In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Actually, if someone is there to rob you they will walk upstairs to your bedroom. That's kinda common sense. If someone is there to kill you they brought a gun; good luck with that bat. You are correct about the alarm though, but once again, they'll just cut your phone line next time if they want in bad enough. Like I said, good luck with that bat. I hope they don't rape your wife and molest your kids after they shoot you. .
God, give me patience today. If given strength I may beat someone to death.
So it bothers you if people choose to have guns for protection?
You do your thing we will do ours. We don't tell you what you need, nor should the government and people like you tell me what I need.
Why is this debate still going on? You all aren't going to ban sh-t. Even if you did, most would not comply.
Did you read anything past the first sentence. Your comments suggest you didn't
The first part of your post is true for cases of simple home invasion. However, if someone wants in bad enough, and you don't have an external alarm, they'll just cut the phone line. The second part has a lot of merit, but who are you to decide how many rounds someone needs to defend themselves? I'll be the first to tell you that there comes a point where it gets ridiculous, i.e. beta mags, but a 10-20 round magazine isn't excessive. Actually I like going to the range to shoot and prefer a 30 round mag. For home protection a remington 870 holds 7 rounds and that should be sufficient IMO. The point is though, who are you to decide someone only needs 2 rounds? What if they missed and needed more? Gun control should stop at the point where you cannot overpower law enforcement IMO.
This post was edited by BayTider 14 months ago
Phone lines are underground. Covered that angle when I built house
Edit. And sirens on outside of house
This post was edited by B1G Badger 14 months ago
Yeah, i wish that I had underground utilities. Not for safety, but because it looks so much nicer.
EDIT: i respect what you're saying, but we differ on potential outcomes. What if you forgot to set the alarm? What if the phone lines were down for whatever reason? From a personal prospective I like having that extra layer of security if the other measures fail.
That's why I tried to be clear that it was just my take on it. People can do as they please and it doesn't bother me at all. I was just a little thrown by the "I need a machine gun" to protect my family. Maybe there are places you do but I would get 6 jobs or do whatever it took to GTFO of that neighborhood if that's the case.
Our alarm system is not like that. The moment the phone lines go out a wireless message is sent to the authorities just like as if someone were breaking in. You have to call them form a cell phone and stop the call if something did happen to the lines you knew about. Maybe the old ones are different. But even then, if they are going to all that trouble, you're dead anyway. If they want you, really, really want you. you're dead.
If that gun were to only stay in a persons house, then it wouldn't be any of my business. But that's not how it goes. Anyone can take it and use it as they see fit. There are countless examples of that. I don't think it's fair to the rest of us to hope some idiot with an 8th grade education locks his guns up so people willing to do harm don't get their hands on them.
Hand grenades.....hand grenades don't kick. They are light, compact, and don't recoil when thrown. Are you saying Americans should be allowed to purchase hand grenades as easily as AR15's? How about AK's? Is that an overkill for home protection? What's the limit? These are easy questions to answer.
And again, I don't care someone has a gun. I don't care if they want to walk around their house with a Bowie knife and Rambo headband carrying a machine gun when they get home. But it's not for home protection. It's for a lot of reasons I can think of, but not home protection. All that argument does is reinforce the stereotype that Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of gun-toting ignorant rednecks. It's an asinine argument any way you slice it. This country is full of people who are exploiting their freedom to the detriment of others. It's time to take some responsibility and stop making ridiculous excuses.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Weedline 14 months ago
I wish people would quit making that argument because it dumb and kills the argument for being able to own one. If you "need" that type weapons platform to protect your family you're in some deep ish.
A tank, 50cal mg or would not be ideal for home defense.
Your a f-tard to claim that I might shoot myself with a rifle. I have no child.
You have no clue what anyone needs but keep on with the lib agenda.
That how my alarm system is but a lot of the older, less expensive, systems are garbage.
As for the rest, I think I've pretty much answered all I detail but I'll recap: Stop making the "I need an AR for self-defense" because you don't, citizens should be able to own firearms that do not EXCEED the capabilities of law enforcement (cancels out tanks, grenades, full auto weapons etc), no one "needs" a beta mag but saying less than 10 rounds is dumb, and who are you or the government to only say that someone "needs" 2 rounds? Both sides of the issue are going full tard. If you've read the thread I've made some pretty reasonable recommendations IMO.
It the purpose to ban AR15's because people can use them irresponsible and could kill people. Why not ban alcohol again?
More people and families are killed or ruined by drunk drivers every year than by guns. Why just stop at guns if we want to protect citizens from irresponsible people?
99% of the people who own these guns will never need them and will never use them. I believe that's a good thing, but it's stupid to ban these guns based off off whether you think they need them or not.
Many individuals don't need insurance. It's a terrible investment other than the peace of mind it gives to individuals that them and their families will be OK.
I guess we can start terrorizing individuals who buy too much coverage as well.
Lib agenda? I was born in a rich suburb in Alabama. I'm about as far from a Lib as anyone on the planet. I'm just not an idiot. As long as you don't treat me like one and are honest in your intentions, I don't care how many guns you keep under your bed.
You just act like we don't know why you are saying all this. You are afraid they will take your guns so you are creating some ridiculous situation to justify owning them. I have no doubt some of you have convinced yourselves that an AR15 is the only way to protect your wife. Never underestimate the power of denial. But we are not 10 year olds. Stop treating us as such. Go spill all that BS to the gun club. Just say, I want them b/c I like guns. I want one to shoot. It's my right as an American citizen. Then OK, here's your gun. I think it's absurd to have one, but that's just my opinion. Whatever.
And I doubt too many people would come knocking in waves trying to rape your wife if you were patrolling in your tank with a few 50's mounted on the roof. Trip wires too IMO. Our perimeter could use a few trip wires.
It really just depends on who you are protecting your home against. If we are talking a drunk or crackhead ect trying to break in then just about any kind of gun or taser will more than likely do the trick but if we are dealing with a pissed significant other or rapist ect them prob need a lil more knockdown power, if we are talking unconstitutional jack booted government thugs then a machine gun and some outside landmines are prob the better choice, it's all about ones needs.
Although I have no need for a Barrett personally, I do admire their stance on the matter.
Of coarse, like chic-fil-a they will probably be bashed, cop haters and what not.
Never said you were a lib...
You have no clue what you're talking about when making reference to me. I do not nor will ever own an assault style rifle.
But I am also competent enough to know that 99% of the owners of these weapons use them in accordance with the law. Laws to de-arm these individuals will do nothing to prevent criminals use of these weapons.
You are being juvenile and assuming you know whats best for all.
This post was edited by SocialTwerker 14 months ago
I've already said 400 times in this thread I don't care if someone owns a gun. If you are honest about it, fine. Never did I ever say anything about disarming anyone. How do you have a conversation with someone who can't remember those large talking points? You can't.
And saying I was pushing a Lib agenda is the same thing as calling me a Lib. A republican pushing a Lib agenda? Do you know the difference between the two? Because I don't think you do. The only agenda I push is Weedline's.
My argument with you is not over the right to own a gun it is over you self proclaimed ability to know others needs... which is why I made comment of lib agenda. I read several false statements from you regarding my ownership and needs of these weapons that I do not own, and judging from your juvenile approach to the subject I doubt your qualified to make comment on others needs as well.
As far as that last crap, I believe I sufficiently gave an example of how a republican can push a Lib agenda above. I could care less which ticket you vote, your self proclaimed ability to know the needs better than and "real reasons" people own these guns is very liberal.
Correct. I would much prefer they say. I want a machine gun because its my right and I want one. I am fine with that reason. No need to try and justify it , especially with a reason that fuels the other sides fire.
Yes this is a serious response. Did you read anything I wrote? I have no problem with using a shotgun myself. But like I said before, a double barrel shotgun would knock my wife to the floor. How in the world did you assume I fear hordes of rapists entering my home from anything I said? If you are going to end your post with "lol" at least say something funny. The whole point of this thread is that Biden's comments were ridiculous. He advocates running outside and shooting the gun into the air. No law enforcement officer would ever recommend this as a good plan. Rounds like buckshot will spread one inch for every yard of flight so killing two people with one shot(like your scenario) would be a perfect case of timing and distance. And what world are you living in if you dont think you could get in a shootout with multiple home invaders? How about an example from last month.
I'm done typing out the same thing in every response. This thread makes me feel really smart FWIW. Thanks guys
The gun debate is like most everything in America today. The law abiding people who are doing the right things will sacrifice their rights in an effort to derail the jack asses who don't care about anything. Pick a topic , i dont care which one, and its the same approach by the govt( rep or dem) I believe.
Well said +1
Yes, because someones overpaid insurance has walked into a classroom and killed children before. lol. Must. Stop. Posting. In. Thread. Too. Many. Special people.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports