Trozei's '69 F100 Build Thread
#451
01-29-2015, 05:34 PM
True...but it does allow for more freedom. Since it is as the name implies, the United States, we are allowed to do our own thing (within reason) rather than be stuck with only one way to live. I can see your point in both a positive way (like you pointed out) or in a negative way, such as a gov't being able to rule every aspect of my life.
I think we just get used to the place that we grow up.
I think we just get used to the place that we grow up.
#452
01-29-2015, 05:56 PM
Hotshot
"Assault rifles." Is this a license for fully-automatic weapons?
Reason I ask is because the media, and evidently the (U.S.) government as well, are confused as to what the real definition of an "assault rifle/weapon" is.
The mere presence of a black composite stock on a fire arm, with a (gasp) scary black hand grip on it, and the 'look' of a military weapon doesn't make a fire arm an "assault" weapon. The type of stock or physical appearance of a fire arm doesn't define what the weapon is.
The actual (mechanical) ACTION of the weapon determines what it is. There are fully-automatic weapons and there are semi-automatic weapons. A fully-automatic weapon is one that you pull back on the trigger once and bullets will keep coming out of the barrel until you lift your finger off the trigger --or, until the magazine runs out of bullets (notice I didn't say "clip". A clip and a magazine are not the same thing).
A semi-automatic weapon will only send one round, at a time, down range with every pull of the trigger. You can hold the trigger down, after the round has been fired from a semi-automatic but, the fire arm will not keep spitting out bullets. Semi-automatics, no matter what their physical design appearance, or what kind of stock it may have, isn't an assault weapon.
Being patterned after one is not the same thing as actually being one.
Reason I ask is because the media, and evidently the (U.S.) government as well, are confused as to what the real definition of an "assault rifle/weapon" is.
The mere presence of a black composite stock on a fire arm, with a (gasp) scary black hand grip on it, and the 'look' of a military weapon doesn't make a fire arm an "assault" weapon. The type of stock or physical appearance of a fire arm doesn't define what the weapon is.
The actual (mechanical) ACTION of the weapon determines what it is. There are fully-automatic weapons and there are semi-automatic weapons. A fully-automatic weapon is one that you pull back on the trigger once and bullets will keep coming out of the barrel until you lift your finger off the trigger --or, until the magazine runs out of bullets (notice I didn't say "clip". A clip and a magazine are not the same thing).
A semi-automatic weapon will only send one round, at a time, down range with every pull of the trigger. You can hold the trigger down, after the round has been fired from a semi-automatic but, the fire arm will not keep spitting out bullets. Semi-automatics, no matter what their physical design appearance, or what kind of stock it may have, isn't an assault weapon.
Being patterned after one is not the same thing as actually being one.
#453
01-29-2015, 06:34 PM
"Assault rifles." Is this a license for fully-automatic weapons?
Reason I ask is because the media, and evidently the (U.S.) government as well, are confused as to what the real definition of an "assault rifle/weapon" is.
The mere presence of a black composite stock on a fire arm, with a (gasp) scary black hand grip on it, and the 'look' of a military weapon doesn't make a fire arm an "assault" weapon. The type of stock or physical appearance of a fire arm doesn't define what the weapon is.
The actual (mechanical) ACTION of the weapon determines what it is. There are fully-automatic weapons and there are semi-automatic weapons. A fully-automatic weapon is one that you pull back on the trigger once and bullets will keep coming out of the barrel until you lift your finger off the trigger --or, until the magazine runs out of bullets (notice I didn't say "clip". A clip and a magazine are not the same thing).
A semi-automatic weapon will only send one round, at a time, down range with every pull of the trigger. You can hold the trigger down, after the round has been fired from a semi-automatic but, the fire arm will not keep spitting out bullets. Semi-automatics, no matter what their physical design appearance, or what kind of stock it may have, isn't an assault weapon.
Being patterned after one is not the same thing as actually being one.
Reason I ask is because the media, and evidently the (U.S.) government as well, are confused as to what the real definition of an "assault rifle/weapon" is.
The mere presence of a black composite stock on a fire arm, with a (gasp) scary black hand grip on it, and the 'look' of a military weapon doesn't make a fire arm an "assault" weapon. The type of stock or physical appearance of a fire arm doesn't define what the weapon is.
The actual (mechanical) ACTION of the weapon determines what it is. There are fully-automatic weapons and there are semi-automatic weapons. A fully-automatic weapon is one that you pull back on the trigger once and bullets will keep coming out of the barrel until you lift your finger off the trigger --or, until the magazine runs out of bullets (notice I didn't say "clip". A clip and a magazine are not the same thing).
A semi-automatic weapon will only send one round, at a time, down range with every pull of the trigger. You can hold the trigger down, after the round has been fired from a semi-automatic but, the fire arm will not keep spitting out bullets. Semi-automatics, no matter what their physical design appearance, or what kind of stock it may have, isn't an assault weapon.
Being patterned after one is not the same thing as actually being one.
#454
01-29-2015, 06:38 PM
Lead Driver
According to the FBI's own statistics (a government agency mind you), the #1 weapon of choice, for assualt/homicide in the U.S., isn't a hand gun. It's a baseball bat. The #2 weapon of choice isn't a hand gun. It's a knife. The hand gun finally comes in at #3 as the weapon of choice for assault/homicide.
It seems blatantly clear that the focus of controlling the crime needs to be to outlaw bats and knives instead, since they are weapons #1 and #2 of the list.
Guns are inanimate objects. They don't have a brain or a conscience. They don't have a will of their own to do good nor do they have a will to do wrong. They only do what the person holding it makes it do.
If guns kill, it's just as equally sensible and rational to say that pencils make mistakes.
An armed society is a society of 'citizens'. An unarmed society is merely one that's filled with 'subjects'.
#455
01-30-2015, 09:03 AM
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Saint Ann
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The media and the government present this false narrative that gun ownership is dangerous to the public at large. There are millions of guns in circulation owned by law-abiding citizens yet, the only crimes being committed are those by criminals. If their reasoning was true, there would be hundreds of thousands of more deaths yearly, simply because so many citizens own guns.
According to the FBI's own statistics (a government agency mind you), the #1 weapon of choice, for assualt/homicide in the U.S., isn't a hand gun. It's a baseball bat. The #2 weapon of choice isn't a hand gun. It's a knife. The hand gun finally comes in at #3 as the weapon of choice for assault/homicide.
It seems blatantly clear that the focus of controlling the crime needs to be to outlaw bats and knives instead, since they are weapons #1 and #2 of the list.
Guns are inanimate objects. They don't have a brain or a conscience. They don't have a will of their own to do good nor do they have a will to do wrong. They only do what the person holding it makes it do.
If guns kill, it's just as equally sensible and rational to say that pencils make mistakes.
An armed society is a society of 'citizens'. An unarmed society is merely one that's filled with 'subjects'.
#456
01-30-2015, 10:14 AM
Cargo Master
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Ribera, Baja, Mexico
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 43 Likes
on
25 Posts
3X on all this Ultra. You are making way too much sense for most governments to agree with. Control of population, is the restrictive thinking of most governments, and taxation to support enforcement of that control. The trend in governments, in the entire world right now, is exactly the government behavior, the founding fathers of the US, were trying to prevent.
No explanation is necessary for those who understand,
No explanation is possible for those who don't
Baja
No explanation is necessary for those who understand,
No explanation is possible for those who don't
Baja
#457
01-30-2015, 12:03 PM
Lead Driver
3X on all this Ultra. You are making way too much sense for most governments to agree with. Control of population, is the restrictive thinking of most governments, and taxation to support enforcement of that control. The trend in governments, in the entire world right now, is exactly the government behavior, the founding fathers of the US, were trying to prevent.
No explanation is necessary for those who understand,
No explanation is possible for those who don't
Baja
No explanation is necessary for those who understand,
No explanation is possible for those who don't
Baja
The main drive behind gun control is for the governments own protection from the citizens. This is the true basis behind all gun control. They don't want another 1776 to happen, to oust them from power.
My definition of gun control is different from the government's definition. Gun control for me means hitting the intended target.
Registration of citizen's fire arms is just the first step of government confiscation. Just ask the German citizens what happened to them in the 1930s.
#458
01-30-2015, 12:07 PM
Hotshot
The media and the government present this false narrative that gun ownership is dangerous to the public at large. There are millions of guns in circulation owned by law-abiding citizens yet, the only crimes being committed are those by criminals. If their reasoning was true, there would be hundreds of thousands of more deaths yearly, simply because so many citizens own guns.
According to the FBI's own statistics (a government agency mind you), the #1 weapon of choice, for assualt/homicide in the U.S., isn't a hand gun. It's a baseball bat. The #2 weapon of choice isn't a hand gun. It's a knife. The hand gun finally comes in at #3 as the weapon of choice for assault/homicide.
It seems blatantly clear that the focus of controlling the crime needs to be to outlaw bats and knives instead, since they are weapons #1 and #2 of the list.
Guns are inanimate objects. They don't have a brain or a conscience. They don't have a will of their own to do good nor do they have a will to do wrong. They only do what the person holding it makes it do.
If guns kill, it's just as equally sensible and rational to say that pencils make mistakes.
An armed society is a society of 'citizens'. An unarmed society is merely one that's filled with 'subjects'.
According to the FBI's own statistics (a government agency mind you), the #1 weapon of choice, for assualt/homicide in the U.S., isn't a hand gun. It's a baseball bat. The #2 weapon of choice isn't a hand gun. It's a knife. The hand gun finally comes in at #3 as the weapon of choice for assault/homicide.
It seems blatantly clear that the focus of controlling the crime needs to be to outlaw bats and knives instead, since they are weapons #1 and #2 of the list.
Guns are inanimate objects. They don't have a brain or a conscience. They don't have a will of their own to do good nor do they have a will to do wrong. They only do what the person holding it makes it do.
If guns kill, it's just as equally sensible and rational to say that pencils make mistakes.
An armed society is a society of 'citizens'. An unarmed society is merely one that's filled with 'subjects'.
An unarmed society is EXACTLY what they are after. They are playing chess with our Freedoms. This Bullticky of scary looking "assault" weapons are dangerous to society is only they're chess move. They get the brain washed members of society to help take away society's freedoms. Including via the vote.
#459
01-30-2015, 12:09 PM
Hotshot
#460
01-30-2015, 04:51 PM
Lead Driver
A Tale of Two Cities
In 1981, Morton Grove, IL, a suburb of Chicago, banned ownership of hand guns by the citizens, due to rising 'violent crime' rates. --violent crimes is media/government speak for, a gun was used to kill someone --as if getting stabbed or clubbed to death, etc., would be a nicer way to go and that, compared to dying by stabbing or bludgeoning, somehow makes a person less dead than if they were shot to death by a fire arm.
Getting the hand guns outlawed will naturally reduce the crime, right? --less people with hand guns naturally equals less violent crime because the guns are taken out of the picture. That's a no-brainer right there and is easy for even a half-wit to understand.
However, in this new absence of the public's ability to possess hand guns, the crime rate didn't go down. For some unexplained reason, the crime rate actually increased --by 15% more in just the following year (???????)
Doesn't make sense.... less guns in the hands of the citizens ALWAYS equals less crime, --everybody knows this. It's statistical fact ....well, ok, maybe the statistics don't really support this claim but, we'll just omit this pesky thing known as 'facts,' because the facts are just getting in the way by clouding the issue, and instead, we'll still just say less guns equals less crime, because we say it does.
In the following year, 1982, Kennesaw, GA, a suburb of Atlanta, took a different approach. They passed a law, --excluding felons, mentally incompetent, etc., which mandated that all heads of household, of that town, to own a fire arm and ammunition for that firearm.
News papers, like the New York Times and such, lost their minds when they heard of this. They claimed there would be rampant killings, blood would be running in the streets and it would be like the old wild west days all over again. --didn't happen that way though. In fact, ALL types of crimes dropped immediately afterwards and has remained very low for the 33 years since the act was first passed.
https://guncontroltruth.wordpress.co...nesaw-georgia/
Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion:
...so, Trozei, after playing with guns, have you gotten any further along on your truck, lately?
Getting the hand guns outlawed will naturally reduce the crime, right? --less people with hand guns naturally equals less violent crime because the guns are taken out of the picture. That's a no-brainer right there and is easy for even a half-wit to understand.
However, in this new absence of the public's ability to possess hand guns, the crime rate didn't go down. For some unexplained reason, the crime rate actually increased --by 15% more in just the following year (???????)
Doesn't make sense.... less guns in the hands of the citizens ALWAYS equals less crime, --everybody knows this. It's statistical fact ....well, ok, maybe the statistics don't really support this claim but, we'll just omit this pesky thing known as 'facts,' because the facts are just getting in the way by clouding the issue, and instead, we'll still just say less guns equals less crime, because we say it does.
In the following year, 1982, Kennesaw, GA, a suburb of Atlanta, took a different approach. They passed a law, --excluding felons, mentally incompetent, etc., which mandated that all heads of household, of that town, to own a fire arm and ammunition for that firearm.
News papers, like the New York Times and such, lost their minds when they heard of this. They claimed there would be rampant killings, blood would be running in the streets and it would be like the old wild west days all over again. --didn't happen that way though. In fact, ALL types of crimes dropped immediately afterwards and has remained very low for the 33 years since the act was first passed.
https://guncontroltruth.wordpress.co...nesaw-georgia/
Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion:
...so, Trozei, after playing with guns, have you gotten any further along on your truck, lately?
#461
01-30-2015, 05:40 PM
Hotshot
Last addition to finish. What you said Ultra (for any miss-guided individuals out there) is true because if you take guns (protection) away from the honest citizens that means only the Police and the criminals have them. Criminals don't buy them legally from a store. There will ALWAYS be a black market source for guns,ammo,etc. This makes the citizens Easy Targets. If you ADD guns (protection) to the citizens (and are taught how and when to use them) that makes them questionable targets to the criminals.
What is the best defense for a woman against Rape? Not pepper spray.....A GUN.
Sorry TRO for the sidestep here.
What is the best defense for a woman against Rape? Not pepper spray.....A GUN.
Sorry TRO for the sidestep here.
#462
01-30-2015, 05:59 PM
Lead Driver
Last addition to finish. What you said Ultra (for any miss-guided individuals out there) is true because if you take guns (protection) away from the honest citizens that means only the Police and the criminals have them. Criminals don't buy them legally from a store. There will ALWAYS be a black market source for guns,ammo,etc. This makes the citizens Easy Targets. If you ADD guns (protection) to the citizens (and are taught how and when to use them) that makes them questionable targets to the criminals.
What is the best defense for a woman against Rape? Not pepper spray.....A GUN.
Sorry TRO for the sidestep here.
What is the best defense for a woman against Rape? Not pepper spray.....A GUN.
Sorry TRO for the sidestep here.
The police aren't constitutionally obligated to protect any individual citizen. They don't carry a gun for YOUR protection. They carry a gun for THEIR OWN protection.
As I see it, if the police can't guarantee the safety of me and my family, then they won't deny me the ability to protect myself.
911 is only three numbers on the phone to dial and, as everyone should remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
#464
01-30-2015, 06:22 PM
I think "they" is dependent on how high up the food chain they are. At some point "they" are politicians first. There are some exceptions, not very many. Social planners in the rarified atmosphere of academia and think-tanks and all that rot on the extreme end, have their goal of utopia, and have no issues with a bunch of people getting killed in order to get there. Eggs, meet omelet and all. It's difficult for average people to comprehend the level of hatred that is being cultivated against them. We've seen this movie before.
#465
01-30-2015, 09:45 PM