PILMAN
Member
Well I went into a Democrat chat room and it stated "Republicans NOT WELCOME" so I asked if libertarians were accepted and they said ok. We started having a chat about Zionism and the saudis and all that good stuff, everything is going smoothly. It's when I brought up guns, I suddenly saw quite a few people leave and others say "I HATE GUNS" and refused to even talk about it.
I asked why Democrats were generally anti gun and that the republicans weren't doing us any favors like mccain and many gun owners probably don't fit into either party at this point. We had a discussion and he started stating that he had a rifle I think it was a Ruger mini 14, said it was a .22 and he used it for target shooting and sport. He said "Why would anyone need a 30 round magazine?" and started saying that gun registration should be a requirement. I went on and started presenting some facts about New Orleans and Katrina where a 30 round magazine would come in handy and about gun confiscation. He said in a war it wouldn't matter because a tank would kill us anyways so I brought up Iraq how a bunch of arabs with ak47's, suicide bombers, and ied's were putting up a hell of a fight and he kept asking to change the topic.
At this point he was saying the assault weapon ban did nothing but ban imports and I explained how it banned "evil features". He said he walked into a store and saw ar-15's for sale. Apparently he felt these were still illegal and I stated how current guns you buy over the counter for the most part are not fully auto. I explained they are semi auto technology and it's no different than any hunting rifle you can buy today, only cosmetics. At this point he said something about how my technology was used for killing and his was used for sport.
So after a little bit more debating and showing him some videos which he refused to watch, we got down to it, what his definition of an assault weapon was. I quote as he said in an angry voice.
"PILMAN first of all you are ignorant, your definition of a weapon that civilians should own are assault weapons, anything the military uses, your ak47 is made to be held differently than a hunting rifle, it's used to conceal and to hold in a different position military style. Your weapon has no use to civilians for hunting, why would anyone need a 30 round magazine? Why would anyone need a handgun?"
At this point I was kicked out of the room, about the only debate I had trouble with against him was regarding stealing firearms that many home owners had their guns stolen and criminals were using them. For the most part, I feel I put up a good debate and made him angry by proving him wrong. So I guess this is the general reason anti's are against our "ak47's" and "ar15's" because you can "grip them better" which makes it easier to kill our target and because we can "conceal" our weapons better than a hunting rifle. These people are really friggin ignorant.
I asked why Democrats were generally anti gun and that the republicans weren't doing us any favors like mccain and many gun owners probably don't fit into either party at this point. We had a discussion and he started stating that he had a rifle I think it was a Ruger mini 14, said it was a .22 and he used it for target shooting and sport. He said "Why would anyone need a 30 round magazine?" and started saying that gun registration should be a requirement. I went on and started presenting some facts about New Orleans and Katrina where a 30 round magazine would come in handy and about gun confiscation. He said in a war it wouldn't matter because a tank would kill us anyways so I brought up Iraq how a bunch of arabs with ak47's, suicide bombers, and ied's were putting up a hell of a fight and he kept asking to change the topic.
At this point he was saying the assault weapon ban did nothing but ban imports and I explained how it banned "evil features". He said he walked into a store and saw ar-15's for sale. Apparently he felt these were still illegal and I stated how current guns you buy over the counter for the most part are not fully auto. I explained they are semi auto technology and it's no different than any hunting rifle you can buy today, only cosmetics. At this point he said something about how my technology was used for killing and his was used for sport.
So after a little bit more debating and showing him some videos which he refused to watch, we got down to it, what his definition of an assault weapon was. I quote as he said in an angry voice.
"PILMAN first of all you are ignorant, your definition of a weapon that civilians should own are assault weapons, anything the military uses, your ak47 is made to be held differently than a hunting rifle, it's used to conceal and to hold in a different position military style. Your weapon has no use to civilians for hunting, why would anyone need a 30 round magazine? Why would anyone need a handgun?"
At this point I was kicked out of the room, about the only debate I had trouble with against him was regarding stealing firearms that many home owners had their guns stolen and criminals were using them. For the most part, I feel I put up a good debate and made him angry by proving him wrong. So I guess this is the general reason anti's are against our "ak47's" and "ar15's" because you can "grip them better" which makes it easier to kill our target and because we can "conceal" our weapons better than a hunting rifle. These people are really friggin ignorant.
