Bushmaster Pays Money to Victims of Sniper

MD is properly pronounced "Merry-Land".....:rolleyes:

"Nothing bad ever happens in Montgomery County."

....(NIMBY)


This is just like a bad haircut for Bushmaster. Give it some time and it will go back to normal. In fact, I honestly think it has awoken an interest in their line of firearms. I am not a gun-fanatic (this is probably obvious....:D.....I'm interested, just not an owner). I had never heard of the 223 caliber, or of Bushmaster, and knew very little of long-range "sniper" firearms. I know lots more now. Hmmmm......;)


Still, though....it's definitely a setback. I'm not arguing that. Just trying to help explain the paranoia fueling the ruling.....(hey, I'm a poet!) :footinmou
 
Jebadiah_Smith said:
...Guns are the only way we can be guaranteed freedon from foreign AND domestic tyranny...
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that owning a gun of any type or caliber will protect you if government oppression gets to the point where U.S. military might is turned against the citizens?

How is that gun going to protect you from the foreign nation who launches a nuclear ICBM at the U.S, or the terrorist attack such as 911. If every person in the Towers was armed with an automatic weapon that day would it have helped?
 
Their lawyers probably told them that it would cost more to fight it and the publicity would be bad, even if they were in the right.

The gun grabbers and their legal parasites will never listen to reason and they will never stop until you have no weapons.

Once they get your guns, they will go for your knives, just look at England and Australia, that is exactly what has happened there. These groups in all of these countries are all financially backed by the same people, people like George Soros.

Dan, you had never heard of the .223 until recently? The only thing on an AR-15 that is legally a weapon in the USA is the lower receiver housing. You can build a rifle up from parts, pieces at a time or from a kit, once you have a stripped lower receiver (about $100). You can also get a drop in unit that allows you to shoot .22 long rifle rimfire ammunition. The AR has been a controversial weapon, but a well made is one of the most accurate off the shelf semi-automatic rifles in the world.

At midnight, 00:01, this coming Monday morning, the AWB expires and you can put regular collapsable stocks and flash suppressors on your weapon.
 
I have a co-worker who's SO is an OBGYN, he won't tell me the cost of malpractice insurance, but it would pay his salary with a margin left over, every year.

Malpractice insurance for Docs in the US is running at $300,000-400,000.00 per year. There are also very heavy insurance requirements for specific proceedures which may apply in addition this amount.

n2s
 
It always amazes me how anti-gun activists either manage to dismiss or fail to comprehend statistically very reliable reversed correlation between gun control and violent crimes in both rural and urban areas. Denial on such a scale provides enough data for a very comprehensive research paper in the field of human psychology.
 
Ben Arown-Awile said:
Do you really believe that owning a gun of any type or caliber will protect you if government oppression gets to the point where U.S. military might is turned against the citizens?

How is that gun going to protect you from the foreign nation who launches a nuclear ICBM at the U.S, or the terrorist attack such as 911. If every person in the Towers was armed with an automatic weapon that day would it have helped?
Click to expand...

YES. If you were in the military, would you slaughter your countrymen at the bidding of a politician? Barring brainwashing, I dont think that you would.

When the terrorists realize that they can cause just as much, if not more, fear by slaughtering everyone in the Nowhere, Idaho Wal-Mart, as crashing planes into buildings, then an armed citizen will be our first line of defense.

Your arguements do nothing to prove that firearms are wrong, (which probally wasnt your intention) they just cite highly unlikely/emotionaly charged hypothetical situations. No, weapons would not help people in the twin towers, but I dont think thats a concern anymore, do you?

As far as a ICBM goes, you and I will be dead, or trying to defend our lives and property. It seems to me that a firearm would be called for.

Of course, If you have any anti-airliner/ICBM/terrorist machines laying around your grage that would replace a firearm, please tell everyone about it so we can all throw our guns out. Until then, ill keep mine, thank you very much.
 
It is an intellectual argument to dismiss widespread small arms as a deterent both to attack from outside and a government grown too coercive. This argument is mostly brought by persons without knowledge of small arms.

There is no doubt a modern army could make hayseed of armed civilians- however, taking the ground is costly and a deterrent, and is difficult to hold. Just ask Russia about Afganistan. The Afgans started with Enfield copies.

Further, as has been stated in this thread, those areas in the US that have the most guns per capita have the least violent crime. Rather than dismissing them, we should be issuing them.


munk
 
No, thank you Jebadiah. I don't know if you're young or old but you have it exactly right. I just stopped back to buttress you a little.



munk
 
Between 1994 and 2004 the violent crime rate dropped in states that had shall issue* laws for concealed carry permits. It was up to 36 states, IIRC at last count. ( Meaning if an applicant did not have a disquailfying record, the permit must be issued. ) In addition, MANY states have recognised other states permits. It's now possible to be able to carry legally in over 20 states with just three CCW's.

The assault ban had nothing to do with the drop in crime. On the other hand, the limiting of Semi-Automatic rifles with EBR ( Evil Black Rifle ) features will expire soon. When sales of folding stocks on military style rifles go thru the roof and we have legitimate citizens now able to carry more easily behind the seat of their trucks, the crime rate may truly take a dive when the criminals start facing AK's and SKS's instead of pistols.

Teddy Roosevelt would have had conniptions over the idea that the average citizen could not own a variation of a service rifle. He would have felt those who could afford one should buy and practice to maintain proficiency and accuracy with them.

I will reiterate what munk and others have said. The military style rifles such as the AR-15 and AK's are precisely the kind of weapons the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own. One of the reasons is the founding fathers just suspicion of standing armies, including our own. The 2nd amendment was also meant to serve to allow citizens to have adequate weaponry to defeat a corrupt government should it be necessary. With the use of violence if that was the only way. The government is allowed to govern and receives it's powers from the rights retained by the people themselves.
 
It is important to remember that with almost any statistic used in debates like this, many uncontrolled variables go into the equation. To present one single variable as the cause of change just doesn't work scientifically.
 
The 'assault weapon' is non existant in civilian hands except by special permit. Look alike semi autos have two practical 'non sporting' uses I see-

1. A semi auto rifle with high capacity mag would deter multiple assailants, or looters such as in a situation like Hurricane Andrew, or the LA riots.
2. If a 'bad guy' has a semi auto capable of prolonged destruction, he would be thwarted by several person's in a crowd with handguns. In practise, it is very likely an armed bad guy would be taken by surprise by a single armed citizen whom he did not expect.

Any way you cut it, the more guns in good hands the less likely scum wants to risk getting shot.

>>>>>>>>>>>

"Im young, dumb and ugly" -Jebadiah Smith


Cut yourself some slack, Jebadiah. Tell me something good- your manhood hangs to your knees and the chicks love you.
Besides, I noticed a post of yours written as good as any could have been by anyone.


munk
 
In this case the rise in the number in people carrying could be noted by comparison with other similar states without Shall Issue permits. The rise in citizens carrying matched the drop in violence, and the other states did not show the drop.
 
In any case I plan to buy plenty of normal capacity magazines just in case Kerry wins.
 
Rusty said:
In this case the rise in the number in people carrying could be noted by comparison with other similar states without Shall Issue permits. The rise in citizens carrying matched the drop in violence, and the other states did not show the drop.
Click to expand...

Rusty, if this is in reference to my post above, I agree with all of your conclusions and I think your post was excellent. I posted after you simply because statistics were mentioned and it reminded me of some things I wanted to say about statistics. I keep hearing people talk about whatever type of crime dropped since the ban etc as proof that it worked. It didn't. We both realize that. But it is presented as a proof. My point is that it does not function scientifically as a proof.
Your comment quoted in this post does not prove anything either, according to the scientific method. I agree with your conclusion as being likely correct, but the only thing proven is that it is among many possible variables that go into state violent crime rates, even if there are parallels.
 
DrClckWrk said:
It is important to remember that with almost any statistic used in debates like this, many uncontrolled variables go into the equation. To present one single variable as the cause of change just doesn't work scientifically.
Click to expand...

Ignoring all anecdotal evidence, no matter how overwhelming, doesn't work either.

Why limit yourself to a single piece of statistical evidence? Take a randomly seeded sampling of them, throughout all history of changes in gun control laws, and then see what happens. You will find pattern so strong that you can't just attribute it to random unknown variables. Unless God really hates gun control laws and throws some divine influence into the mix - in which case I wouldn't go down that path either.
 
samoand said:
Ignoring all anecdotal evidence, no matter how overwhelming, doesn't work either.

Why limit yourself to a single piece of statistical evidence? Take a randomly seeded sampling of them, throughout all history of changes in gun control laws, and then see what happens. You will find pattern so strong that you can't just attribute it to random unknown variables.
Click to expand...

I agree. All I'm saying is, take it for what it is. This pattern between states is a good example of when it is reasonable to assume a common cause even though it isn't proven conclusively in the "experiment." As I said, I agree with all of Rusty's conclusions. I wasn't referring specifically to him when bringing it up.
My point is best applied to the overall decrease in violent crime type arguments being spouted lately, where there are so many likely possibilities that I don't think you can conclude anything at all. Every day, statistics like these are presented as truths, proven hypotheses, when they are not. This is my point.
 
Jebadiah_Smith said:
... If you were in the military, would you slaughter your countrymen at the bidding of a politician? Barring brainwashing, I dont think that you would...
Click to expand...

U.S. History is replete with examples of the Government turning the guns on it's own citizens.

Ever hear of The Bonus Army? That's where WWI veterans were marching on Washington to demand the money that they had been promised. They were dispersed by a battalion of tanks led by Douglas McArthur.

What about Matawan? Where Government troops slaughtered striking coal miners?

Then of course there's Kent State.

Were all these soldiers brainwashed? Of course. All soldiers are. That's what Military Training is all about.

And you are right, I was not saying guns were wrong or right. They are just guns. I don't believe in any laws restricting anyone's right to own anything. I was just pointing out that the argument of bearing arms to protect yourself against government excess is bogus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top