Details on the proposed gun ban Jan 3rd

[Bueller]

Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.

Even if this were true, at least we would go down with a fight and honor, rather than being led to slaughter like docile sheep.

[~Barn~]

...and who's fault is this? We get what we vote for...

I'm sure more than a few political prisoners were under the impression that their government would never in slave them and work them to death because they believed differently, held opposingpolitical views, were educated, were wealthy, held differing religious beliefs, different sexual orientation, skin color... and so on.

Regrettably, the fault does not change the reality. And with due deference to the many social and political injustices that exist, I just don't want to see anymore movie-goers, or High School students, or young Greenwood Village office professionals, or 5 and 6 year old children and their teachers get massacred. That's the world that I spend the bulk of my day in, so that is what hits closer to home. I'm not chasing a phantom utopia...

Even if this were true, at least we would go down with a fight and honor, rather than being led to slaughter like docile sheep.

Egh... Comments like that Dave, just make me sad because it makes me wonder just how unaware you really must be, to the slaughters that are perpetuated seemingly every other moment with gun violence. You and I could probably go many lifetimes without the need to attempt to protect ourselves from (our or any) government, but your talk of "going down with a fight and with honor" misses the forest for the trees, with regard to what is really happening in our country today.

[dirkterrell]

Hold dear what you must, but we are nowhere near the same atmosphere, as being equally or better armed than those who serve government militaries, just because our constitution affords us the "right" to have guns.

Good thing the founders of this country didn't succumb to such thinking. England was the most feared and well-equipped military power in the world when they got run out of this country. Among many examples in history, the Soviets got chased out of Afghanistan despite an overwhelming military advantage. See my post in the recent gun topic about how the Polish Jews held off the Nazis for months with literally a handful of small arms.

Guerilla warfare has a very different dynamic than battles between national armies. I certainly wouldn't want to lead a million-person army, no matter how well equipped, against a 100-million strong group of highly motivated people, even if they only had small arms.

[I`m Batman]

I feel like I am trying to talk to my wife about guns because her responses would be the same exact as your

That's because I'm in touch with my feminine side.

There are bigger problems out there that they should look for solutions. I'm just being sarcastic and that if people think like them politicians that would be the result. Don't get your panties in a wad.

[I`m Batman]

Oh and by the way, I use my ARs for sport, target shooting, for fun, its a hobby that I really enjoy and I'm not hurting anyone. I may use it for competition and/or hunting someday, I know people that use it for hunting.

You could say that it can be used to hurt someone but you could say that about anything. Does that mean that we need to ban everything?

[dirkterrell]

make me sad because it makes me wonder just how unaware you really must be, to the slaughters that are perpetuated seemingly every other moment with gun violence. You and I could probably go many lifetimes without the need to attempt to protect ourselves from (our or any) government, but your talk of "going down with a fight and with honor" misses the forest for the trees, with regard to what is really happening in our country today.

No one is denying the violence that goes on. What many of us are saying is that the solution to reducing the violence is not keeping law-abiding citizens from owning weapons. Maybe we should start with doing a better job of keeping violently psychotic people off the streets? History is replete with examples of the murders of millions, yes MILLIONs (170 million in the 20th century), of people who were disarmed in the name of public safety. An unarmed populace emboldens a government to restrict liberty, and seeing what our own government has been doing recently, I have no doubt whatsoever that our "leaders" would descend into tyranny with the best of intentions. Look at the shit that was going down in New Orleans after Katrina, with cops murdering citizens when that thin veneer of civilization was washed away,

[Monster]

Nobody wants to see kids or innocent people gunned down or blown up and we can all agree on that. The problem is is that you can not pin this problem on something material and say guns are the problem. People are the problem but it gets complicated when you go down that road. Could you someday piss off a cop, have him claim you as unstable and lock you up because of mental disorders. The bottom line is is that you cannot protect everyone from everything. If you try all you will do is continue to add laws that will become your own prisons.

[I`m Batman]

Nobody wants to see kids or innocent people gunned down or blown up and we can all agree on that. The problem is is that you can not pin this problem on something material and say guns are the problem. People are the problem but it gets complicated when you go down that road. Could you someday piss off a cop, have him claim you as unstable and lock you up because of mental disorders. The bottom line is is that you cannot protect everyone from everything. If you try all you will do is continue to add laws that will become your own prisons.

+1

[#1Townie]

This makes me happy.

This is a very scary statement. You should never be happy about giving up rights for the idea of safety. So the idea of the feds making a national gun registry makes you happy? Being a teacher I’m sure you have heard the term every action has a opposite and equal reaction. What could some of those reactions be? How about full on civil war in America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8N91O04EhE

See I’m happy YOU have the right to choose if you should have a firearm or not. Let me ask you how you would feel if the script was flipped and the argument was if people should be FORECED to be armed 24/7?

Yup, go ahead because so many home invasions that are going on now. No wait, I see that everyone is hanging their guns in the back of their trucks in my neighborhood, so the thieves just look for my Prius.

Yeah I guess crimes in Colorado don’t happen.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cocrime.htm

Here is the thing: I have many buddies who have guns in their homes that have led to trouble ( accidents, injury, and one death). My neighbor has a giant gun safe in his garage that is left wide open all the time. Many times, his garage door is then left open all night. Are they idiots? Maybe? Are others more careful? Sure. However, I don't want to sort through all of them in the meantime

You honestly need to choose your friends better. The only person I have ever met who shot himself was a complete idiot. I would never consider that person a friend and I would never go out of my way to be a friend with that person. The next time your neighbor leaves his door open and guns are in the open call the police. Simple fix.

In the end, there are no statistics that prove that more guns are the answer or that they keep us safe. There are a ton of stats that show death from firearms that were handled or used improperly. There is no answer here; otherwise, this wouldn't be a conversation or debate on this forum.

Really there is no statistics on crime and lack of guns? How do you explain the violence in cities that have the most gun laws? How about jump in crimes when the honest people are disarmed in other countries?

Australia.


In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

The second amendment was not created for the purpose that "we" are discussing here. I can't think of one person that I know that has actually used their guns to defend themselves, but I am sure that some have been used that way. Owning ar15s and other semiautomatic rifles are a little extreme in my opinion.

Well I have had to carry to protect myself. Ever had a few crazy tweekers hell bent on killing you because your friend couldn’t find them weed? They pulled a drive by on my house and another friends house that my friend was known to stay at. They let us know that just because he was our friend they would kill us. No other reason. Just because I was friends with someone.

So your opinion should dictate MY life? What do you mean the second amendment wasn’t created for what we are talking about today? At the bottom of my post there is three videos I want you to watch. The second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny. Because it’s the 21st century tyranny no longer exists?

Our government has never been so out of control before. Its sad to me to see a person like yourself that has had their mind twisted into this kind of thinking. For some reason you have some how fallen for the idea that guns are the problem.

“by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”

Benjamin Franklin.

In the end, have your guns, and be happy, but these deaths will continue because there are too many unstable people who need mental health instead of easy access to guns.

No gun ban will fix this. No gun law at all will fix this. Take them away or give them to everyone will not fix the mentally ill. Only dealing with how to actually treat these people will help in fixing that problem.

Nope, what I am saying, is if the guns weren't readily available, these killings may not have happened. However, if they do, more guns will not solve them.

That is a very bold statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)

Not one gun was used.

Jim,

Who exactly have you "protected" with your arsenal? Tell us your romantic stories about how many times you have "protected" the masses.


Wait, they had a armed guard at Columbine. Did that work? Nope, bring in more guns.

Actually they say it bought some time to save lives. The deputy engaged the shooters and then helped rescue kids. Also back then the protocol was to wait for swat for those things. These tactics have changed with active mass shooting scenarios. They have found that more often the shooter will kill themselves upon confrontation by armed people. Sure you can say that didn’t happen in columbine but there is a variable for ever situation.

[asp_125]

To use the NRA and gun nuts own words: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well ....if guns aren't the problem, then deal with the fucking problem! Everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room.

[#1Townie]

I can't remember when i ever had to call the cops to my house to have the pull their guns for me. However, I have seen the cops called when someone else had guns and full body armor back in LA in the mid nineties, and oh yea, the cops kept bringing more guns out yet two men killed and injured about one hundred people. But, I am sure that if everyone would have brought out their guns, it would have ended earlier. That's always the argument: if everyone had a gun, things like this wouldn't happen. Where were all those gun totting citizens?

I am happy for you that YOU have never needed someone armed to help you, but trying to compare life to one event that happened twenty years ago isn’t a very good example. Not to mention the shooters in that bank robbery had full auto ak’s and body armor. The police couldn’t pierce their armor so they had to get weapons. I am happy you bring up California as these new regs that are being proposed are basically from California. Let me ask you this, if these gun laws worked why does California still have so much gun crime?

Unlike for you many peoples lives have been SAVED buy guns.

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=7816

On December 11, Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, wearing tactical clothing and a hockey mask, randomly opened fire on shoppers and employees in the Clackamas Town Center shopping mall in ClackamasCounty, Oregon, killing two people and seriously wounding a third before committing suicide. Three days later, after allegedly murdering his mother while she slept, Adam Lanza, 20, allegedly shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and viciously murdered 20 first-graders and six adults before taking his own life.
Although it appears that both incidents may be the work of mentally-ill individuals, the latter sent severe shock waves across the planet of an intensity not exhibited since the 9-11 false-flag attacks over 11 years ago. Sadness gripped the country and Americans openly sobbed for the innocent lives that were so savagely ended.
Although it seems nearly certain that some sort of gun control legislation will pass Congress in next year’s session and be signed into law, it’s worth remembering that guns are responsible for saving many more lives than they are given credit for in the corporate-controlled mainstream media.
Gun-Haters Seize the Moment

Leftist anti-gun zealots in D.C., N.Y. and L.A. should admit, once and for all, what they really want: the outlawing of privately-owned firearms by American citizens. Of course they’ll never reveal their true motives, so instead tragedies such as the Newtown massacre are exploited to erode our Second Amendment rights.
The unspoken secret harbored among these gun-hating movie stars and politicians is that many of them have concealed carry permits, as do their armed bodyguards. Plus, they work in buildings protected by metal detectors and security personnel that brandish weapons. In other words, they’ll remain safe, but nobody else will.
As news broke regarding the Sandy Hook school shooting, it didn’t take long for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to declare, “[Obama] needs to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action.” What Bloomberg failed to mention was that Connecticut already has some of America’s most severe gun control laws.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) pronounced that Obama should “exploit” this heartbreaking situation, whereas Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) sneered, “The NRA is an enabler of mass murder, and it’s time we stood up to them.” However, both of these legislators neglected to tell constituents that on the same day as the Connecticut murders, a man in Beijing, China wielded a knife—not a gun—to attack 23 children inside their elementary school.
On the West coast, Hollywood bleeding hearts such as Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore and Mia Farrow all demanded “gun control now,” as did newsman Keith Olbermann. CNN talk show host Piers Morgan had an on-air meltdown, comparing Sandy Hook to Scotland’s 1996 slaying of 16 children inside a school. “This is America’s Dunblane,” Morgan frothed. Finally, MSNBC blowhard Ed Schultz called the Founding Fathers who wrote our Second Amendment “slave owners.”
For his part, only two months ago during the second presidential debate, Barack Obama specifically floated the notion of “getting an assault weapons ban introduced.” As his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once famously quipped in true Machiavellian fashion, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
Dave Workman Interview

One day prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy, AMERICAN FREE PRESS interviewed Dave Workman, senior editor at The Gun Mag, the official publication of the Second Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works tirelessly to protect Americans’ inalienable right to bear arms.
Saddened by the senseless tragedies, Workman said: “These are rare events, and because they don’t happen all the time they’re obviously high profile. As the media says, ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’ When news stories like this surface and flash across the country they receive plenty of coverage. It gives the impression that America is a violent country but that’s not necessarily correct.”
Confirming a previous AFP report from the August 13, 2012 edition, Workman said, “Over the past five years, there’s been a steady increase in firearms sales and concealed carry permits. Plus, more people that have never owned a gun are also purchasing them for the first time. Yet, during this same period, the violent crime rate has steadily decreased. If you check FBI statistics, they speak for themselves.”
Well versed on this subject, Workman stressed: “These numbers clearly point out that it was a myth to begin with when the gun prohibition lobby claimed that more weapons in private hands would lead to more crime. It’s nothing but scare rhetoric.”
The irony here, added Workman, is that the exceptions to America’s declining crime rate are largely located in cities that have banned guns.
“If you look at large municipalities like Chicago, L.A., D.C. and Detroit that have higher crime rates, they’ve also enacted strict firearms laws,” said Workman. “Citizens can’t fight back even though they possess a constitutionally protected civil right to do so.”
When asked why certain groups can’t seem to connect the dots, Workman replied, “The progressive mindset is one of denial. They refuse to acknowledge that one of their core beliefs may in fact be wrong, or that they were mistaken. Without an evolution of thought or a process of maturity, they can’t deal in a logical adult way with proof that everything they believed about guns being bad was wrong. The core of their foundations would be shaken to the ground.”
Pertaining to this same subject, only hours after the Newtown massacre, Barack Obama vowed to “take meaningful action” to satisfy his left-leaning supporters. Workman’s thoughts on this subject were evident. “A lot of people are concerned that during Obama’s second term he’ll enact some sort of gun control legislation. Obama went on the record in 2008 with a Pittsburgh newspaper [Tribune-Review] stating that he’s against concealed carry. His record in Illinois also proves that he’s no fan of guns. If Congress handed him a pure pro-gun rights bill, I’m certain he’d immediately veto it.”
Obviously, the latest massacres will do nothing to change the impression that America is teeming with violence, especially to those residing in foreign countries with strict gun control laws. Workman observed, “They still think we’re the Wild West. It’s a cultural thing. People learn about us by watching our movies. These films make for colorful entertainment, but they’re a lot of hype and not very realistic.”
Similarly, Workman pointed out, “Following Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre, authorities confiscated a majority of guns. Of course, shortly thereafter homicides shot through the roof. Violent crime is also going way up in England. There, defending yourself can land you in jail. It’s a crime.”
Comparing their societies with our own, Workman concluded, “The Wild West was actually a pretty peaceful place because people knew the other guy would shoot back. Today in the U.S., taking out a bad guy is a public service.”

Cars are dangerous, but they, unlike guns, are a necessity. I would rather take my chances with a car that everyone uses almost everyday; whereas, guns are not. The last time I checked a bike nor a car was used to create 61 mass killings over the past 50 years, but I haven't checked recently.

Cars are dangerous? You say this like yeah sometimes people get hurt.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf

unlike guns cars are what? No a car is not a necessity. You could use public transportation or other means to get around. transportation is not a right.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU


please watch these videos. These videos are about the feds illegally trying to remove private property from the people of Nevada. It got to the point that the feds made the threat to send in their swat team to fight the sheriff and his deputies.




We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.
Hilliary Clinton.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"
Bill Clinton.

Are we turning into Nazi Germany?

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/20-signs-that-the-nazification-of-america-is-almost-complete

so you might feel safe with the idea of only military and law enforcement having these guns understand that no gun ban will stop the criminals from getting firearms. At the end of the day law enforcement is not there to protect you. That is up to you and you alone.

[#1Townie]

Hold dear what you must, but we are nowhere near the same atmosphere, as being equally or better armed than those who serve government militaries, just because our constitution affords us the "right" to have guns.

No but it’s a start. It would suck to only have pitchforks and baseball bats.

Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.

I disagree with you everything you have to say here. To add to what dirk already said I will use a great quote from japan.

"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Admiral Yamamoto

Notice how we still cant beat these guys in Afghanistan?

Regrettably, the fault does not change the reality. And with due deference to the many social and political injustices that exist, I just don't want to see anymore movie-goers, or High School students, or young Greenwood Village office professionals, or 5 and 6 year old children and their teachers get massacred. That's the world that I spend the bulk of my day in, so that is what hits closer to home. I'm not chasing a phantom utopia...

People that are against the proposal of these bans don’t want those 5 and 6 years olds to have to grow up and end up having to use pitchforks to fight off the government we allowed to destroy this country. None of us want to see kids die but guns are not the issue. Mental health is. Until we deal with them they are still going to kill. Look at the guy that killed the firemen on Christmas eve. He couldn’t legally posses a gun. Did that stop him? No. What did he do? What he loves most, kill people.

Egh... Comments like that Dave, just make me sad because it makes me wonder just how unaware you really must be, to the slaughters that are perpetuated seemingly every other moment with gun violence. You and I could probably go many lifetimes without the need to attempt to protect ourselves from (our or any) government, but your talk of "going down with a fight and with honor" misses the forest for the trees, with regard to what is really happening in our country today.

Comments like yours make me sad because you have also fallen for this idea that gun control will fix this world. Also makes me sad to see you so blind to the real world that we live in today. The illegal wars that are being fought. The overstepping government control. The innocent people who are killed here on our own soil by corrupt police. Fact is this world is extremely scary these days and for you to not see how close this country is to falling apart saddens me.

[Ezzzzy1]

That's because I'm in touch with my feminine side.

There are bigger problems out there that they should look for solutions. I'm just being sarcastic and that if people think like them politicians that would be the result. Don't get your panties in a wad.

No wad here... I just feel like you probably have some really good points and they are lost in all the other mumbo jumbo.

Believe it or not I share a LOT of the same beliefs of all the pro gunners on here. I have enough ammo and guns to make a small dent and if shit hit the fan and I would be a part of whatever the next steps were.

That said, I am a big fan of quality conversation that builds better pro gun owners. To me its not all about "if shit hits the fan" there is more to owning these kinds of guns and part of that has to be (in my opinion) fully understanding why people dont want them around. Its just flat silly to me to say we have to have them to defend ourselves 100%.

In all honesty I feel that the super pro gun guys hurt themselves in their points because their single "defense" standpoint is fairly irreverent to most people. There is more to it and if viewed the right, open minded way maybe we could all make some sense to people that otherwise are tired of hearing that excuse.

That said, if you are not "prepared" I guess the jokes on you (not you but whoever isnt).

What I have realized is that I am not a good forum conversationalist I think I push pretty hard back because the reality is that in a normal conversation a lot of the way people act and what they say wouldnt normally be said.

Its hard to address all the things said and all the different directions and then the trolling/interruptions.

[I`m Batman]

I'm an easy going kind of person that don't take things too seriously and try to keep things light. To me, there's no need for drama for anything. Maybe my posts reflect that, while others are trying to keep it serious. But there's a point in there somewhere, you just have to look for it.

I guess I can only hope for the best and see.

[Zanatos]

I am against bans, but I am for restrictions.

In my opinion, anyone who is 100% opposed to any limitations on the 2nd Amendment has no right to blame or criticize the government for mass shootings.

I am sure the authors of the Constitution never had MP5s and AR-15s in mind when they gave citizens the right to bear arms. Back then, a long-barreled, single-shot, black powder muzzle loader was the only firearm available to common citizens - so there wasn't a big need for restrictions on magazine capacity, automatic fire, etc.

[Ezzzzy1]

I am against bans, but I am for restrictions.

In my opinion, anyone who is 100% opposed to any limitations on the 2nd Amendment has no right to blame or criticize the government for mass shootings.

I am sure the authors of the Constitution never had MP5s and AR-15s in mind when they gave citizens the right to bear arms. Back then, a long-barreled, single-shot, black powder muzzle loader was the only firearm available to common citizens - so there wasn't a big need for restrictions on magazine capacity, automatic fire, etc.

And the crowd goes crazy!!!!

Part of the real problem is that people wont say that they are for some revision. I think that it makes the pro gunners feel like they are not fully defending their stance and it makes the softies feel like they are in support of guns, even if its means to an end.

[TFOGGuys]

I am against bans, but I am for restrictions.

In my opinion, anyone who is 100% opposed to any limitations on the 2nd Amendment has no right to blame or criticize the government for mass shootings.

I am sure the authors of the Constitution never had MP5s and AR-15s in mind when they gave citizens the right to bear arms. Back then, a long-barreled, single-shot, black powder muzzle loader was the only firearm available to common citizens - so there wasn't a big need for restrictions on magazine capacity, automatic fire, etc.

The misconception here is that the Second Amendment somehow grants the right to bear arms. The language used actually restricts the government from infringing on a preexisting natural right. Semantics, I know, but important in the distinction between right and privilege. True, the founders were only familiar with rifled muskets as it came to firearms, but that is the exact weaponry carried by state of the art militaries of the time. The framers of the Bill of Rights knew exactly what they were trying to protect: The ability of citizens to determine the course of their society, preferably through consensus and effective government, but also through force of arms if necessary. An interesting side note: Until after the Civil War, most artillery (canons and mortars) were privately owned and provided to army units by their owners in times of need. It wasn't until the Spanish American war that the US government bought it's own.

[Ghosty]

Yes, banning any pistol grip that mounts forward of the trigger will most definitely SAVE SCHOOL CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!

Fucking-A bullshit, no common sense, ugh. It makes your blood boil...

[Ezzzzy1]

Yes, banning any pistol grip that mounts forward of the trigger will most definitely SAVE SCHOOL CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!

Fucking-A bullshit, no common sense, ugh. It makes your blood boil...

That whole proposal is terrible. Its worse than terrible.

Its so bad that hopefully it just gets laughed at

[#1Townie]

Or maybe its because we are tired of all these people saying its the guns and we want the REAL problem to br brought to the table. The idea of being in the 21st century means we have sone away with tyranny is laughable. How can you guys be keen on anymore restrictions when time and time again they prove to fail? How can anyone truly think that eliminating a single tool will succeed in safe guarding anything? Basically what you guys are saying is eliminating crowbars will stop home invasions.

Guns make it easy to kill people? Someone should have told Timothy McVeigh and Osama that.

Also guys against what the news will tell you this last shooting was not the largest school attack in our history.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[Ghosty]

PISTOL GRIPS AND 20-ROUND MAGAZINES KILL PEOPLE!!!



Sorry, I'm frustrated. I want to easily buy any gun or ammo I want to, WHEN I FEEL LIKE, not dictated by idiots and panics.

[bluedogok]

Oh and by the way, I use my ARs for sport, target shooting, for fun, its a hobby that I really enjoy and I'm not hurting anyone. I may use it for competition and/or hunting someday, I know people that use it for hunting.

You could say that it can be used to hurt someone but you could say that about anything. Does that mean that we need to ban everything?

I know quite a few people in South Texas who hunt feral hogs with AR's, seems to be a good combination of rifle/caliber for that purpose. They feral hog problem is real bad down there, in fact the first night the new 85 mph stretch of toll road south of Austin was opened up there were three wrecks involving feral hogs crossing the highway.

[Clovis]

Come on peeps. If all the guns are out-lawed and no one has guns then there won't be any more school shootings!

Simple fix, why all the resistance?? Think of the children! The children!

[Monster]

I toured the jail in deerlodge one time and part of the tour was all of the weapons that inmates had made. It was amazing at the weapons they made out of simple materials. One inmate even made a gun out of a pen. Where there is a will there is a way.