A MARINE'S LETTER TO TRAITOR SEN. D. FEINBEECH

N

NORKALNIMROD

Active Member
Messages
759
I just hope there are millions of us throughout OUR country that feel this way. It's time to take OUR country back!

Joshua Boston, a retired Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, has a message for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) concerning her newest gun banning bill. Corporal Boston says, "No Ma'Am."
Boston posted an open letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN's ireport site on December 27 to let DiFi know that he, at least, would not submit to the government denuding him of his Second Amendment rights.
Boston informed Sen. Feinstein that he will not register his weapons nor does he believe the Senator or anyone else in government has the right to require him to do so. Boston also scoffed at someone proclaiming "the evil of an inanimate object" even as she bestows upon herself the ability to carry a gun in contravention to her own proclamations.
"I am not your subject," Boston insists. "I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America."
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
Mr. Boston's message intrigues and he has even more to say than his open letter reveals. I took the occasion of his open letter to reach out to this brave member of our military. Here is our conversation:
Warner Todd Huston: What drove you to post this reply to Senator Feinstein?
Joshua Boston: I've been seeing this nonsense about gun control in the news since forever. Senator Feinstein regularly touts the effectiveness of the first Assault Weapons Ban while pointing out the "loopholes." So she proposes this new ban legislation. Given the tragedy that happened recently it has considerably more traction with folks, most who rely in some major way on emotions and what they're being told by the media about these "Weapons of Mass Destruction." My Windham Weaponry SRC sits in my home loaded and ready to be used should the need ever arise. It does not make me a criminal.
I'm sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It's hypocritical.
WTH: In your opinion, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?
JB: Looking at the founder's times and what they had just gone through, it was something they put in there for us should we ever find ourselves in their shoes and have to reassert, because of whatever manifestation of tyranny, our inherent right to freedom and liberty.
WTH: Do you support concealed carry laws?
JB: I hold a CHL with the state of Texas. I would prefer there not be a bureaucratic apparatus whose hoops I have to jump through so that I may defend myself should the need ever arise outside of my home. Who are these legislators to tell me that I may not defend myself outside of my home because they don't have my fingerprints on file?
WTH: Do you believe in any sort of gun restrictions?
JB: The only gun restriction I would favor is one in which only VIOLENT felons are prevented from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Other than that, why does the government or the police need them if I am not allowed to have one?
WTH: Some liberals say regular Americans shouldn't be allowed to have guns because they aren't trained. As a trained member of the military yourself, do you think average citizens have the ability to use guns correctly?
JB: Despite the training I received while in the Marines, I am a regular American. I am not exceptional. I am not superior. I am an American just like any other citizen. I've seen "average citizens" use guns extraordinarily efficiently when I go to the range. This is because they are responsible people who seek knowledge when they don't know something. So yes they have the ability, and they should be able to purchase whatever weapons they deem sufficient for their needs.
WTH: Some people fear that government will use the military to forcibly disarm the public if gun banning laws get passed. What is your sense of your fellows in the armed forces. Do you think they'd follow orders to forcibly disarm the public?
JB: In my 8 years of service I could probably count on one hand the number of people that I met who would forcibly disarm the American public. The vast majority of American service members that I know and that I served with recognize that the Constitution is what we pledge to obey.
WTH: Do you feel that there will be any retaliation by the Marines for having posted your reply?
JB: I was honorably discharged on July 31st of this year. I'd certainly hope they wouldn't "retaliate" in any way because I am doing my civic duty and keeping myself informed. I think that would go against our motto: "Honor Courage and Commitment"
WTH: Any other thoughts?
JB: I just hope that our elected representatives do not vote for this heinous attempt to make me and my fellow Americans defenseless against predators and criminals.
We at Breitbart salute Joshua Boston and hope that he is not uncommon among the members of our illustrious armed forces.
Below is the full text of Corporal Boston's original open letter:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Norkal

"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
 
Amen.....


Government doesn't fix anything and has spent trillions proving it!!!
Let's face it...After Monday and Tuesday, even the calender says WTF!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-13 AT 09:15AM (MST)[p]You might feel defenseless without an assult weapon but I won't.


In the polls right now the nation is split right down the middle on bans for assult weapons, Fienstein is not out of line whatsoever to address her side of the issue with a bill that's how it works. if she's the devil you californians think she is then stop electing her for christs sake.


The last word will come from the supreme court , everything else is just a means present them a case to to rule on. crying and demonizing anyone won't prevent that, if not Fienstein then someone else 50% is half of america you understand. our constitution will have the last word and I welcome a ruling so we can put this behind us for good.















Stay thirsty my friends
 
440,
I knew I could count on You! I no longer believe, trust or live by what the government demands. Our government has for the past 60 years been slowly indoctrinating the public, making them more dependent on government, unpatriotic and Godless. Piss on the feds.

Still praying for You and others.

Norkal

"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
 
Norcal,

Why do you only follow the Bible when it doesn't get in your way. Seems pretty clear that the Bible says God puts people in power. You must not agree with God and his choices for leaders.

Romans 13
(NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God?s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God?s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God?s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-13 AT 01:20PM (MST)[p]Nemont,
I am far from perfect. I follow the bible especially when it's hard, to the very best of my ability. How do You know God doesn't want us to make some changes? Happens every day, doesn't it. "The Lord works in mysterious ways". Might be that is God's plan? I know Romans 13, as well as the rest of the NIV. I struggle with my human nature constantly. If we were able to be perfect, God would not have sacrificed His Son for us.
Show me one place in the Bible where God condemns the centurians (warriors).
Some of us are sheep, some wolves and some are sheep dogs with the responsibility of protecting the clueless sheep from the wolves. Which are You?
Norkal


"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
 
I believe NeMont is the guy that just shot your version of the Bible or interpretation of it full of holes.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-13 AT 02:35PM (MST)[p]Husker,
How's that? Are You really that simple?
Also,
Nemont,
Just so You know, I never question, ask why or doubt God.

Norkal

"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
 
Norcal,
I am not perfect either but I don't throw out something about pissing on the Federal Government because you believe it is wrong, profess that I follow the Bible but clearly the Bible says that you are wrong for that attitude.

What does Romans 13 mean?

Nemont
 
Nimrod, I may be simple but not so much that " Piss on the Feds" (Nimrod) doesn't make me question a guy that claims to know and follow the Bible. I make no such claims. I'm not so simple to understand you got schooled, simple.

Quit praying for me or pray harder I never seem to draw a decent tag.
 
A simple question since we're on the subject. did god kill those kids because he wanted black rifle sales to rise ? or were the deaths gods way of saying we need more restrictive gun laws?

It was gods will everything is for a purpose I'm told, so someone needs to figure out what he was saying because I don't get it.



















Stay thirsty my friends
 
Good question 440, I don't have the answer and I don't ask why. Nemont, I openly admit to be far from perfect, I pray for forgiveness numerous times daily. And yes, my attitude towards our feds is piss on them.

Norkal

"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-13 AT 07:32AM (MST)[p]Roman's 13 was a quote often used by Hitler. Some have trouble differentiating between Man's laws and Gods laws. Choosing right over wrong. Be obediant and civil. It'll all be taken care of.

"""""It was gods will everything is for a purpose I'm told, so someone needs to figure out what he was saying because I don't get it.""""""

Do you ever wonder, if Gods main concern was your physical body, why he didn't make you physically immortal? Not age, not feel any pain? But gave you a way out.

Maybe he is trying to tell the people that we are getting too far out of whack, too many Atheist's, too many abortions, too much Pornography, too many hypocritical preachers, etc, etc, etc, Well just read Romans 13. Maybe we just ain't listening.

Religon and Righteousness are 2 different things...Completely.
 
Your rationalization is as good as I've heard but as illogical as hell.

God would send one of his children into a school to murder 26 people then kill himself to let us know we abort too many kids drink to much, watch too much porn and don't worship him enough?

My obvious question is why would anyone worship a god like that? I would be switching religions you couldn't possibly do any worse.



















Stay thirsty my friends
 
Haha, I don't believe I said he sent that person in there.

What are the options as far as gods go? Didn't realize there was a selection.

Religions..Would it matter if he was a Lutheran, or a Mormom, or an Atheist. He was a deranged madman. Religions are man made. Each and everyone of them have their share of whacko's. You can have religion out the butt and not have anything to do with Salvation.

Maybe our society has allowed all of these behaviours, the porn, the drugs, the abortions,etc, to escalate to the point where this is what we have now. Reap what you sow, right. Maybe God is saying "told you so".
 
The world has 20 major religions, who knows how many others. flip a coin or go without.



You say god may be trying to tell us lots of things, wouldn't the most obvious observation be don't give everyone a high capacity military style semi auto? I realize god works in mysterious ways but maybe sometimes he's in your face saying " like duh ".

If I were a superstitious type I wouldn't overlook the obvious and fixate on abortion doctors, Jim Beam and Larry Flint after something like this goes down.













Stay thirsty my friends
 
Hmmm, somehow, I highly doubt he has any more issue with a high capacity military style semi auto, than he does with a 9-shot capacity semi auto, or a revolver, or a pump action.
I might be wrong, but I highly doubt the parents of the kids that were killed are pissed because some whack shot them with a hi-cap mag and didn't use a standard cap mag.
In fact, if I believed selective outrage on a particular type of magazine or action was the answer to the issue, and continually overlooked the obvious....I might be a simple-minded type.
 
If hi cap mags and autos aren't more efficient why doesn't the miltary go back to the Springfield? a bolt action and stripper clips would have killed as many kids as an ar-15 and a backpack full of 30 rounders and drums? I highly question it.


The point is how can you jump right past the gun control debate this has sparked and latch onto porn and abortion? it it was beer and low cut swim suits he was really getting at. com'on I know you're smarter than that listen to yourself.

The only logical conclusion anyone could draw from this if you want to call any decision concerning religion logical, is that god said enough killing of my kids with military style weapons loaded with 100 round drums already.










Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-13 AT 08:26PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-13 AT 08:20?PM (MST)

I completely agree with your 1st paragraph. But, by using that as an argument, you are relenting that a given number of deaths is acceptable. Let's say all the AR's and All the hi-cap mags are gone, TODAY, POOF.
So...2 months from now, some whackjob walks into some school, armed with 2- S&W model 29's, kills 6. Are you going to say, "Well 6 is ok cause he didn't do it with an AR or a Hi-cap mag"? I bet you won't tell those parents "I am sorry, but look at the bright side, atleast he didn't use an AR". So what is that acceptable number going to be? And after all, the SCOTUS has ruled twice, handguns are constitutional.

Some more numbers for you.

70 mass shootings have occurred in the U.S. since 1982, leaving 543 dead.
564,452 other homicides took place in the U.S. during the same period.
Mass shootings scarcely represent 0.1 percent of all murders.

According to the FBI?s Uniform Crime Report, 47% of all murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns.
3% are committed with rifles (of any type).
6% use nothing but their bare hands.
13% use knives.
An estimated 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly.

The point is, your not dumb, and the only reason you would say this "god said enough killing of my kids with military style weapons loaded with 100 round drums already," is for sake of arguing and stirring the pot.

As far as your other paragraph, you say your a cattleman right? Are you going to be more concerned about, 20 calves that were shot randomly out in a pasture, than you would be about 3,700 of them that were aborted by mama cows the same day? They are all important to you, aren't they? Well, maybe, just maybe, were all important to him.

Humankinds biggest issue is worshiping the created and not the creator.
 
Nork,

Didn't read your drivel passed the first sentence. If millions felt whatever way then I'm assuming Barry wouldn't have been reelected. What do you think? We JUST had the elections for God's sake.
 
+1

Very well said JustMuleys!


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
JustMuleys 1, 440 and Zig 0.

Now that was a schoolin, nice post JustMuleys.You used Facts, and Logic.
THANKS, I am going to quote it.
 
I'm just trying to stir the pot? maybe so but your claims are so crazy is it stiring or pointing out the obvious? how you slide right past assult weapons to porn and Yukon Jack as the reason those kids are dead is amazing. if god struck down porn actors and abortion doctors with lightning would that be how we knew we needed an assult weapons ban? according to your logic yes.


What does abortion have to do with kids being killed by guns? if that's how it works why have seatbelts for kids as long as abortion is legal?

Abortion is a womans right upheld by the constitution. you're going to find out if Rambo guns share the same protection. if they are so be it, if they're not so be it.




















Stay thirsty my friends
 
>If hi cap mags and autos
>aren't more efficient why doesn't
>the miltary go back to
>the Springfield? a bolt
>action and stripper clips would
>have killed as many kids
>as an ar-15 and a
>backpack full of 30 rounders
>and drums? I highly
>question it.


That is some interesting logic. Could you please explain your rationale for asking that question? I did two tours on the ground and never found that autos were more efficient; they were less so. Large magazines? Well, I never cared much for them either.
 
The logic is simple and can't be argued with. if a bolt action, lever action, single shot or pump was a better military weapon that's what would be issued.



What's next the P-40 was a better warbird than the F-16 ?
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
>The logic is simple and can't
>be argued with. if
>a bolt action, lever action,
>single shot or pump was
>a better military weapon that's
>what would be issued.
>
>
>
>What's next the P-40 was a
>better warbird than the F-16
>?


Can't be argued with? You must be joking...your logic just isn't there; so maybe you are right.

Full auto weapons just aren't that efficient, except when used as cover fire, which is what they are used for.
 
So troops now carry a model 700 to fight with and an M16 for cover fire? I did not know that.


Regaurdless of the new military return to bolt rifles the assult weapon seems to work great for mass killings. so I don't expect the bolt action to replace it as the choice for todays batchits do you?
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
>So troops now carry a model
>700 to fight with and
>an M16 for cover fire?
>I did not know that.
>
>
>
>Regaurdless of the new military return
>to bolt rifles the assult
>weapon seems to work great
>for mass killings. so I
>don't expect the bolt action
>to replace it as the
>choice for todays batchits do
>you?


Still can't seem to defend your *ahem* logic.

And, no, I did not mention the M700 v. M16 (hasn't been used for a few years, BTW). Why do you insist in going off topic? I asked you to defend your reasoning, not try to deflect.

What, in your personal experience, leads you to believe that "high cap mags and autos" are more efficient (with respect to military use)?
 
That is simple, because the armed forces of every nation uses them.

Why don't you school the military as to the error of their ways and stop asking me dumb questions?

















Stay thirsty my friends
 
Old school military logic was to wound the other soldier(s) not kill. This takes more of the enemy troops out of battle. Two healthy soldiers helping each wounded soldier.

Soldiers were taught to pull the trigger. Not aim and shoot. This is why every nation uses them.

If you are so tired of answering dumb questions, get off this web site. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to respond to EVERY post in the political forum. You spend too much time on here letting the rest of us know how smart you THINK you are.

Jeers! Stay stupid my friend.
 
Old school military logic was the value of wounding your enemies soldiers. Taking two healthy soldiers out to help their comrade.

Soldiers were taught to point and shoot, NOT aim and shoot. This is why almost every other nation uses assault weapons.

Now as to you complaining about having to answer "dumb" questions. The amount of time you must spend on here trying to get your ass backward point across is dumb. No one has a gun to your head requiring you to respond to every post in the Sportsman's Political Forum.

Jeers! Stay stupid my friend.
 
Clowns like you amuse me more than most of what's on tv, so I'll stay. we have to hurry though Jeff Ross is about to come on and he's funnier than you.

You didn't answer the question, if military weapons are inferior to sporting arms for killing people why do all armed services use them? don't give me any crap about wounding the enemy, what do the SEALs use ? I don't think they go in on special ops with wounding in mind do you? no Ruger No 1's in their tool box. this argument is stupid but I'd like to see where you can take it.













Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-13 AT 08:46PM (MST)[p]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Clowns like you amuse me more
>than most of what's on
>tv, so I'll stay. we
>have to hurry though Jeff
>Ross is about to come
>on and he's funnier than
>you.
>
>You didn't answer the question, if
>military weapons are inferior to
>sporting arms for killing people
>why do all armed services
>use them? don't give
>me any crap about wounding
>the enemy, what do the
>SEALs use ? I don't
>think they go in on
>special ops with wounding in
>mind do you? no Ruger
>No 1's in their tool
>box. this argument is stupid
>but I'd like to see
>where you can take it.
>
You ignored the answer. Full auto is typically used as suppressive fire. It is horribly innacurate and not efficient at all except....it is normally used to keep the bad guys head down. Three round bursts are much more accurate. ANd, oh yea, it does happen to kill some bad guys too. "don't give me crap about wounding the enemy" well, so sorry for you and your opinion, but he is correct and in most cases that is typical grunt doctrine.

Spec Ops...sometimes that wounding doctrine is followed.

Ruger #1s..not sure why you added this, but it has an obvious answer.

Inpost 29 you said this: Why don't you school the military as to the error of their ways and stop asking me dumb questions?

Kind of interesting since I taught at the Naval War College for two years.

BTW, when I asked you how you gathered your personal experience, you related a story about 'armies of the world'. That really isn't much of an answwer.

What do the SEALs use? Be more specific with when the arms are in use and you can get an answer.
 
LMAO 440. I asked the same question about why the military uses inferior weapons and never did get a response. Funny sht. Now we get more amusing comments as if we were in the land of make believe........oh wait, we are.
 
>LMAO 440. I asked the
>same question about why the
>military uses inferior weapons and
>never did get a response.
> Funny sht. Now
>we get more amusing comments
>as if we were in
>the land of make believe........oh
>wait, we are.


=

you can't come up with a serious response. That's ok, I understand.
 
I think what we're being told is full auto is much less efficient than semi auto. I would guess that's true, so should we only sell an unlimited number of full auto weapons to mothers with batchit kids?

Ok lets forget what seals use, what do the grunts use? lever actions?














Stay thirsty my friends
 
>I think what we're being told
>is full auto is much
>less efficient than semi auto.
>I would guess that's true,
>so should we only sell
>an unlimited number of full
>auto weapons to mothers with
>batchit kids?
>
>Ok lets forget what seals use,
>what do the grunts use?
>lever actions?
>
>
>
Ok, now, maybe you and I can have a semi serious discussion without the BS. Except for the part where you toss in lever actions. Why do you do this? I suspect you are an intelligent guy; I've read some of your posts on reloading stuff...I just can't understand why you feel the need to offer up a half assed post like this.

FA is less effecient that semi, or even 3 shot bursts, when considering efficiency of rounds fired. It, FA, is far better at suppressive fire. It kinda depends on what you consider efficient.

And, please it is SEALS, not seals. No need to be disrepectful.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-13 AT 10:13PM (MST)[p]My whole point from the go has been semi auto military style weapons with hi cap mags are more efficient human killers than bolt, lever , slide or single shot actions. for some reason which I cannot fathom this has been challenged. if you can prove otherwise please do so now or lets move on.


Since you don't hang out here much I'll explain my position to you. I am an avid hunter, gun enthusiast and a halfazz conservationist. I have no need for assult weapons, no desire to own or shoot one . I do not for one second fear an assult or hi cap mag ban will effect my gun rights in any way, there is no evidence in the law or pubic opinion ( as in votes )whatsoever to support it. so all the fear hype is lost on me.

I am not a ban supporter, or am I in fear of one. but I do understand the logic behind the idea that less rambo guns means less chance of some freak like that kid or the batman shooter laying his hands on one. so in our above argument I feel we established an assult weapon with a 100 round drum is a better mass shooting tool than my pre-64 model 70 did we not? that's it in a nutshell.

So as you can take from what I said and gather from the attacks I've enjoyed for saying it I feel little alliance with the black rifle crowd. while you may not agree with me I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-13
>AT 10:13?PM (MST)
>
>My whole point from the go
>has been semi auto military
>style weapons with hi cap
>mags are more efficient human
>killers than bolt, lever ,
>slide or single shot actions.
>for some reason which I
>cannot fathom this has been
>challenged. if you can
>prove otherwise please do so
>now or lets move on.
>
>
>
>Since you don't hang out here
>much I'll explain my position
>to you. I am an
>avid hunter, gun enthusiast and
>a halfazz conservationist. I have
>no need for assult weapons,
>no desire to own or
>shoot one . I do
>not for one second fear
>an assult or hi cap
>mag ban will effect my
>gun rights in any way,
>there is no evidence in
>the law or pubic opinion
>( as in votes )whatsoever
>to support it. so all
>the fear hype is lost
>on me.
>
> I am not a ban
>supporter, or am I in
>fear of one. but I
>do understand the logic behind
>the idea that less rambo
>guns means less chance of
>some freak like that kid
>or the batman shooter laying
>his hands on one. so
>in our above argument I
>feel we established an assult
>weapon with a 100 round
>drum is a better mass
>shooting tool than my pre-64
>model 70 did we not?
>that's it in a nutshell.
>
>
>So as you can take from
>what I said and gather
>from the attacks I've enjoyed
>for saying it I feel
>little alliance with the black
>rifle crowd. while you may
>not agree with me I
>hope you can see where
>I'm coming from.
>


Ok, I understand where you are coming from. Thanks..I just wish you had done it without all the smart ass comments as it takes a lot away from any discussion.

And I undestand, now, what you said about semi autos being more efficient killing machines; I suppose they can be, depending on how accurate the shooter is, closeness of target, etc., type of caliber for the bolt/lever gun. As an active shooter I'm sure you understand that the same principle of killing which applies to elk, deer, etc. would apply to humans, undestandably not the intent of those rational folks who own levers, bolts, or black rifles.

With respect to why you cannot undestad why this (your view) is challenged...well, the answer is simple in that everyone has a valid opinion.
 
My opinion on gun control is open to argument I make no claims to the contrary, my statement that assult rifles with hi cap mags are better suited to shooting up a school than conventional hunting rifles is not. the assult weapon is the choice of todays batchit mass shooter for good reason, it just works.



The statement the 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting is true, it's also true that it doesn't gaurantee any weapon we desire. that fact is already proven.
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-13
>AT 10:13?PM (MST)
>
>My whole point from the go
>has been semi auto military
>style weapons with hi cap
>mags are more efficient human
>killers than bolt, lever ,
>slide or single shot actions.
>for some reason which I
>cannot fathom this has been
>challenged. if you can
>prove otherwise please do so
>now or lets move on.
>
>
>
>Since you don't hang out here
>much I'll explain my position
>to you. I am an
>avid hunter, gun enthusiast and
>a halfazz conservationist. I have
>no need for assult weapons,
>no desire to own or
>shoot one . I do
>not for one second fear
>an assult or hi cap
>mag ban will effect my
>gun rights in any way,
>there is no evidence in
>the law or pubic opinion
>( as in votes )whatsoever
>to support it. so all
>the fear hype is lost
>on me.
>
> I am not a ban
>supporter, or am I in
>fear of one. but I
>do understand the logic behind
>the idea that less rambo
>guns means less chance of
>some freak like that kid
>or the batman shooter laying
>his hands on one. so
>in our above argument I
>feel we established an assult
>weapon with a 100 round
>drum is a better mass
>shooting tool than my pre-64
>model 70 did we not?
>that's it in a nutshell.
>
>.....

Now this is interesting about 250K rounds per kill.http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/

Snipers using M24s in Vietnam averaged about 1.3 rounds per kill.
Best anecdotal info I can find is that there were 50K rounds per kill expended in Vietnam.
 
I don't doubt it, but most freaked out kids who take their moms gun aren't highly trained. the more lead in the air the better the chance of someone getting hit.
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
I don't think the Sandy Hook shooter being highly trained is valid. More like he was highly intelligent as are most with Aspbergers syndome. Extremely socially awkward but yet extremely intelligent can make up for what some perceive as a disability.
 
>Your rationalization is as good as
>I've heard but as illogical
>as hell.
>
>God would send one of his
>children into a school to
>murder 26 people then kill
>himself to let us know
>we abort too many kids
>drink to much, watch too
>much porn and don't
>worship him?

No, God would not intentionally send one of his children into a school to kill a bunch of kids, but maybe, just maybe the kid didn't have religion in his life. Maybe he came from a broken home where he was allowed to do as he pleased with little to no repercussions. Maybe because of his circumstances he didn't know any better. Or maybe, he just felt like doing it all on his own.

Your forgetting about one key piece here and that is the idea of free will. God doesn't make anyone do right or wrong, he allows us to choose for ourselves. Not everyone makes the right choices including myself. I make mistakes constantly but I think I am pretty well grounded due to my religious beliefs.

Our own country, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all based on the idea that our rights are God given and not given to us by man or Government, but yet we continue to try and remove him from anything we do.

I think it's a mistake and I do believe the consequences of that are being realized!

More wars, more poverty, more drugs, more porn, more killings, more evil, more, more, more...



"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
Our rights were given by the founding fathers not a fictional entity.

The first 4 commandments deal with making sure you know who the real god is and fear him. if god had a hand in our bill of rights don't you think it would be logical he would have inserted something about himself other than you don't have to care about him if you don't want to? we're not even a christian nation but god gave us our rights? not likely.


What value does a god have that can only make suggestions? that kid walked into the school and killed 26 people but god suggested he not do it? I guess cops are more powerful than god because they tell you not to do it and they'll shoot you if you do. god just holds a grudge until you accept he's a great dude then all is forgiven. nonsense.


I don't know what the answer is to this kind of crap, but I'm positive it's not superstition. look no farther than the middle east if you want to see what religion does for society.


















Stay thirsty my friends
 
"Our rights were given by the founding fathers not a fictional entity."

Founding Fathers who believed our rights were God given.

"The first 4 commandments deal with making sure you know who the real god is and fear him. if god had a hand in our bill of rights don't you think it would be logical he would have inserted something about himself other than you don't have to care about him if you don't want to? we're not even a christian nation but god gave us our rights? not likely."

I disagree


"What value does a god have that can only make suggestions? that kid walked into the school and killed 26 people but god suggested he not do it? I guess cops are more powerful than god because they tell you not to do it and they'll shoot you if you do. god just holds a grudge until you accept he's a great dude then all is forgiven. nonsense."

God allows us to make our own decisions. What kind of God would he be if he made us do everything he wanted us to do? What would the purpose of life be then? I believe we are here to learn, mature and grow as individuals and if I didn't have my freedom of choice then I would not progress.


"I don't know what the answer is to this kind of crap, but I'm positive it's not superstition. look no farther than the middle east if you want to see what religion does for society."

I think the answer is to keep God in our society and not think of him as a superstition, but that is my opinion and you are definitely entitled to yours. And by the way, any religion that would have you go and kill others in the name of God is not a true religion in my opinion and is against what God would have any of us choose to do.

I think the evidence is pretty clear with the way the world in general is going to hell. Just my $0.02



"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
Many of the founding fathers were diests. they went to great lengths to make sure the church had no role or power in the government. we are not a christian nation, we do agree on that don't we?

The world is a mess no doubt, but it really always has been. during the dark ages when your religion ruled one could argue it was far worse. maybe that's why the founding fathers made sure religion was toothless.














Stay thirsty my friends
 
If that were the case why do we have "In God We Trust" on our currency? Why does the pledge of allegiance say "One Nation, under God"?

I agree that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to allow us to choose how we practice religion, or if we even practice religion at all, but you can't argue with the fact that they believed in a God and believed that our rights were divine rights from God.

I see your point and it's a logical argument but I disagree.

I have had too many experiences in my life that make me believe there is a God and he loves me and you. I can't just simply write those expereinces off to chance or coincidence.

I respect your point of view and agree to disagree :)


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
Actually the pledge of allegiance was written in 1892.

The Treaty of Tripoli article 11 clearly states we are not in any way a christian nation. so the founding fathers may have believed in a god, but as diests it could be any god they wanted it to be. therefore I contend the word god was in general and their obvious care taken not to include any religion in the constitution is proof of it.

You respect my opinion and since you're not forcing your opinion on me I respect yours and I'll leave it at that. it's obvious your intent is honorable and fair and nobody can ridicule that.














Stay thirsty my friends
 
"My opinion on gun control is open to argument I make no claims to the contrary, my statement that assult rifles with hi cap mags are better suited to shooting up a school than conventional hunting rifles is not. the assult weapon is the choice of todays batchit mass shooter for good reason, it just works."

If someone goes into a crowded movie theater with two shotgun cut down to the legal length, with extended mags(8 round per gun), no extra ammo, loaded with 00 buck(9, 33mm pellets per round, in less than 20 seconds he could put 144 pellets into the crowd. If he used 3 1/2 mags you could double that.

If the kid in the most recent shooting would have not been talked down he could have made a mess with a shotgun.

If they carried in a Norinco SAS-12, 18" barrel, detachable magazine 12 gauge with a couple extra mags who knows how much damage he could have done.

It's not the gun its the person, if they are motivate enough they will find a way.
 
Maybe, but the fact is they're using assault weapons and they're far more common and easier to get than other tools. they also give that Rambo look and feel you just can't get with any old gun. but I don't need to tell most of you that why else would you want them.


Lets see what the next mass killer uses .














Stay thirsty my friends
 
13636 murders in the US only 348 using assault rifles, maybe the should ban hands and feet which 801 people were killed with.

Your argument sucks.
 
AR's are easier to get than a pump shotgun? The point I was trying to make with my hypothetical situation is if all the AR's go away and they start using shotguns the carnage will be worse.
 

Similar threads

H
New to Unit 21
Replies
6
Views
521
ixsolracxi
ixsolracxi
tmbr_hntr
Have to use 14 deer points this year
Replies
26
Views
2k
SS!
SS!
TerynItUp
Caliber Thoughts
Replies
33
Views
997
tayhot
tayhot

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

8F2C0601-111C-445F-ABCC-C13EF663FE05.jpeg
P1200749.JPG
DSCN3100.JPG
F8276B80-2034-4209-B817-0EEE0F8FCA11.jpg
Screenshot_20210730-224959_Gallery.jpg
IMG_2158 (3).JPG
IMG_2354.jpg
IMG_20230920_155832.jpg
B531AAF6-2768-4459-AB70-542F34ADF63D.jpeg
IMAG0323.jpeg
Screenshot_20231104_201816_Gallery.jpg
Screenshot_20230115-092008_Facebook.jpg
Back
Top Bottom