what enjoyment will you be getting from a weapon thats only purpose is to kill human beings more efficiently? I could see if you wanted a rifle for hunting but you just want to shine the stock while you jerk off over your new found power over human life.

It will make me forget I have a tiny penis... seriously.

What enjoyment to people get from collecting old toy trains, making toy models or buying old cars. It's a personal preference, and to me it's not about owning something that is for killing people. To me it's a machine that I find extremely interesting. Don't assume that my interest in weaponry has anything to do with some psychological urge to have power over human life, I am not that petty. Weapons are
extremely interesting because not only are they tools, complex machinery, but also pieces of history. My SKS was used in the former Yugoslavia, and my Mosin Nagant was used in WWII by the Russians. They're pieces of history and I find that extremely enjoyable.

I know you are familiar with their existence, so I will just have to call you out on the fact that you totally "overlooked" them; submachine guns. Submachine guns are fully automatic and do not have 3' barrels. They are easily concealed and sometimes very inexpensive (as is the case with Tec9s) and are fairly easy to maintain. In addition, they use easily obtainable and inexpensive pistol ammunition.

Yes, I suppose I did over look them.

With the exception of the small family of Submachine pistols, such as the above mentioned Tech-9 and the Beretta 93R, and Vz.61
Skorpion, most submachine guns are still too bulky and cumbersome to be easily concealed. Also, they're not very cost effective at all. some criminals and gang members will get them, mainly because it's a matter of pride, but they are still very rarely used in crimes and woefully inaccurate and inefficient in the hands of people not trained to use them. Still, even though SMGs can be found on the blackmarket, it's easier to get a small revolver that can be ditched easily with little cost.

Also, the Tech-9s which are sold in the US, which was originally developed by the Swedes as an SMG for tank crews, is not an SMG. The guns are modified to make them fully auto by grinding down the trigger sear. So the gun is basically broken and slam fires (fires uncontrolably) until the magazine is empty. The same thing happens with old P-38s that have a defective saftey, but that doesn't make them SMGs.

When I hear about automatic weapons becoming legal, I don't just suddenly envision a bunch of gangs driving around with AR15s and AK-47s shooting them in the air wildly, I imagine escalating violence after some private collector has his gun collection stolen and suddenly all those fully automatic SMGs he had to buy because IT WAS HIS RIGHT GOD BLESS AMERICA are now floating around in the hands of criminals. If you keep them out of the market entirely then you keep them off the streets, it is that simple. Sure, people will still be able to get them, but it keeps their cost high and keeps their appearance uncommon.

The simple truth is that more guns owned by HONEST AMERICANS directly translates into more guns floating around in the streets. Despite thinking you are totally insane, I don't doubt that you'd probably not kill anyone with your fine collection of rifles and crazy Yugoslavian knockoffs, but someone out their is going to amass a big old cache of them and then get robbed and lose it, and then those guns will be used to rob and shoot people (which is the primary usage of guns).

However, The more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens the less crime there is. (look at the crime stats in places with tighter gun laws vs those with fewer gun laws) I am aware that the vast majority of guns which are on the street are stolen or from straw purchases or blackmarket deals. However, how many times are police and national guard armories knocked off? Not too frequently because they are armed to the teeth. Now, I may be dead wrong, but I believe that criminals are not going to try to rob people they know are armed to the teeth, unless of course they wait until they go on vacation. However, I do advocate reasonable security for your weapons for just that reason. For example, all of my weapons, save for my carry pistol, are all kept in a reinforced 300 lbs safe which is bolted to the foundations. Also, my neighbors happen to know I am armed to the teeth, at least the ones I like do, and they're not gonna let any criminals get out of my house with my meager collection. Anyway, I advocate saftey, when it comes to shooting, and when it comes to keeping your stuff locked up. I doubt the average crack fiend carries around with them a plasma cutter, so unless a professional crime syndicate is trying to steal my stuff my guns are fairly safe.

Also, stop using terminology that no one knows because we are not gun-nuts. I am pretty familiar with guns so I get all the .38spl/Kalashnikov/SKS/et cetera but not everyone can follow your crazy comments about various acronyms and their danger to HONEST AMERICANS.

This is a reoccurring problem, seeing as I am a self described weapons specialist. I'll just add pictures when I go on about weapons. That should fix some things.

ps guys i think it's pretty obvious that KK4 wants automatic rifles for cool pix

Hidden content (Click to reveal)

That is a friggin' awesome graphic. Fuckin' saved

Fuckin' eh man, fuckin' eh  :gunsdude: We should get together and talk about all of our imaginary enemies. (with graphics like these how can you doubt GW thinks guns are awesome?)

Is there any good reason for you to even want a full-automatic?  By "good reason" I mean good enough to be worth the downsides of allowing such weapons to be more accessible.

It's all about freedom of choice IMHO. There is no "good reason" for me to want one any more than there is "good reason" for a person to have a 10 karat diamond ring or and SUV the size of an APC in the city, I would like to have a fully automatic weapon because I believe that I would get enjoyment out of its use and possession. Will making automatic weapons legal without heavy regulation increase some public danger? perhaps. But far more people are killed by car crashes and far more people are killed because they have nice diamond jewelry than have been killed by guns, and far fewer killed by fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Even so, the weapons will still be expensive because of the small supply and those willing to purchase them. We already have laws to stop criminals from getting guns, and we have laws to stop people from getting unregistered automatic weapons, yet criminals still manage to get them. I doubt that every drug pusher will be packing an m249 under his coat if the NFA was repealed. Fully auto weapons, even for criminals, are not very cost efficient unless you have a sizable fortune and government backing, which includes experts who know how to maintain the weapons. When the AWB sunset in 2004 there were worried cries that blood would run red in the streets, yet there have been no wild west style shoot outs, and the Justice department's own study of the AWB showed that it had little to no effect on crime because criminals would rather use a .38spl revolver with a 4" barrel than a Kalashnikov clone with an over all length of about 3'. So I think the dangers of more automatic weapons on the street is exaggerated.

Also, I as a law abiding citizen should be trusted with an automatic weapon. Am I not innocent until proven guilty, and any legislation to preempt my owning of a weapon assumes that I am a criminal, which according to my interpretation violates my right to the due process of law. Also, I have gone through multiple background checks and have been vetted as a responsible citizen. I vote regularly, I pay my taxes, follow the traffic laws, and have never been suspected or convicted of a crime. I am a model citizen, although I admit I am somewhat eccentric (which is no crime), and if it is my choice to use my hard earned money to buy an automatic weapon, a 9lb gold chain, a huge gas guzzling SUV, or a 10 Karat diamond ring than it should be my right to do so, and it should be the same for everyone.

IMHO, Ron Paul agrees with this freedom of choice for all people. Not just for guns, or cars, but what ever we wish to spend our money on. I believe that I can make wiser uses of my money than the federal government.

Yeah, I know this is off topic, but Fully Auto weapons are legal if you 1) live in a state which will let you purchase an NFA weapon 2) pass a federal background check 3) get the permission of the local sheriff 4) Are willing to pay far out the ass for a weapon made prior to 1986 5) pay a $200 transfer fee.

Interestingly enough, NFA (national firearms act) was passed in 1934 during the depths of depression, making coming up with $200 extremely difficult unless you were the pinkertons, when the federal government was taking on expanded federal power under the War Powers act and the Roosevelt administration. Also quite interesting is that if a corporation wants full auto weapons all they have to so is pay the $200 transfer tax per weapon.

I would like to see Ron Paul elected because of his veiws on the constitution and the economy, but if he can get NFA and the 68GCA (1938 Nazi weapons law in english) repealed I will love the man forever. You guys should go read over the gun laws and see how frigging inane they are. case in point, I have a Yugo SKS which is classified as a Curio & Relic by the BAFTE, if I want to add a new stock to it I have to add 10 US made compliance parts to comply with 922r, or I go to jail for 10 years. I'd like a neat T6 adjustable stock for my SKS, 'cause the standard stocks are a bit short for a person of my size, but I don't want to go to federal prison for violating 922r.

So yeah, I must be a horrible person because I want full auto weapons, want a nice synthetic stock on my SKS, believe in Ron Paul, the consitution, and think stupid ass laws should be repealed.

It's actually a pretty common occurrence now, ASE. Tasers aren't "non-lethal" as everyone thinks, and the police have now been trained to use a taser even if little or no resistance is offered. My personal opinion is that it is operant conditioning to ease in the use of deadly force as a common way to deal with the people.

What do the Terrorists think about Ron Paul, Truth? Glen Beck and David Horowitz said he's in bed with the Islamo-facists the other night.

Also, I was at the Ron Paul rally, mostly looking out for snipers on the mint building and surrounding bulidings, and although I saw metric fuck tons of veterans, I did not see a single Skin-head Neo-Nazi or right wing militant.

Once again the race card rears its ugly head! Personally, I think you guys are just too tightly wound when it comes to issues of race. If they want to open an all anything school then so be it. If there plan is to give students in need of special attention a chance to get a better education than does it really matter what color the student's skin is?

The federal government didn't start funding the schools until the Lyndon Johnson administration, IIRC, under Title I, which gives money to schools according to the number of low income and minority students IIRC. Also, There is a lot of debate to where the Federal income tax goes. According to President Ronald Reagan's congressional investigation of the tax system not a single dollar of the federal income tax goes to pay for the operation of the government.

Schools for the most part are funded by property taxes, and the roads are funded by taxes on gasoline.  The only road system which I recall being 100% funded by the Federal government was the inter-state highway system, which was a military project. Eisenhower copied the idea from the German Autobahn after WW2, which is why the interstate highway systems are strong enough to allow for tanks to travel over them and for aircraft to land on them. There are also other excise taxes, on alcohol, tobacco products and even ammunition for fire arms. The government can make money without taxing our earnings directly as it does with the federal income tax. Also, we should scale back our military and our social programs, because they cost too much money to maintain, unless the government decides to tax 80% of so of our income.

Keeping on topic; I saw Ron Paul on Saturday the 10th when I went to his political rally in Philadelphia. I was about 40 feet away from him, it was electrifying to be there.

Also, there is another fund raising effort for the 15th and 16th of December, Bill of rights day and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party IIRC. The goal is to collect 10 million dollars in single week end. I am kinda strapped for cash now so I dunno if I will be able to donate. Perhaps if I find a job in time.

Call me an asshole but...if we feed poor people then the world would be overpopulated......

Duh, it's poison rice.

Call me an asshole but...if we feed poor people then the world would be overpopulated......

Duh, it's poison rice.

Well Washcycle, to quote Ron Paul "[He] may have flaws, but the message doesn't." So I can support a man who may have flaws but espouses things that I believe in and quite possibly fail, or I could support someone else whom I don't believe has my best interests in mind because the general consensus is that they've got a better shot at winning. Personally, I would rather back a person whom I believe in who may not have a shot in hell than betray my convictions and support someone just because they've got a better chance of winning.

Since I don't count I suppose that I can't tell you that I support Ron Paul because:
- He supports sound fiscal policy, ending deficit spending by the government, a return to a gold standard (gold is at 831.90 as of writing this, and the value of the dollar has plunged) controlling the money supply and returning to a free-market system.
- He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve Banking system, the IRS and income tax (Because there is no mandate for the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank or a Federal level income tax in the constitution.)
- He advocates smaller government, eliminating superfluous government agencies which will decrease government spending, and lighten the tax burden
- Advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy. No more Imperial wars and no more "peace keeping" or meddling in the affairs of Foreign nations.
- Adherence to the constitution. All of it, not just the parts most people think are neat
- Ending the drug war, which is a massive waste of time and money
- Ending the war on terror (same reason as above)
- Advocates National Sovereignty, keeping the power of the government in the hands of the people where it belongs and not international organizations such as the UN, NAFTA or WTO.

I could go on, but the general consensus seems my opinion doesn't matter. If you'd like me to go more into my points I will be glad to, but don't expect an immediate response. 

If the constitution was so infallible, why does it have so many amendments?

Could it be because the constitution was written 250 years ago and THE WORLD HAS FUCKING CHANGED SINCE THEN?

Also, aren't most of those things you listed in the hide tag contained within the amendments, not the bill of rights? Perhaps they are redundantly specified.

edit: yes they are!

The first Ten amendments are protections of the rights of the people, which tell the  government what they may not do, and the promise made was that if the Constitution was ratified that it would be amended to protect the hard won rights of the people. The others arose out of their own historical context. I am aware that the constitution is a flexible document, however, the rules for amending it were written in the constitution. But IMHO, the constitution is not being followed.

Also the first 10 amendments are collectively known as "The bill of rights", and were ratified during the 1st congress and treated as part of the original constitution.

also I have long advised no one pay attention to KK4 outside of complete contempt, because addressing his truly fucked up point of view adds the illusion of legitimacy to his thoughts, and while GW's administrators may think antisemitism has an equal place next to logical discourse, some of us realized (back in highschool) that all viewpoints are not legitimate or worthy of attention.

I have kept our discussions respectful, and never resorted to rhetoric or propaganda against you, yet you continue to encourage people to hate me while condemning my point of view. You're acting in an anti-American manner hostile to the free expression of ideas. I don't know about the other people in this forum, but I adhere to the philosophy that ALL viewpoints, even those we disagree with or contempt, are worthy of attention. What type of person are you to condemn me for my opinions, and then declare that I am not to be listened to? Do you even believe in any of the inherent rights which all men posses, or do you only selectively apply them to people who hold beliefs that you agree with?

PS: I'm completely fed up with your trolling, by the way (KK4). Do not post about the UN's bills being bad because you didn't read them. You actually said that the UN is "not so great" because the Kyoto Protocol does not mention human rights. It's a god damn greenhouse gas treaty. It isn't even supposed to.

If all you're gonna do is waste people's time, don't!

I can assure you that I am not trolling.

My point about the Kyoto Protocol is that it isn't anything about saving the environment but is all about control over natural resources and industry, and that most people have not read it but believe it's a good thing. In hind sight I should have included that in my original post, but got distracted by other things going on. My point is that the UN projects themselves as an organization which supports Human rights, and freedom et al. but when you read what they say in their documents they're just concerned about gaining power.

Regardless of what your opinion of Ron Paul is, you have to admit that it is amazing that a "right-wing fringe" candidate who "doesn't show up in the polls" can net 4.2 million (according to the AP) is absolutely AMAZING. Personally, I support the man and his message. We've got a constitution for a reason, they're the rules for operating the country. I am faithful that he will continue to grow in popularity enough to win the nomination. I wouldn't have donated or changed parties to support him otherwise.

To answer Dada, Have you read the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights, the Kyoto Protocol or the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court? Check out Article 29 of the UDHR, or article 81 of the Rome Statute? I've looked over the Rome Statutes and the UDHR and I don't recall seeing any of the rights which the bill of rights protects in either of them. I happen to like my inherent natural rights, and the UN doesn't seem to think that I possess them unless they say so. I beg to differ. The UN isn't so great if you actually read what they say.

I donated. I am quite pleased.

This is a pretty popular theory argument among conspiracy theorists but doesn't hold much water in the sphere of the real world and policymaking. I assume you are talking about the US creating this global policing state, so that's what I will base my arguments off of but they can easily apply to other countries.

1. This theory completely assumes the existance of the concept of hegemony and that such a state (hegemon of the world) would actually be obtainable.

2. The theory assumes that the United States is the hegemon of the world.

3. It also doesn't account for the fact that in the theoretical world of hegemony that soft power (eg benevolent relationships with the other nations) is just as key as military hard power. To establish a position of hegemony would mean that the country would need to have good relations with the other nations as well as military power, neither of these can create hegemony alone. This completely takes out the fact of a "global policing state" as such a state that is being described is being achieved through the means of hard power alone.

4. Survival of the state is what justifies tyranny, not hegemony. Nations will do everything and anything they can to ensure the survival of their nation. In a means to "protect the Fatherland" dictators will justify each and every form of dehuminization, tyranny, and rights violations. So in fact it will not be the hegemon specifically being the tyrant, it will be the repressed states. To the point where survival of the nation-state is of upmost importance to the government they will justify every atrocity known to man under the guise of surviving. It is the oppressee, not the oppressor, that justifies tyranny.
lol.

You're making a lot of assumptions without knowing my full position on the subject.

Here is the reason why I made this topic..I was sitting there trying to sleep,when I started thinking about Hitler,most of the time when Im chilling with friends and such,I joke around and do the German voice and Nazi sign,we laugh maybe due to the fact that we always think "Why do I care if someone died 50 years previous?",but anyways I was in bed thinking...wow what if someone came into my house started grabbing my family and forced me to go with them to work? then what if they put me in a gas chamber...for a second I almost felt what it would have felt like had it actually happened to me...so I trying to calm down myself by thinking "Meh thats never going to happen to me.." but then like I said before,we got wars all over the world,and USA is only trying to stop the one in Afghanistan,is it because its the biggest war rigth now? I dont know...im not an expert in those things,but while USA spends years in Afghanistan "checking" for weapons of mass destruction while there are people dying in other places...

Anyways as a final statement.. I started thinking ..what if they suddenly said that people were trying to take over the country(I live in Canada btw)would I move somewhere? What could I do?

If you're afraid of losing your life then you have already lost. People put up with the amount of tyranny they will tolerate, and then when they realize they have nothing to lose with rise up against their oppressors. Yes, there are people actively trying to establish a global police state, and no there is no place to run. You can raise your voice now, and try to expose and overthrow our enemies. Or we will have to raise arms against them... and when it gets to that point we will not have anything to lose. You've got to decide right now if you've got power of not.


Also, DO NOT drink fluoridated water.

No. We are not powerless. We were created in the image of the great creator of the universe and we, like our creator, have the ability to create in our own image. It is only a matter of time before we fulfill the promise made to us by our creator and master all reality.

¡Para la revolución!
...
This is actually from the night before, I wore my fritz helmet and a long sleeved shirt on halloween.

Man, that's classic. I bet he made a lot of friends that night. Whose fault is it? Who cares. Things like this happen when you give people the ability to spend the money which isn't theirs. If I was his father though I would make him work that off, with interest for the next couple of years. lel.

I'm going to release demons from the underworld and then laugh when they eat unsuspecting children. Nothing like that old time religion.