Stoner's views on Firearm rights.

Johnnyorganic said:

Just because you have superior firepower does not automatically mean you will prevail. Tanks are good for distance fighting, but are pretty vulnerable up close. A tank trap can immobilize a tank. A tank can be taken out with a molotov cocktail, properly placed. Plus a tank requires a crew. One man in a tank is pretty worthless in a tactical sense.

The cops run around in tactical body armor now. Police forces have armored personnel carriers and automatic weapons. Citizens have small arms. The disparity exists now. Should not the cops be on the same level as Joe Citizen?

If everyone who could afford to purchase one, chose to own a tank I would not have a problem with it. Tanks in the garages of law abiding citizens are no threat. No more than semi-automatic Assault rifles in the homes of law abiding citizens are no threat. Your war zone analogy fails.

If a nutcase goes on a rampage the law deals with him.

Pay no attention to the hippy. She does not realize Woodstock was forty fucking years ago. She's a friendly troll, but she is annoying.

<Obi Wan voice> Use the ignore feature, Luke.

Click to expand...

I just had to look over this thread to see how we came to discussing the intricacies of armored warfare tactics.

Let's try this. Assuming that this is even remotely plausible, should I be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb? I'm a responsible, law-abiding citizen and pose no threat, I promise.

Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until the day they break the law. Just ask all the crazies who've gone on shooting sprees recently. If they had all had mortars landmines and full auto rifles, those incidents would have been much worse. And the thing about the police having armored cars, kevlar and assault weapons just proves my point...if they are constantly having to upgrade so that they can outgun every crazy person with a deathwish, we will be living baghdad style in no time. You say the law will deal with nutcases, but how can they do that if they have .38 and the nutcases have bazookas. Before long we're gonna need robocop to deal with it all....and I'm only half joking here.

So basically, no. I don't think the cops should be on a level with joe citizen....that sounds like a horrible idea. Besides, you can always be sure that the military has something that's bigger than yours.

abe23 said:

I just had to look over this thread to see how we came to discussing the intricacies of armored warfare tactics.

Let's try this. Assuming that this is even remotely plausible, should I be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb? I'm a responsible, law-abiding citizen and pose no threat, I promise.

Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until the day they break the law. Just ask all the crazies who've gone on shooting sprees recently. If they had all had mortars landmines and full auto rifles, those incidents would have been much worse. And the thing about the police having armored cars, kevlar and assault weapons just proves my point...if they are constantly having to upgrade so that they can outgun every crazy person with a deathwish, we will be living baghdad style in no time. You say the law will deal with nutcases, but how can they do that if they have .38 and the nutcases have bazookas. Before long we're gonna need robocop to deal with it all....and I'm only half joking here.

So basically, no. I don't think the cops should be on a level with joe citizen....that sounds like a horrible idea. Besides, you can always be sure that the military has something that's bigger than yours.

Click to expand...

You said bring it. I brought it.

Atomic weapons. Very expensive proposition. Classified secrets. Many experts. Big lab required. Why would I want one again?

I already proved that what you say about law abiding citizens is not true by mentioning the Cannabis user gun owner = criminal example. There are many situations where citizens are already criminals according to the law when they choose to posses firearms.

It does not bother you that the coppers get armed better all the time meanwhile government restrictions make it harder for private citizens to arm themselves and purchase ammo? The average citizens do not have bazookas and the cops are starting to look like Robocop now.

There are almost as many firearms in the U.S. as there are people.

Why do our streets not look like Bagdad now? Law abiding citizens.

Lib's don't trust themselves. One of the great driving forces in their policies.

Personally, i dont think weapons of mass destruction, such as an h-bomb, should be allowed in private citizens hands. and about people going postal in a tank, it happened less than 10 years ago in San Diego. The cops killed the shit out of that guy, and he was the only guy to die that day.

I think the real question here is not about guns and bullets. The real question is: Does the government have the power, did the people give it the power, to take away something which our constitution allows? The people of the USA have the RIGHT to own weapons for self defense. Now that does not mean someone needs a Barret .50, or a fully auto Ak47, do we agree? I mean, yes you could own one if you so deemed it necessary, but do you really need it?
No one really needs and Ak47. If you feel that you do, you should either move to a new place or see a shrink.

Oh yeah by the way, if you guys read more, you will see that the military industrial complex and the federal reserve are the ones which own our asses these days. War and banking go hand in hand. As a matter of fact, the idea of a central bank was developed by the Brits in order to beat Napoleon Bonaparte. A central bank was the only way the Brits could finance the war. So for all of those gun loving people out there who need to have a shitload of guns : do not complain about the federal reserve and the national defecit, blame guns and war instead.

CSI Stickyicky said:

Personally, i dont think weapons of mass destruction, such as an h-bomb, should be allowed in private citizens hands. and about people going postal in a tank, it happened less than 10 years ago in San Diego. The cops killed the shit out of that guy, and he was the only guy to die that day.

Click to expand...

He tore the place up before he was torn down. Kind of brought a whole new meaning to
going postal.

I would have like to have known more about why he did what he did. Suicide/death by cop whatever one it was... Life changes. Hang on, the worm will turn. But to have no hope is really sad.

I wonder if they went after his insurance for all the damage??

Tank insurance.....

I think i should be able to buy a Barrett .50 for personal defense, but i wouldn't. I'd buy it to shoot at shit for fun! But seriously though, this is a huge country, and some guy in Alaska or the desert in Nevada might actually use a .50 BMG for home defense, but it would be retarded to use it for home defense in Manhattan, or Chicago, or Dallas.
About assault rifles, did you see the video of that kid in Chicago getting killed by a gang of dudes? Assault rifles do have a place for personal defense, but if you own one, be responsible, get a serious gun safe. Don't give your angry at the world teenager access to it without supervision.

CrackerJax said:

Tank insurance.....

Click to expand...

... oh, the primiums!

peace through superior firepower

Make no mistake, the govt. has the superior firepower.

As some people know, one of my jobs is delivering pizza. I was at work tonight when we got an order that really seemed like a robbery. They called on a private number, ordered to a ghetto apartment complex, and asked for the driver to meet them out back. They ordered almost a hundred worth of pizza, and wanted to pay cash. THEN, they called back right as the driver was leaving and asked for a more accurate time estimate, so they could "have a guy waiting outside" (their words)

Uh, yea. About that. We aren't stupid, we knew what was up. So we sent 2 guys, and one of them was packing. The guy at the apartment number that they said the delivery went to said not only did he not order, but dominos was just there too. (the guy was a white guy, the guy who ordered was black)
There was a black guy downstairs with a face mask covering his entire face. After seeing BOTH drivers get out of the car, and the one adjust his belt weight, he apparently decided not to make his move.

Now, the unfortunate part is that this is Illinois. (if you dont work for the government, its a felony to have a loaded gun off of your own property) If the robber made his move, and the driver protected himself, the driver could be in trouble for that. I call bullshit on Illinois!!!

It's a democrat state. They prefer to side with criminals.

Especially Mayor Daley, who has WAY too much influence at the state level. Im pretty confident his no hanggun at all policy will get struck down by the US supreme court next year. And the Illinois Sheriffs Assoc, for the first time ever, announced this year that they support a CCW law. We are on our way to better laws, even though we really are a democrat run state. Most other democrat states have better gun laws than us; there's only 2 states out of 50 that still dont allow concealed carry.

so you work at a pizza place with delivery guys who are strapped?

Absolutely. Delivery guys are targets. We carry cash and come to you, including dark places in ghetto areas, out of sight of witnesses and cameras. I have met many drivers throughout the years who carry on deliveries, and i see no problem with it. Not all do, but many do.

EDIT: http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/03/pizza-delivery-robbery.html

Adding a link. It is against most stores rules for a driver to have any weapon. Drivers get fired a lot of the time when they defend themselves. Here's one example.

It'd be a great cover to sell weed. order a pizza and bring that Z we talked about ...