Quote from Lucrum:
No, not based on MY idea of a redneck anyway.
What's your definition of a redneck?
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I absolutely believe that a cherished goal of liberals is to bring our gun laws into conformity with countries like Great Britain where private ownership and possession of firearms is severely limited. You only have to look at jurisdictions here where they have control, like Washington, DC or NYC. I'm not saying most of them don't have good intentions, eg eliminate gun violence, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
The so-called "gun show loophole" is the startling idea that one private individual can sell his gun to another, and the government's approval is not required. You can do the exact same thing outside a gun show and apparently it's not a problem, but for some reason if it's done in a gun show, it's a loophole. Dealers have to conduct a federal firearm's check, whether it's at a gun show or in their shop.
You might not feel the need for an AK with a 30 round mag, but if you were a rancher in the southwest with hundreds of illegals trespassing on your land every night, you might feel differently.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I understand that plenty of reasonable people have very different opinions on this issue. Let's take the reasonable argument that there are crazy people out there and it's better that they don't have access to high cap mags or "assault rifles." I put it in quotes because true assault rifles are capable of full auto fire, not just semi-auto like the AR's and AK's you can buy legally.
So we get back to the standard liberal argument, which is that the responsible, law-abiding members of society have to surrender their rights because of the actions of the irresponsible. This argument is getting tired and increasingly unpopular, whether we are talking about high taxes to support welfare, mortgage bailouts, or gun control.
You will note that liberals never advance this argument when one of their cherished values is at risk. For example, the Ft. Hood shooter was a muslim fanatic. Should we consider restricting military service for such groups? What about airport security? We know precisely what demographic has been responsible for hijackings and terrorism. In either case, liberals would go nuts if we even suggested increased scrutiny.
Take another issue, AIDS. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to restrict immigration for people with AIDS or HIV? We do it with other deadly diseases like TB. Again, liberals prefer to risk public health rather than infringe on the freedom of one of their pet groups.
It's the same with illegal immigrants. There was an article in the Washington Post today about a violent MS-13 gang member who had been deported once but came back and raped a young girl. He had been picked up by local police on an unrelated charge a few weeks before but for some reason they let him go. Maybe if there was a law like in Arizona they might have nabbed him. Reasonable? Not to liberals.
Let me help you out. "Originally used in reference to poor, white farmers, Redneck is historically a derogatory slang term to refer to working class Southerners in the United States.[1] It is similar in meaning to "cracker" (especially regarding Georgia and Florida), "hillbilly" (especially regarding Appalachia and the Ozarks)[2] and "white trash".[3][4] The most common American usage, referring to the poor rural white Southerner, is probably derived from individuals having a red neck caused by working outdoors in the sun. A citation from 1893 provides a definition as "poorer inhabitants of the rural districts...men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin burned red by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks"Quote from BSAM:
A very narrow minded person. Sometimes very uneducated; sometimes quite educated, but always afraid to admit that he is wrong.
Nukes, I don't think your average Joe should have nuclear weapons.Are there any weapons US citizens should be prohibited from having? I think shoulder fired missile launchers are cool and very protective.
I can't think of any reason why not.If a person wants 300 AR-15s, should he be allowed to have them?
Quote from LORD KAL-EL:
Of course you are right he was just a normal well adjusted muslim following his religious tenets.
Thanks for clearing that up.