• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Act of Terrorism in Orlando

it depends...if they can manage not to add stupid **** on, like you can't give your grandads.45 to your kid....yeah, I think there should be a screening process for obvious military grade semi-auto long guns....it's a start....we'll get to the criminals as soon as we can....no one really has a solution to that.

define front lines....I certainly am not gonna go running out to the barricades with a .223, or a .308, or a 7.62x 39, when the militarized police force, or the Military itself, has superior firepower....someone else can go be a martyr...and I will laugh......I got a better plan.

the police will definitely turn on citizens....they already do.

I would hope the Military would refuse.

If you don't have a CC, you wait three days don't you? I did. When I bought a gun online it was over a week for shipping. Since I have a CC, once it was shipped, I don't have to wait. Takes about 30 min to an hour for the background check. If any gun dealer is selling guns and not doing the check and/or violating the 3-day wait rule, shouldn't they be punished for breaking that law? how does making it harder for everyone else fix that?

I still get hung up on the "obvious military grade" semi-autos. Just a silly depiction with no meaning if operation is the same as a normal semi-automatic. If I buy a non-military style and put a light, scope, adjustable stock and bipod on it, am I OK with that? Another thing that surprises me about your opinion on this.

There would be some in the military and police that would turn on the citizens. I believe the majority would not. I believe the majority of those would help the citizens.

the Iraqi's and Afghani's didn't do too bad versus superior firepower....
 
ok, ark....what would you call a "normal" semi-auto HUNTING rifle?

and seen Iraq and AFG lately?

can't say they did real good, either.
 
ok, ark....what would you call a "normal" semi-auto HUNTING rifle?

and seen Iraq and AFG lately?

can't say they did real good, either.

I call them all normal. They are either, single shot, double barrel, pump action, lever action or semi-automatic. Well, the ones us peons can have, anyway.

I'm not the one telling people they ought not be able to buy (or it should be harder) a "military style" weapon which functions exactly like the "non-military style" weapons. So, not sure why I would need to define anything.

The afghani people held off the Russians and didn't do shabby against the US. Wit the constant bombardment of how many us people died in Iraq, they seemed to have done pretty well.
 
right....I know a few semi's made for hunting animals...they're shotguns...or "they are either, single shot, double barrel, pump action, lever action"....none of which are really gas operated semi auto's.....with 30 round clips... definitely not some super sexy looksjustliketherealthing "normal" AR....AK....or Fabrique Nacional Fusil Auto Loaders....or aTech 9 p.o.s, or an UZI. or on and on.

and the people that think they are keeping Obama (or whoever) away with the AR or whatever, you know, the one's with the "you can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hands" t-shirts....lol....well son, that is EXACTLY what is gonna happen....they'll be nice dead heroes....and should they "take a couple with me", well, they'll be known as cold, dead, cop killers....with no more gun....and the operative word being "dead".

I swear....some of you have seen Red Dawn a few too many times.
 
compare Afghanistan pre Russians and now....compare Iraq now with the Saddam days.

they got their ***** kicked.

yay, verily.
 
right....I know a few semi's made for hunting animals...they're shotguns...or "they are either, single shot, double barrel, pump action, lever action"....none of which are really gas operated semi auto's.....with 30 round clips... definitely not some super sexy looksjustliketherealthing "normal" AR....AK....or Fabrique Nacional Fusil Auto Loaders....or aTech 9 p.o.s, or an UZI. or on and on.

and the people that think they are keeping Obama (or whoever) away with the AR or whatever, you know, the one's with the "you can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hands" t-shirts....lol....well son, that is EXACTLY what is gonna happen....they'll be nice dead heroes....and should they "take a couple with me", well, they'll be known as cold, dead, cop killers....with no more gun....and the operative word being "dead".

I swear....some of you have seen Red Dawn a few too many times.

Are they supposed to be known as boot lickers?
 
Are they supposed to be known as boot lickers?
does it matter?

"what happened to your Dad?"

"well, he didn't want to give up his AR, and now he's dead....he took a few with him though"

"so...he's dead right?"

"yes, but he weren't no boot licker"

"he's dead though?"

"yup"
 
does it matter?

"what happened to your Dad?"

"well, he didn't want to give up his AR, and now he's dead....he took a few with him though"

"so...he's dead right?"

"yes, but he weren't no boot licker"

"he's dead though?"

"yup"

Thats just the thing. Attempted mass confiscation would not be one or two guys getting mowed down by SWAT teams. It would be a mass of the population fighting against what ever the government sent. There are a lot more of the people than there are of the government. That is why you see this type of call for incremental removal after every incident.

You know most folks thought the same things as you about standing up to tyranny in the colonial Americas during the 1770s. Good thing for us 3% had the iron in their souls that gave them the resolve to die on their feet rather than live on their knees.
 
yeah, it would be a few thousand....

most of the people doing the dying don't have the org skills to stand up to SWAT or the NatG...or the 1st INF Div.

and they would still be dead.
 
yeah, it would be a few thousand....

most of the people doing the dying don't have the org skills to stand up to SWAT or the NatG...or the 1st INF Div.

and they would still be dead.

Wrong.

There would be Millions. And there are a thousands of veterans with combat experience that know what needs to be done. I for one hope people come to their senses and liberty prevails in the political arena rather than their being the need for another civil war/revolution.
 
and the one's that have experience and are organized, already have CI level one 3 letter agency informers amongst them.

ask the old Michigan Militia guys....or them dumbasses out in Oregon.

it's a nice dream though.
 
and the one's that have experience and are organized, already have CI level one 3 letter agency informers amongst them.

ask the old Michigan Militia guys....or them dumbasses out in Oregon.

it's a nice dream though.

Yeah the shitbricks running around in front of cameras attention whoring do. They are not the sum total of patriots in the country though.
 
I see USDA's point.

if the time comes where there is a revolution, the civilian population absolutey will be outgunned. Sure, there may be a **** ton more civilians with a **** ton of fukcing ammo and a **** ton of semi-autos, but the gov't would also have missiles, and superior air command

though, like DBS and Ark are saying, not everyone is going to willingly submit to being subjects again. Not everyone would be willing to give up their freedoms. It would be bloody, and awful.

but, to keep the government from overstepping their bounds, we the people must retain our right to keep and bear arms.
 
It's probably been posted. I jumped to the end. The tree of liberty must be watered with Patriots blood from time to time...something like that. I hope we aren't disarmed and treated like serfs. Before Australia I would've never thought they'd ever, ever pull it off.
 
"Until we figure out what the hell is going on..."


<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FGOODHQ%2Fvideos%2F10153404002308059%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
 
I see USDA's point.

if the time comes where there is a revolution, the civilian population absolutey will be outgunned. Sure, there may be a **** ton more civilians with a **** ton of fukcing ammo and a **** ton of semi-autos, but the gov't would also have missiles, and superior air command

though, like DBS and Ark are saying, not everyone is going to willingly submit to being subjects again. Not everyone would be willing to give up their freedoms. It would be bloody, and awful.

but, to keep the government from overstepping their bounds, we the people must retain our right to keep and bear arms.

This "semi-automatic" assault weapon crap is smoke and mirrors. An AR-15 is fine for gang bangers and rifle range warriors but most people couldn't hit their dash from the back seat with it. I will take my trusty old Mosin to the woods and do my fightin' from afar just like they did back in Lexington and Concord, thank you. There's a reason for not huntin' with them rifles but there's more reason to have one......that's just encase you need it when bad things get up close and personal.

vLFABGZ.jpg



J2FzqV9.jpg
 
I own guns, my husband owns guns, and in fact has an AR15. Why did hey buy it? It's not just for protection as we have several handguns, rifles and shotguns. He likes it, and wanted own one. Simple as that. He doesn't use it for hunting, he uses at a range and shoots targets. Hell, I like to shoot targets with it as well as my .380. I had to laugh at the guy that wrote the article about shooting the AR and how it was like a cannon and the recoil bruised his shoulder and how he had temporary PTSD afterwards. JFC, that gun has less recoil then the .270 rifle I've shot before and some of the handguns we own. It's not any louder either. PTSD? That guy is a certified ***** and a master at exaggeration.

That being said, I do think guns that have higher capacity magazines shouldn't be so readily available for purchase to just about anyone. When I got my cc permit I had to go through a course in gun laws and safety as well as target shooting. Is it such a horror to perhaps suggest those that are purchasing guns without the permit have to partake in some sort of safety course? I've also read articles from some gun shop owners that have refused sales due to the person either asking ****** up questions that set off their inner alarms or just didn't seem "right". Of course there are other gun shop owners that they can go to that just care about the sale.
Yes, there is a background check that has to occur, but if there is no prior incident how does one know. This is a hard dilemma that I don't think there is any easy answer for, but there does need to be civil discussions and people actually listening without throwing out "You ain't taking my guns" or "They all need to be banned" This goes no where fast.

Here's a question, what about gun show open sales? People can private sell without background checks, cash, no questions asked. Don't some of you think that is an issue?
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't have a big issue with things like background checks, waiting periods, safety courses, licensing and permitting guns...I just think based on the facts we have, none of that would have prevented most of these mass shootings. Most of these guys either meet all of the requirements or just find an illegal way to get their guns if they don't.

Enforcing rules on private sales would be difficult if not impossible, but I'm not opposed to that either.

What I am opposed to is banning certain kinds of guns. There are tens of millions of these guns in circulation. All a ban will do is make sure good guys don't have them and bad guys do.
 
EPIC FAIL!

America has suffered a terror attack every year under Obama


America has now averaged one serious Islamic terrorist attack a year on President Obama’s watch, yet he still insists the threat from radical Islam is overblown and that he’s successfully protecting the nation.

If only hubris could be weaponized!

In the wake of Omar Mateen’s Orlando massacre, Obama whined about growing criticism of his terror-fighting strategy. But boy, does he deserve it. His record on terrorism is terrible, and Hillary Clinton should have a tough time defending it.

Here we are in the eighth year of his presidency, and the nation has now suffered eight significant attacks by Islamist terrorists on US soil or diplomatic property — an average of one attack a year since Obama’s been in office, with each new attack seemingly worse than the last.

History will not be kind to this president’s record.

When he came into office, Obama vowed to defeat terrorism using “all elements of our power”: “My single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe. It’s the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.”

But it soon became clear he wasn’t serious.

In June 2009, Obama traveled to Cairo to apologize to Muslims the world over for America’s war on terror. Then he canceled the war and released as many terrorists as he could from Gitmo, while ordering the FBI and Homeland Security to delete “jihad” and other Islamic references from their counterterrorism manuals and fire all trainers who linked terrorism to Islam, blinding investigators to the threat from homegrown jihadists like Mateen.

Obama also stopped a major investigation of terror-supporting Muslim Brotherhood front groups and radical mosques, while opening the floodgates to Muslim immigrants, importing more than 400,000 of them, many from terrorist hot spots Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Attack after attack, the president has ridiculously maintained that global warming is a bigger threat than global terrorism. Americans are fed up. Even before San Bernardino and Orlando, polls showed Obama was widely viewed as soft on Islamist terrorists. He has an absolutely awful record keeping us safe from terrorism.

And this is the security mantle Hillary is so proud to inherit? Good luck with that.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/america-has-suffered-a-terror-attack-every-year-under-obama/

contain-isis.jpg
 
I honestly don't have a big issue with things like background checks, waiting periods, safety courses, licensing and permitting guns...I just think based on the facts we have, none of that would have prevented most of these mass shootings. Most of these guys either meet all of the requirements or just find an illegal way to get their guns if they don't.

Enforcing rules on private sales would be difficult if not impossible, but I'm not opposed to that either.

What I am opposed to is banning certain kinds of guns. There are tens of millions of these guns in circulation. All a ban will do is make sure good guys don't have them and bad guys do.

I agree there should be certain rules and regulations in place, but we all know that rules only work for people who follow them.
 
Top