Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/14/2004 11:48:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:52:04 AM EDT
Don't worry, he's a bumfuck.

Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:52:45 AM EDT
I love the 100 round "clip" remark.......

Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:55:03 AM EDT

Let's see if he comments on my blog.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:01:03 PM EDT
What can you expect form someone who has "shizzle" on his page?

Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:05:32 PM EDT
Replied, Try and be nice...being an idiot will only serve to make him reinforce his stereotyping of gun owners.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:05:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:08:21 PM EDT
I don't give a shit what he thinks, because just like me, he is so stubborn that he won't listen to your comments anyway.

Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:08:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 12:11:11 PM EDT by rifleman2000]
I doubt he will read this, but...

Ignorance is bliss, you must be blissful.

As the founding fathers said, a people that fears the government is tyranny, a government that fears the people is freedom. Your ignorance of weapons notwithstanding, you also need to research what the 2nd Amendment is for. It is a check and balance, designed to allow the people a credible threat/defense against crime, foreign invasion, and THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. This is not for revolutionary purposes, it is designed to ensure that the government does not attempt to oppress the people for fear of revolution.

Gun laws do not positively impact crime. Most gun crime is committed by juveniles (<21 years old) with HANDGUNS. By law, the posession of handguns by these individuals is a crime. Criminals do not obey laws, and therefore making a gun illegal is like making murder illegal; it does not stop it, it makes it just makes it illegal. However, areas in this nation that have laws allowing citizens to go armed and defend themselves have less crime, because the criminals are deterred by the thought of being shot.

Last point I have time for. Even if banning so-called "Assault Weapons" would cut crime, the past AWB only banned cosmetic features of weapons, therefore could not have had any impact on crime as there was no shortage of weapons being sold with the exact same characteristics as "Assault Weapons." So any claim by liberals that the AWB helped deter crime, and now their will be an increase in crime is bogus.

Rifleman2000! yeah baby
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:10:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:15:25 PM EDT
You guys worked his ass over!!
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:17:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By whodges13:
You guys worked his ass over!!

He had a blurb a few days ago about it expiring. Several of his friends posted replies. Be ready for them to start posting back soon.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:23:01 PM EDT
Ignorance of the facts seems to have created a vacuum in your discourse which you have filled with inaccuracy and nonsense.

Even a spokeman for the Brady Campaign said that the death of the AWB would have negligable effect.

I am very glad we had the AWB. The pay-off was high:

1. According to Bill Clinton, the AWB cost Dems at least 20 House seats and thus control of the USHOR in '94.

2. The AWB forced pro-constitutional rights organization to become much more sophisticated and skilled in debunking the arguments of the left.

3. The "forbidden fruit" aspect of the AWB resulted in unimagined sales increases after the ban. Ten years after the ban, there are not only more gun-owning, law-abiding citizens, but also more guns in their hands...in particular semi-auto weapons.

4. The AWB, along with the '89 Import Ban and the '92 Amendment to the '89 Ban helped create an indigenous industry for the manufacture of foreign-made semi-auto weapons.

One unforeseen influence was the growth of the web and conservative media. The goofiness of the AWB could not withstand the bright lights of accuracy. Even the anti-gun Center for Disease Control concluded in a study published in 2004 that there was no evidence that any of dozens of gun control laws on the books had reduced crime in any way.

Sorry, kid, but the AWB was a pyhric victory for the Dems and the Left. To put it in other words....you guys won the war, but the peace kicked your ass.

Saint Gabriel
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 12:30:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 12:31:36 PM EDT by LoginName]

Originally Posted By ProfessorEvil:

Originally Posted By whodges13:
You guys worked his ass over!!

He had a blurb a few days ago about it expiring. Several of his friends posted replies. Be ready for them to start posting back soon.


Was that the one where he claimed that when the ban expires "just about anyone can go out and buy a:...

Norinco 86:

Mitchell JM:

All models of Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs, including the AK-47:

Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI:

Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil:

Beretta Ar70 (SC-70):

Colt AR-15:

Fabrique National FN/FAL:

Fabrique National FN/LAR:

Fabrique National FNC:

SWD M-10:

SWD M-11:

SWD M-11/9:

SWD M-12:

Steyr AUG:




and all revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper:

or Striker 12:
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:50:37 PM EDT
That Sam guy is a tool. Even after having the facts thrown in his face he still goes off about automatic weapons. *sigh*

I see a very very long road ahead of me.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:18:24 PM EDT
Done. I saw your post, go over and look at mine. I gave him/it/her whatever it was a big ole belly laugh!
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:37:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 11:38:29 PM EDT by Misery]
What a dolt. Typical liberal and proud, just look at his pages.

I say we hammer this jackass until he's forced to change his address, LOL
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:43:37 PM EDT
Just left a post. Should appear momentarily.

Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:47:35 PM EDT
Cool, saved myself a copy of this:

Don't remember seeing it on DVD's website.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:04:35 AM EDT
His email address is:


Let's all email him!!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 3:24:03 AM EDT
BTT, come on and let this guy have it!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 3:46:34 AM EDT
Ok this guy wrote a second part where he says he is anti-assault weapon and quotes the VPC.

Let him have it again slingshizzle.blogspot.com/2004/09/firepower-part-ii.html#comments
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:21:39 AM EDT
I agree with every thing he said......startng with (a.k.a)......................................
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:23:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 4:25:13 AM EDT by Swordslinger]
I think they have locked me out. What a peckerhead! Oh well, we were his only audience except for that other peckerhead Sam.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:48:30 AM EDT
All I can say, those of you who responded to him

Great Job!

Now I wish he would lighten his background, these old eyes almost went blind when i came back to arfcom with the light background.

Ok question.. this qoute.. does he mean people as in gunstores, or we the people took these off our rifles to make them legal?

After the ban was enacted, people just took off the bayonets, flash suppressors and silencers, making the same guns legal again.

From this link

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:12:59 AM EDT
Read the second amendment, read the context it was written in. The second amendment allows citizens to own ARMS (weapons). Not guns, not swords, but it says ARMS. Because the Founding Fathers new that a free population had to be one that was armed to defend its rights.

Study our government. It is built with plenty of checks and balances within its structure to ensure that no one person or group attain to much power. That is why there is different bodies for executive powers, legislative powers, and judicial powers. Well, an armed population is the fail safe mechanism built into the Constitution. An armed population cannot be oppressed.

As for crime, there is no evidence that banning weapons of any type cuts crime. Most evidence points to the opposite. Just look at England. Crime is a nightmare over there (far worse than ours, in many categories such as breaking and entering), gun crime is up, and English bobbies now need to carry guns. Guess gun control doesn't work.

Spray fire from the hip? I am an Infantryman in the US Army. I have been to Iraq. Nobody in the US military is trained to EVER fire a weapon from the hip. And I am glad your terrorist do fire from the hip, because they sure can't hit anything like that.

Do some research, use hard data. Go to your library and look up FBI crime stats. The information is out there.


Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:36:09 AM EDT

Nice replies on his blog.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 2:17:12 PM EDT
Also check out This guy who has a response written about 3rd cent's post.

Please be nice, harranguing the idiots will only infuriate them. Calm, logical and reasoned posts are the way to go. Boorish, insulting and demeaning posts are more indicative of your lack of understanding as well.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 3:39:10 PM EDT
I just posted this..we'll see what his response is.


I'll skip the simple argument of "recreation". I'll also skip the analogies such as drag racers, "why does anyone need that much horsepower".. etc.

Your question is a valid one and deserves a valid lucid answer.


You asked that we not just quote the Second Amendment. At the core of this debate is the Second Amendment. Many that have posted, including me, believe that the while the Second Amendment grants certain rights, that responsibilities are imparted with those rights.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment

You will note that it says a "well-regulated militia". This is one of the responisbilities that I believe are core to the Second Amendment. While firearms ownership should be protected at all costs simply because it is a God given right to protect oneself, the responsibility to have the skills necessary to employ your weapons in the defense of your self, your family, your country and your freedom is paramount. This clause exists to remind people that freedoms must be protected at all costs. Threats may come from outside the government or inside. It is a catch-all phrase insuring that this nation remain "of the people, for the people and by the people". The Second Amendment protects the right to own assault weapons, and applies the responsibility of using them to combat threats to our freedoms both foreign and domestic.


These weapons are used in nationally recognized sporting events. International Practical Shooters Coalition (IPSC), International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) and numerous local and national organizations promote the sporting aspect of shooting. Not only that, but they also practice skills at arms and tactics which help satisfy the Second Amendment responsibility I mentioned above. When competing in these events, generally they are scored based on time to complete a course or a set of actions. If you ever watch one of these competitions, you will immediatly recognize the immense benefit of having firearms that can fire rapidly, accurately and with as few magazine changes to waste time as possible. Here is a short video clip of a young man competing to illustrate my point.



And quite possibly most importantly, self defense. Military small arms (pistols, shotguns, assault rifles) are designed so that they may be employed by a wide variety of troops. They are specifically made to fit the average sized individual, or with minimal effort, be modified for use by larger or smaller than average individuals. They are made to be maintained relatively easily. They are made to be durable, reliable, cost effective to produce and effective. When not otherwise employed in sporting or hunting roles, military small arms are primarily used to protect something by applying deadly force to neutralize the threat to life, liberty and the LAWFUL pursuit of happiness.

Because military small arms are designed with these considerations, they are extremely effective in a self defense role. Because of their simple operating procedures, I can, with minimal instruction, feel confident that my wife (or other family member) can employ deadly force in self defense. I can be fairly assured that the application of deadly force with military small arms is going to be effective at neutralizing threats to my family. I cannot be so assured with other hunting or sporting specific firearms.


You are correct in saying that assault weapons are "killing machines", just as I am correct in using the same term when refering to automobiles. To say that they serve no purpose in civilian hands is the cry of the uninformed. As law-abiding Second Ammendment proponants, it is our job to protect the rights, priviledges and fulfil the responsibilities I've outlined above. I really hope that at some point you might join that fight considering that it is the application of deadly force by military weaponry that guarantees your right to question thier legitimacy.

I hope this helps.

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:16:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:45:33 AM EDT
Top Top