RE: 2nd amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


joether -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/29/2012 1:08:00 AM)

Could someone answer for me how this....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Ithica used to make a 13 inch long 3 round 12 ga pump, wish I had one. Just saw were the Marines have jut ordered 12,000 1911s they say they want to go back to it.


Answers this question from the Original Post....

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub
So, is there any way to address the insanity that is taking over our culture, while we keep the freedom to protect our selves? Or, do we just have to continue to accept the bad, in order to hold on to the good?


As much as talking the finer aspects of particular guns might be informative and educational; its also entirely off topic. Metaphorically its like thread started talking on whether a state should raise its speed limit but than after a certain number of posts it switches to a completely different direction of discussing rims of a collection of sports cars. While both talk about cars, one of them belongs on the P & R Forum, and the other does not. Talking of a particular firearm allowed in one state but not another, is also not the nature of this specifiic thread. I'm not saying it can not be discussed, but that the nature of that type of discussion should be on another thread. What is the nature of this specific thread? That can be found back on the original post (which I posted above).

Just cus we all had our 'say' on a topic, doesnt give us a liscense to move so far off the topic. If we all had a chance to give our insight, thoughts, and even rants, and nothing more is generated, the thread closes all on its own.

NOTE: I'm not singling out BamaD with this post. I just personally wish to always quote folks so they get the credit for their material. I was unaware that USMC was reconsidering the 1911 back into an active role. However, that information does not really belong in this thread. Another thread could be created to discuss the pros and cons of such a course of action for the USMC.




BamaD -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/29/2012 1:10:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thaz

[sm=threadhijack.gif]

Indeed. I also saw some speculation that both USMC and their Royal Marine equivilants were sneakily edging away from the standard issue longarm altogether. Not officially of course but the new m27 is based on the H&K416... and for my old friends on this side of the pond the booties have recently adopted 'sharpshooter' 7.62 and LSW versions.....the 5.56 standard issue long arm seems to be in the minority in many of the shots I'm seeing of patrol units out in hot and dusty places. The sharpshooter semi-auto is replacing the old bolt action 7.62 along with a new 8.58 bolt action

Again more punch. They will be hard pressed to beat out the Barrett .50




Aswad -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/29/2012 2:20:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

They agree/and suit each other, more than they realize.


Say what now?

IWYW,
— Aswad.




Rule -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/29/2012 3:03:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
His mothers first response was you have the right man. Can you imagine how much evidence of his violent inclinations had to be present for his mother to say that? Someone had to have seen what he was before this. Someone should have gotten him treated and helped. Address the evil not the tool.

No, I cannot imagine such things. I refuse to. You are speculating about characteristics that you know nothing about.




SilverMark -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/29/2012 3:57:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
His mothers first response was you have the right man. Can you imagine how much evidence of his violent inclinations had to be present for his mother to say that? Someone had to have seen what he was before this. Someone should have gotten him treated and helped. Address the evil not the tool.

No, I cannot imagine such things. I refuse to. You are speculating about characteristics that you know nothing about.


The only speculation is on how MUCH is evidenced in the statement, the statement speaks for itself.




BamaD -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/29/2012 12:30:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
His mothers first response was you have the right man. Can you imagine how much evidence of his violent inclinations had to be present for his mother to say that? Someone had to have seen what he was before this. Someone should have gotten him treated and helped. Address the evil not the tool.

No, I cannot imagine such things. I refuse to. You are speculating about characteristics that you know nothing about.

Since you went that far back to find this it is to bad you didn't notice my post were I stated that this was based on a quote from ABC news which later turned out to be what had to be deliberate distortion of the conversation on their part.




BamaD -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/29/2012 12:31:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
His mothers first response was you have the right man. Can you imagine how much evidence of his violent inclinations had to be present for his mother to say that? Someone had to have seen what he was before this. Someone should have gotten him treated and helped. Address the evil not the tool.

No, I cannot imagine such things. I refuse to. You are speculating about characteristics that you know nothing about.


The only speculation is on how MUCH is evidenced in the statement, the statement speaks for itself.

See my response to Rule




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 15 [16]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125