% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation Message Board

  • kaptain_lou kaptain_lou Apr 22, 2014 10:28 PM Flag

    So you need a gun that will fire 100 rounds in 60 seconds?

    Why is that self protection? How about a clip that would fire 8 rounds?

    The 2nd never guaranteed that.

    kaptain lou

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • And don't get me wrong i am not trying to insult you, just very concerned about your mental health....and according to that you should be banned owning a gun for life!

    • Kaptain....looks like you been off your medicine for too really need that refill taking care of and ASAP!

    • You should host a limp wristed, anti-gun conference and bounce that little gem off a group comprised of Crips and Bloods.

    • kaptain lou: Typical ignorant liberal who knows nothing about firearms or the Second Amendment. It's a "bill of rights," not a "bill of needs." Do you know the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine?" Hint: They are NOT the same thing...

    • Go back and stick your head in the sand. Obviously truth and logic defy you.

    • When the framers composed the 2nd amendment, their intent was not to say "you have the right to shoot a duck or deer.".... They didn't even intend it to mean, " you have the right to defend yourself against some thug intending to steal your horse, or assault you or your family".. Their intent was, " you have the right to protect yourself from an overbearing government's tryanny". That is what the revolution was all about. No-one was dissatisfied with hunting rules or lack of police protection. It was all about the right to personal freedoms. Back in the time our framers wrote the 2nd amendment, federal armies used single shot muzzle loading rifles and pistols. Common citizens had the right to own the very same guns. I would argue that the framers intended citizens to have the same weapons available to the army as a way to keep the balance of power in check. Over the years the disparity in weaponry between the federal army and common citizens has gotten farther and farther apart to the point where today our army has armed jet aircraft, guided missiles and armed drones, while the population is fighting its last breath for the right to keep semi automatic rifles. This happened slowly over time with political propaganda a fear mongering in a continued attempt by the empowered FEW to control the helpless many. I'm betting if Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were alive today, they would think that the fact that a citizen of the USA is not permitted to own an armed F14 Tomcat, that would constitute an infringement on the 2nd amendment. We have lost much of the true intent of the 2nd amendment over the 200 years since it was enacted. I suggest we draw a line in the sand here before it's completely gone.

    • mcvjmicvuhihui123e7837 mcvjmicvuhihui123e7837 Apr 23, 2014 12:50 AM Flag

      So you need: a car that goes over 100 mph; a house that is more than 1000 sq-ft; indoor plumbing; all you can eat buffet; cable TV with over 100 stations; central air conditioning and heat; more than one pair of shoes; jets that can fly 400+ mph; cars that get 30 mpg; super sized soft drinks; internet access at the click of a mouse; 64 gigs of ram on your computer for a few hundred extra bucks . . . what is your point, moron. The hands of time move swiftly, and so does technology. Leaders in technology rule the roost and are rewarded by the free market place here in the USA. If you don't like it, move you worthless a s s to NK and what happens in a country where guns are banned for anyone except the government leaders and their military machine.

29.43+0.59(+2.05%)Aug 29 4:00 PMEDT