Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below echelon right
New member
Firearms kill people. Ban them. All of them.
Ban Firearms
- Thread starter echelon right
- Start date
echelon right
New member
We should all take California as a great example of banning firearms to reduce crime. California, lead the way, we will all follow.
Agreed! We need to ban cars too. Those fuckin' things kill people all the damn time. I wish that we all lived in a dreamy world where everything was soft like cotton and everyone was happy and friendly. We could all sit around calmly singing peaceful songs and eating healthy food. It would rock.
echelon right
New member
So, am I irrational or what, by proposing a firearms ban?
echelon right
New member
Just wondering.
I own many firearms, I just wanted to see everyone's reactions.
I own many firearms, I just wanted to see everyone's reactions.
By banning firearms you are endorsing thought control laws as a gun in an inanimate object incapable of malice, thus the malice lies in thought. Nobody 'needs' a gun, just like nobody needs anything other than food, water, oxygen, and sleep. Where's the clamor to ban everything beyond these four things?
yomama
Banned
People kill people. If you remember the first murder, it was with a knife. That's the best way to kill a person and the worst for the murderer. Silent and deadly. That's the way people get killed in Russian, very affective. So shut the fuck up with your bullshit about guns.echelon right said:
string_bean00
New member
yomama said:
He was joking dude.
javaguru
Banned
In prison eveything that could be turned into a weapon is banned and regular searches are conducted for contraband. People are murdered everyday in prison by improvised blades. The vast majority of firearms in the United States, probably 95%+, will never be raised against a human being. I grew up in a rural community where everyone of my friends was raised in a household with half a dozen or more firearms, we had sixteen and I learned to shoot at age six, the last murder was over thirty years ago. The woman was beaten to death by her husband with a baseball bat for having an affair, perhaps bats should be banned.
rsnoble-im-back
Banned
The day some fuck comes to my house to collect my collection of 30+ guns will be the day rsnoble makes headlines.
BlkDragon said:
Who is this all knowing moral deity that determines what is 'useful' and what isn't above and beyond your rationality? Sounds like a dictator of some sort.
Sigmund Roid
New member
I am in favor of banning
Here in Europe we get killings with all sorts of weapons, not just guns but ball points, pencils, chop sticks, hammers, stones, doors, you name it. It makes the murder stories a lot more spicy.
Here in Europe we get killings with all sorts of weapons, not just guns but ball points, pencils, chop sticks, hammers, stones, doors, you name it. It makes the murder stories a lot more spicy.
SVT-TROY
New member
Just another attempt at taking away our rights and give the criminals more of an advantage. They can car-jack people at gun point, break into your house, rob your grandma and 9 out of ten times, get away with it. If I shot them while attempting any of these, I will be charged with murder or attempted murder. I feel that anyone who is attempting to hurt me, my family, or my friends should die immediately.HumanTarget said:
Schutzhund1
New member
We should ban murder that way no one will get killed!?!?!?
I posted this under my old name a while ago in this forum. It relates to the Cali .50 cal gun ban, but is somewhat applicable too this thread too - here ya go 
.
Good point. I love every anti-gun nuts general response to owning a gun. It is ALWAYS "tell me why you need it". uh.. NO. I don't HAVE to, it is a constitutional RIGHT. but, as a side note, .50 cals are GREAT for target shooting at long distances (which I consider a very difficult and challenging sport to master), have VERY LITTLE use in crime (.50 cals have never been used in crimes - see many posts on how hard it is to conceal one of these puppies), are expensive (beyond the means of most gang bangers) and are generally well put together and excellent quality rifles (reliable, accurate etc). Do I NEED? it? well, no... but how many OTHER things do I own that I don't need???? well, lets just run down the top 10:
1. TV
2. Computer
3. Motorcycle
4. Large house
5. Car with over 90 HP
6. Stereo
7. Gym Membership
8. Fashionable Clothes
9. more than 1 pair of shoes
10. Deck on my house
I don't NEED any of those items. Not one. Not a single one. In fact, all anyone REALLY needs is basic shelter, food and water. Is that a good basis to determine if we should make a law AGAINST those items? Of course not, that is silly. The whole "tell me why you need it" angle is a great way to enact some truely useless laws.
The other major arguement I saw was "the only purpose of a gun is to kill people". Um... no. Guns are made for a variety of reasons, here are the biggest uses for a gun:
1. Target practice (LOTS OF FUN!!)
2. Home/work defense (not so fun)
3. Investment (many guns have good collectable value - the .50 cal is one type of gun that DOES)
4. Competition shooting (related to target practice, but for more advanced shooters - even seen in the olympics)
Of the 4 "reasons" to own I gun that I mentioned above, only 1 relates to "killing". Now, as has been stated, MANY MANY MANY items that we have in our daily lives CAN be used for killing, as CAN a gun. Cars can be used to run TONS Of people over in a crowded area - and are also excellent as bomb devices. How often do we hear in the "FUD" (Fear, Uncertanty and Doubt) driven media about a car that was used to bomb large numbers of people in the middle east? I think that happens FAR more often than a .50 cal gun is used to "bring down a plane" - I feat which I argue is next to impossible BTW. Should we ban cars? MAybe only "BIG" cars? I mean, BIG cars carry more explosives, right? So they must be more dangerous, Right? Why do you need a "big" car anyway? See the point? Please, PLEASE THINK before you react to emotionally driven agruements. Liberal idiology relies on the "emotion" factor (FUD etc) - which is one of the major reasons that most major news organizations are liberal bias. Look beyond the FUD.
.Good point. I love every anti-gun nuts general response to owning a gun. It is ALWAYS "tell me why you need it". uh.. NO. I don't HAVE to, it is a constitutional RIGHT. but, as a side note, .50 cals are GREAT for target shooting at long distances (which I consider a very difficult and challenging sport to master), have VERY LITTLE use in crime (.50 cals have never been used in crimes - see many posts on how hard it is to conceal one of these puppies), are expensive (beyond the means of most gang bangers) and are generally well put together and excellent quality rifles (reliable, accurate etc). Do I NEED? it? well, no... but how many OTHER things do I own that I don't need???? well, lets just run down the top 10:
1. TV
2. Computer
3. Motorcycle
4. Large house
5. Car with over 90 HP
6. Stereo
7. Gym Membership
8. Fashionable Clothes
9. more than 1 pair of shoes
10. Deck on my house
I don't NEED any of those items. Not one. Not a single one. In fact, all anyone REALLY needs is basic shelter, food and water. Is that a good basis to determine if we should make a law AGAINST those items? Of course not, that is silly. The whole "tell me why you need it" angle is a great way to enact some truely useless laws.
The other major arguement I saw was "the only purpose of a gun is to kill people". Um... no. Guns are made for a variety of reasons, here are the biggest uses for a gun:
1. Target practice (LOTS OF FUN!!)
2. Home/work defense (not so fun)
3. Investment (many guns have good collectable value - the .50 cal is one type of gun that DOES)
4. Competition shooting (related to target practice, but for more advanced shooters - even seen in the olympics)
Of the 4 "reasons" to own I gun that I mentioned above, only 1 relates to "killing". Now, as has been stated, MANY MANY MANY items that we have in our daily lives CAN be used for killing, as CAN a gun. Cars can be used to run TONS Of people over in a crowded area - and are also excellent as bomb devices. How often do we hear in the "FUD" (Fear, Uncertanty and Doubt) driven media about a car that was used to bomb large numbers of people in the middle east? I think that happens FAR more often than a .50 cal gun is used to "bring down a plane" - I feat which I argue is next to impossible BTW. Should we ban cars? MAybe only "BIG" cars? I mean, BIG cars carry more explosives, right? So they must be more dangerous, Right? Why do you need a "big" car anyway? See the point? Please, PLEASE THINK before you react to emotionally driven agruements. Liberal idiology relies on the "emotion" factor (FUD etc) - which is one of the major reasons that most major news organizations are liberal bias. Look beyond the FUD.
