

and for you to explain why if you can own an assault weapon I can't have anthrax.

[DoNotRefill]

Read Amendment II of the US Constitution....

I see no reason why people should be allowed to eat meat. It's bad for them, it's farmed in an atrocious manner, and kills far more people annually in the US than guns do. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw meat.

[K8-EEE]

44. Have You Tried DARTS?

It's the same thing except no WMD.

[slackmaster]

47. I had a set of LAWN DARTS when I was a kid

Talk about WMDs!

[pnb]

43. Your the one who said need...not me.

It was the basis for your argument...now I should just change that for you?

What does it matter what I want it for either?

[Beetwasher]

66. No, It wasn't the BASIS for my argument

The basis for my argument is this:

Obviously the gov't can, does and should determine that there are certain things that citizens should not be able to possess. I see no reason why they should allow people to possess assault weapons, which is a fire arm the sole purpose of which is to kill better, more and quicker and I have yet to see anyone give me a good reason as to why they should be allowed to possess such a weapon. I see LOT'S of good reasons why they should deny people access to more efficient killing mechanisms.

[DoNotRefill]

95. More importantly....

why should parts of the Constitution be infringed upon?

The Second Amendment enumerates a right, states that it belongs to the people, and says it shall not be infringed.

Nowhere in it do I read that "want" or "need" are operative concepts....

[K8-EEE]

19. Yeah....What Do You DO With Them?

I talked to this one pyschotic Freeper type and he was like, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT COMES TO ATTACK ME or something, dude!! If the government wanted to attack you your little assault weapons would be like popguns, GOT NUKES?

[FeebMaster]

41. Nukes, eh?

Because if the government decided to put down a rebellion in New York City or LA or Chicago or something, they no doubt would just nuke the city and be done with it. :eyes:

Oh yeah, I'm invoking McFeeb's Law. Only 30 something posts this time.

[K8-EEE]

63. Guns To Protect You From The Government?

How? I mean when has THAT ever happened? If the US Goverment wanted your ass, how many guns would stop them? That is just so paranoid and ridiculous!

[FeebMaster]

76. Well

I'm not a gun owner so I doubt I'll be resisting the government with guns anytime soon.

But when it comes down to it, it's not just about ownership of guns. If the people don't have the will to use them, then gun ownership is pointless. At this point, Americans have decided that other means of trying to defend their freedom are more appropriate than guns.

As for what difference one person with a gun could make, I should think that's obvious. After all, one man with a gun essentially started World War I.

[slackmaster]

30. What business of yours is it what I need or don't need?

Since when does need have any relation to what a US citizen is allowed to own?

The only reason to want an assault weapons is out of some twisted psychological desire for sheer destructive power.

I believe you're projecting your fear of what you might do if you had an assault weapon onto others.

...want a legal assault weapon? Join the army, they got plenty.

Your statement reinforces my belief that you don't understand what the AWB is all about. None of the weapons covered by the assault weapons ban are issued as standard weapons to any military organization in the world, certainly not the US Army.

[K8-EEE]

35. Well Then Why Not Let People Have Nukes In The Basement?

If it makes them feel "safe..."

[slackmaster]

38. If you really want a nuclear weapon and can pass the background check

And afford it, go ahead and buy one. There is no law against it.

BTW I hereby invoke McFeeb's Law. Discussion is ended.

[Beetwasher]

37. Possibly the dumbest argument I ever heard

So the army doesn't have the assault weapon you want? That's fucking ridiculous.

Need is irrelevant. Personally I don't want some idiot freeper easily getting their hands on an assault weapon and mowing down liberals.

What if I wanted a fucking howitzer? I don't need that, but maybe I want it. That's ok w/ you? How about anthrax? I want it, I should be able to have it. :eyes: How pathetic and absurd.

[slackmaster]

42. No, that's not what I wrote

The Army does not use assault weapons. They use a selective-fire weapon, the M16 and its derivitives. I don't believe you know the difference, which makes me very sad that you insist on participating in this debate.

What if I wanted a fucking howitzer? I don't need that, but maybe I want it. That's ok w/ you?...

Yes, that would be perfectly OK with me if you really want one.

[Beetwasher]

51. How about Anthrax?

Obviously the gov't can, does and should determine that there are certain things that citizens should not be able to possess. I see no reason why they should allow people to possess assault weapons, which is a fire arm the sole purpose of which is to kill better, more and quicker and I have yet to see anyone give me a good reason as to why they should be allowed to possess such a weapon. I see LOT'S of good reasons why they should deny people access to more efficient killing mechanisms.

[slackmaster]

55. Anthrax is a Straw Man and McFeeb's Law has been invoked

The discussion is over, and you lost.

[Beetwasher]

58. What a Bunch of Crap. Pathetic. Run away! Run away!

How pathetic. Since you've answered none of my points, actually, you lose.

I assume Mcfeebs law is some crap that gun nuts espouse when they get bitchslapped that gives them an excuse to run away w/ their tails between their legs...

[FeebMaster]

68. Actually McFeeb's Law

is a response to the continued use of the WMD straw man during discussions about small arms. It's like Godwin's Law only for gun control.

I don't have a link to the original McFeeb's Law post, but it went something like this:

The final refuge of the gun grabber. Nukes. I think we need something like Godwin's Law with regard to nukes in gun control arguments. We can call it McFeeb's Law.

If you want to limit the 2nd amendment, I'll be more than happy to compromise with you. We'll ban nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Man portable and squad portable small arms will be unregulated. What should we do with artillery pieces and high explosives? Maybe have a background check requirement before someone can buy them. I don't think that's particularly fair, but I'm willing to compromise.

[Beetwasher]

Too Bad it's Not a Strawman Though

It's the gov't's job to regulate such matters. Citizens are clearly not allowed to possess any number of deadly things for the safety of communities and to keep those deadly things out of the hands of lunatics. Assault weapons fit into that category, IMO. Obviously, the Senate, including numerous gun loving/toting repubs agree w/ me. Too bad for the people who want to own assault weapons.

[FeebMaster]

82. Actually the Senate

just voted the whole thing down 90-8 or something. I guess a few Democrats agreed. Too bad for people who want to ban assault weapons.

WMDs are a strawman when discussing small arms because no WMD is a small arm.

[FeebMaster]

48. There's nothing stopping you

from buying a howitzer other than cost and hassle. Nothing federally at least, state laws vary.

Anthrax is a McFeeb's Lawable product.

[slackmaster]

49. Thanks for the clarification

I second the McFeeb's declaration.

[K8-EEE]

31. Psychologically, It's A Penis Issue IMO...

Must....have....biggest....gun....

UGH! I hate gunguys.

[pnb]

61. Must be...

...especially for those women who own guns also...

[K8-EEE]

74. Could Be!

But all the gun nuts I've known are paranoid/scared guys. Women might have a handgun or something but most of them don't want to collect freaking military assault rifles. But there were those ones in Bowling For Columbine, sheesh!! Shooting off all these guns with the little naked kids running around....scary stuff!

The Miss Gun Nut calendar in BFC, those girls were a bit rough. LOL...

[pnb]

86. I don't know...

...I was actually taught to shoot by a woman and the first assault rifle I shot was her SKS.

She's a social worker by the way...real freak.

[demsrule4life]

78. Or for those women that can

never get one.

[demsrule4life]

90. My wife says you dont know what you are missing

I'm a gun guy and my wife along with girlfriends from the past have always loved my skillful tongue. :)

[DoNotRefill]

92. Didn't Himmler say something like that?

about people who wanted access to guns joining the SA and SS, because people needed to be disarmed before they were shoved into the ovens?

[madrchsod]

7. he`ll sign it then

they`ll figure some way to blame the democrats . they`ll spin till everyone without a brain believes he`s looking out for their right to purchase machine guns...

[ClintonTyree]

10. Hey.........

we have to even the playing field with those bloodthirsty ducks! It's every 'Murkins right to own and arm bears.

[ManneredChild]

83. Of course they do

That is why we need to get this message out to voters this year so we can get some sensible gun control enacted by Dems and put an end to all the gun crime these insane morons are committing. I am writing my reps and begging them to get this issue on the streets so we can get out the vote this November.

[madrchsod]

2. gee whiz..who in the hell

are these guys and gals going to vote for???? no wonder we call them morans!

[BlueEyedSon]

4. I hope they don't extend the RPG launcher ban too....

Cower before me, deer!

[FeebMaster]

54. There is no ban

on the purchase of RPGs. They're just regulated.

[el_gato]

5. gun control is for Slaves

advocating gun control while the government is turning fascist is
an act of insanity

[Goldmund]

9. I hear they're selling an F/A-18 on EBay.

I'd love to see el_gato dogfight against USAF.

[w4rma]

15. They're doing it in Iraq, right now. (n/t)

[el_gato]

21. enjoy what little freedom you have now

while you still have it

[Goldmund]

88. And if I lose it,

I will fret not: I will pick up my phone and call up el_gato who will come with his guns and blast his way through tyranny and we will all be free! Yaaay!!!

[StClone]

11. Weapon Control is Fascist

Where does a gun end and WMD begin? If you aren't satisfied with the guns you can legally carry and fire what is your real aim?

[Beetwasher]

12. No One Is Stopping You From Buying a Gun

You can buy a gun and kill fascists all you want, just not at the pace of 60 a minute...

[pnb]

20. Do you even know anything about "assault weapons"?

It doesn't seem like you do based on your comments.

[K8-EEE]

23. What The Hell Good Are Assault Weapons?

What do you use them for?

[slackmaster]

34. Same things other firearms are used for

Hunting, target shooting, self-defense, financial investments, etc.

[pnb]

46. Anything you want, except for committing a crime

Just like ANY other weapon.

[K8-EEE]

53. Self Defense?

Oh brother. Like you go walking around with this thing? Cuz otherwise, what good does it do. For self defense I would think a pistol or something that you can have with you all the time, would be better.

Doesn't seem like much of a sport to use those kind of guns IMO -- kinda psycho.

Target practice, I use darts.

[pnb]

64. I guess you don't understand the word "anything"

Why don't you consult a dictionary before posting, huh?

[Beetwasher]

26. I Know All I Need To Know

They kill more quicker...What's the fucking point?

Answer my question: Why do you WANT an assault weapon? What's it's purpose?

[pnb]

50. So, because YOU have no desire for one...

...no one else should either?

I don't particular care for some of the weapons that are considered "assault rifles" (a term that is arbitrary and vague as hell by the way)...I prefer shooting shotguns but that is just me. Others like shooting them. Simple as that.

Once again, what do your comments about "need" and "want" have to do with the law?

[Beetwasher]

62. The Law is Assault Weapons are Banned

What is it about that that YOU don't understand?

Obviously the gov't can, does and should determine that there are certain things that citizens should not be able to possess. I see no reason why they should allow people to possess assault weapons, which is a fire arm the sole purpose of which is to kill better, more and quicker and I have yet to see anyone give me a good reason as to why they should be allowed to possess such a weapon. I see LOT'S of good reasons why they should deny people access to more efficient killing mechanisms.

[pnb]

73. I know its the law

Perhaps you might try answering my question now.

And regarding your reasons, where is the data that shows how dangerous these so-called assault weapons are...wait I forgot, you don't even know anything about them other then they are evil.

Never mind.

[slackmaster]

77. No, assault weapons are not banned

The AWB is a 10-year moratorium on manufacturing and selling new ones. A real ban would involve confiscation.

But thanks for showing us how badly misinformed you are.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. "It could never happen here"

*sigh*

[denverbill]

16. Guns don't bring down dictatorships.

A handful of assault rifles isn't going to last long against a Bradley, Blackhawk, or F16.

How many armed Russians did it take to bring down the USSR?

[Beetwasher]

17. Exactly! Great point!

People power is more effective than any bullet.

[el_gato]

25. look at the trajectory of history

[Beetwasher]

27. Yeah, and?

:shrug:

The Bush's are fascists and your puny assault weapon will do exactly shit if they decide to come for you.

[K8-EEE]

Ghandi Brought Down The Brits Without Bullets...

....and a houseful of guns wouldn't keep you safe from a dictator.

[el_gato]

29. the entire planet is living under a corporate oligarchy

If you can't understand this it's not my problem.

[K8-EEE]

39. And Your Guns Fix That HOW??

Not understanding what positive effect your wacky guns have to do with the corp oligarchy.

What are you gonna do about the bio weapons? Shoot them?

[el_gato]

52. I'll do my best to protect me and my family

but I've never been much of a bootlicker anyway

[K8-EEE]

57. Protecting Families From Columbine-type Disasters

is what sane weapon regulation is all about.

[NickB79]

72. And most of the guns used in Columbine weren't banned by the AWB

They used 2 shotguns, a Marlin semi-auto carbine, and a Tec-9 handgun. The coroner's report showed that no deaths could be attributed to the Tec-9 though. Seems the evil, deadly assault weapon was inferior to the non-assault firearms.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. thats not trueabout gandhi

! i dont believe in gun rights but a lot of real freedom fighters in india died before we were independent....its only because of british historians that it sounds like it was all to gandhis credit...i dont think they enjoyed dying as much as they did looting india

[MissMarple]

79. As long as the second amendment stands, Americans have gun rights.

And some people like them because they are fun to clean, shoot and talk about. They collect them like some folks collect books, cars or poisonous plants. Others actually believe in the militia. Their idea of the militia is the group of able bodied, generally law abiding Americans acting in an ordered fashion with publicly agreed upon leaders who can come to the aid of the Constitution and the viability of the democratic processes when these are threatened.

Americans can have guns, with caveats against the irresponsible, the incompetent, and the criminal from having them. Some think that is what "well regulated" means.

Owning guns is not limited to just hunters and homeowners. It is an American right.

And having said all that, I think that a handful of hackers may prove more useful than a handful of guys with guns. In the long run, that is. But guns have a place, and we need to respect the right of gun ownership.

[Columbia]

87. Well said, MissMarple

Glad to see you on the side of liberty.

:toast:

[MissMarple]

99. Thank you, Columbia. I did a little reading,some of which you suggested

:D But, I still think there is room for regulation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. gun rights is one of those things i am apathetic about

i just dont like people praising gandhi for delivering independence to india

[K8-EEE]

24. Iraq Is Swimming In Guns

No freedom at all....

[el_gato]

28. uh okay that makes sense

[NickB79]

65. Yes it is swimming in guns

And they are using those guns to fight for their freedom from the American forces there now. When they defeat the US troops and drive them out, then they will have the freedom to decide what kind of government they want. Whether that government embraces the same freedoms we value, or if it's based on a fundamentalist Islamic belief system, is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is that they fought off a much more powerful, foreign invading force for their freedom.

[NickB79]

60. The Iraqis seem to be doing pretty damn well

With their AK's, RPGs and homemade bombs. There are numerous burnt-out Bradleys and Blackhawks, and 500+ US soldiers, that would attest to their effectiveness.

It's ironic that the mess in Iraq might actually prove the NRA right about the effectiveness of an armed citizenry.

[jpak]

13. Wow - I didn't know they passed gun show background checks too

Way to go!

[slackmaster]

36. S 1805 was just defeated

The gun show amendment and the assault weapons amendments were poison pills intended to kill the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

[Moderator]

100. Locking

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc

Please take further discussion to the Justice/Public Safety Forum