AK Sponsor
Statements like this beg why the VPC lobbied so strenuously to have the "unban" re-extended. I only want them to grow a pair of cajones & cough up the (obvious) reason: small steps. |
Statements like this absolutely disgust me. This kind of reasoning is totally detrimental to freedom. |
As of the end of the ban, the term "Semi Automatic Assault weapon" no longer exists The term Assault weapon, now only means a machine gun (As it was originally conceived by the germans). |
Yes...... but we need to get fellow enthuseiests to follow suite, with the language. |
I saw this in the local paper this weekend. VPC flip-flops more than Kerry. How many time did they say the ban was working? Now they claim it didn't work because of the loop holes. F-em |
They were called assault weapons long before the ban. Distributers would advertise useing the term assault weapon. It wasn't term coind by anti gun folks. |
|
FUCK ALL THE FUCKING LIBERALS! If the government and fucking liberalls would just leave me alone I wouldn't really care what else happens in the world.  Isn't it ironic how they are called "liberal", yet they are the ones who want to RESTRICT my rights? Must just meen liberal with bogus restrictions?    
|
They're liberal in the sense that they want a society where their views are liberally imposed upon the rest of us. |
We should be calling them "Homeland Defense Weapons" |
|
*sighs*. i think the biggest misconception i know of is that all liberals hate guns. infact, off all my friends, i am perhaps the most liberal and the most avid gun owner. more than a few that listen to rush and those righty talk shows, more than anyone. i understand what they are required for, why they are needed now as much in the future, and the applications of them if it comes to it. the problem is that all we get is extremist in office, for both parties. you get career politicians who don't honestly reflect their states as best they could. course, then again, if states had rights...... nevermind. that being said, both parties want to restrict rights. its just a matter of which rights and how they are to be restricted. homeland security weapons? yes. i think so. i'm going to start calling them that. not only to protect us from "foreign invaders" because, lets be honest, its going to take a lot of errosion of our armed forces and government before that happens, but for when(not if) the government no longer is fit to govern us. the idiotic anti-gun people dont understand a damn thing about why guns are important. they think they are going to increase safety by getting rid of them. australia already learned that isn't true. they think they are going to make us feel safer, that isn't true. i hope that i will never be forced to use a gun for anything other than amusement and as a hobby. but, were that day to come again, i would feel a lot safer with my gun than a sharp pointy stick. but, what do i know. |
+10 !!  After all "dick-taters" love un-armed piss-ants ! It's the UN troops here in the US that have no problems with enforcement of the marshall law. After all how many US troops will fire on US citizens?? From rumers there are a shit load of them already here ready to do just that! |
AK Sponsor