Weapons... Yes or not.

[ismaele00]

Yesterday, I was watching again "Bowling for Columbine", so I thought "let's ask these guys what they thought"... so, weapons, kill us or protect us (from the American perspective)?

Should they be banned? Has the 2nd amendment sense nowadays?

-Repeal the 2n amendment.

 

[WoodyO]

I have lot's and lot's of guns. Love 'em. They'll never be able to ban them in America. There are millions of unregistered firearms in CA alone.

 

[Colstreamer]

Don't ever let em take your guns or you'll end up like us in the UK. Hell we ain't even allowed pistols AT ALL. No self loading rifles above .22 the list of restrictions goes on.

They say limiting gun ownership lowers gun crime. I say bullshit. The country with the lowest violent crime in Europe is Switzerland. And EVERY household in Switzerland has at least one gun. They don't have a standing army, every man between 20-30 is in the militia and keeps his rifle at home. This isn't including all the privately owned weapons, Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe.

Remember criminals don't use legally owned firearms and when seconds count the police will be there in minutes.

 

[-SD-]

Don't ever let em take your guns or you'll end up like us in the UK. Hell we ain't even allowed pistols AT ALL. No self loading rifles above .22 the list of restrictions goes on.

They say limiting gun ownership lowers gun crime. I say bullshit. The country with the lowest violent crime in Europe is Switzerland. And EVERY household in Switzerland has at least one gun. They don't have a standing army, every man between 20-30 is in the militia and keeps his rifle at home. This isn't including all the privately owned weapons, Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe.

Remember criminals don't use legally owned firearms and when seconds count the police will be there in minutes.

I like this guy

 

[WoodyO]

Don't ever let em take your guns or you'll end up like us in the UK. Hell we ain't even allowed pistols AT ALL. No self loading rifles above .22 the list of restrictions goes on.

They say limiting gun ownership lowers gun crime. I say bullshit. The country with the lowest violent crime in Europe is Switzerland. And EVERY household in Switzerland has at least one gun. They don't have a standing army, every man between 20-30 is in the militia and keeps his rifle at home. This isn't including all the privately owned weapons, Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe.

Remember criminals don't use legally owned firearms and when seconds count the police will be there in minutes.

I've got an English buddy, who's father drive an armored car in the UK. He's been robbed 3 times making a bank pick-up. One time he was robbed with a machete, another time he was hospitalized with billy club to the head.

Here in the US, armored car drivers car a side arm, a back-up on their ankle and the guy waiting in the truck is usually armed with a select fire AR15 or Mp5 and can unload 30 rounds in about 2 seconds.

 

[uamaverick]

Like others have said, criminals do not use legally owned firearms. Kinda stupid to purchase a gun that can be tracked if you're going to use it to kill people with. All you have to do is drive to any housing project in America and you can buy an illegal firearm. No trace, super cheap, so it's no big deal to disassemble it and dump it off somewhere after you're done with your armed robbery or what have you.

Only way to protect your home is to arm yourself. Now, statistically, you're more likely to get hurt with a concealed carry permit than if you are unarmed, but for home defense, firearms are the best way to stay safe.

 

[WoodyO]

It's probably not too hard to use a legally purchased firearm in a crime. Say you shoot somebody and leave behind a casing with the rifling on it. the cops would need to find it, send it to the lab, then, assuming they catch you - they'd need to find the gun on your possession and match the markings up. It's not like there is some sort of database of marking available to law enforcement. Unfortunately, most people are too stupid to dispose of a gun that they used in a crime.

Also, when you legally buy a gun, and fill out a DROS, it's up to the gun dealer to run your background check, not the Gov't. The DROS stay's at the dealer, and a copy is sent to your state capitol, not to the Federal Gov't. Many states still have cash n' carry, so legal guns are completely impossible to track.

 

[themondtster]

Don't ever let em take your guns or you'll end up like us in the UK. Hell we ain't even allowed pistols AT ALL. No self loading rifles above .22 the list of restrictions goes on.

They say limiting gun ownership lowers gun crime. I say bullshit. The country with the lowest violent crime in Europe is Switzerland. And EVERY household in Switzerland has at least one gun. They don't have a standing army, every man between 20-30 is in the militia and keeps his rifle at home. This isn't including all the privately owned weapons, Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe.

Remember criminals don't use legally owned firearms and when seconds count the police will be there in minutes.

Exactly why the second amendment was made. For each city to be its own militia against enemies foreign and domestic including the government because they saw what happened in Europe and didn't agree. Like Colstreamer said, most guns criminals have are illegally own.

Our company I work for was owned by some brits for a while. They used in the same argument talk about how we shouldnt have guns and then admit that crime was outragous where they were from. Said that people would just come into your house and rob you while you were home and if you tried to do anything you were beat or stabbed they would just give them what they want.

Also owner ship was one of the reason why the Japanese didn't do a land invasion, just tried to cripple our navy at Pearl Harbor. A high ranking member of their military who study at an American university said "If you go to war with the United States, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

They have already taxed the shit out of ammo to try and slow down sales and stock piling.

 

[uamaverick]

True, it is easy to buy a gun legally and use it for a crime, but why would you do that when you can buy illegally for much cheaper? You can find pistols that range ~$700 in stores and gun shows for about ~$300 on the streets. You just gotta know people. Most criminals get in the habit of knowing people.

 

[themondtster]

True, it is easy to buy a gun legally and use it for a crime, but why would you do that when you can buy illegally for much cheaper? You can find pistols that range ~$700 in stores and gun shows for about ~$300 on the streets. You just gotta know people. Most criminals get in the habit of knowing people.

I guess in the cars of Domestic crimes its legally owned fire arms. The people going crazy and shooting up the work place or school.....doesn't mean they couldn't go find a shady hook up and purchase a full auto for the low. Those are the cases the politicians and news people use most times. They could careless about home invasions or anything like that. Or don't ever tell about how a man saved his family because he was armed.

 

[Colstreamer]

Also owner ship was one of the reason why the Japanese didn't do a land invasion, just tried to cripple our navy at Pearl Harbor. A high ranking member of their military who study at an American university said "If you go to war with the United States, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

this is why no one fucks with Switzerland. Think about it, when have they ever been invaded? Even the Nazis left em alone and Swiss mercenaries have always had a formidable reputation. Why do you think they guard the pope?

 

[Colstreamer]

I guess in the cars of Domestic crimes its legally owned fire arms. The people going crazy and shooting up the work place or school.....doesn't mean they couldn't go find a shady hook up and purchase a full auto for the low. Those are the cases the politicians and news people use most times. They could careless about home invasions or anything like that. Or don't ever tell about how a man saved his family because he was armed.

Same over here, there are plenty of shootings in London each year, fuck sometimes with full auto weapons. Yet it's usually only ever when legally owned weapons are used that it gets in the news. Then the media and politicians use it as an excuse to restrict firearms ownership further. There have been 3, count em, 3 whole major incedents where legally owned firearms have been used in shootings since the firearms act was passed in 1968. Hungerford - lead to restriction on self loading rifles, Dunblane - lead to a ban on handguns and Cumbria no bans as a shotgun was used and our right to bear arms extends to shotguns only! (and they gotta have no more than a 3 round mag!)

 

[bigbassturd]

Fuck that. I have as of right now 78 firearms of various styles. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, you name it.

I have never once thought to use any of them for more than sport or home protection. The day they pass a law saying I must surrender my property that I own legally and constitutionally is the day they can come take them from me by force.

 

[themondtster]

Fuck that. I have as of right now 78 firearms of various styles. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, you name it.

I have never once thought to use any of them for more than sport or home protection. The day they pass a law saying I must surrender my property that I own legally and constitutionally is the day they can come take them from me by force.

That's what I say, come take em if you dare. I've heard rumors of people being questioned in surveys, by doctors, and various other applications and forms about their fire arm ownership. I do believe that they are trying to keep track. I not one for conspiracies and shit but i do believe that the bigger the government gets the more control they want....control means to keep people under survailance, keep info on people, keep people ignorant, keep people misguided and needy. Stricter laws, invasion of rights and privacy, etc. That's why education gets cut first, welfare gets increased, health care goes to shit, and so on. Keep em dumb, sick, and unarmed and you can do whatever you want because they'll still have their hand out just to survive and think you're great for it.

Sent from my PG86100 using EliteFitness

 

[-SD-]

All i have is one glock pistol but they can come take that shit from me by force also. Although i would probably be outgunned lol

 

[bigbassturd]

All i have is one glock pistol but they can come take that shit from me by force also. Although i would probably be outgunned lol

Then fuck it, fire at will. At least you'd go down like a boss and not a bitch.

If I get outgunned defending my own property from a government who deems me unfit to own said property, then I'd rather not fucking live here anyway.

Sent from my Droid using EliteFitness

 

[bigbassturd]

That's what I say, come take em if you dare. I've heard rumors of people being questioned in surveys, by doctors, and various other applications and forms about their fire arm ownership. I do believe that they are trying to keep track. I not one for conspiracies and shit but i do believe that the bigger the government gets the more control they want....control means to keep people under survailance, keep info on people, keep people ignorant, keep people misguided and needy. Stricter laws, invasion of rights and privacy, etc. That's why education gets cut first, welfare gets increased, health care goes to shit, and so on. Keep em dumb, sick, and unarmed and you can do whatever you want because they'll still have their hand out just to survive and think you're great for it.

Sent from my PG86100 using EliteFitness

Exactly, and those willing to make a buck off the fucked up nature of this process are considered geniuses and elected to leadership positions.

I am in public service and am open and honest about all of my weapons, so they know if/when the time comes to take them by force, they better bring a few extra guys.

Not saying I'm a badass and will go all Lethal Weapon on 30 men, but I won't go down alone. There are millions of others who think just like me also, and some of them ARE the badasses...

Sent from my Droid using EliteFitness

 

[Headholio]

I think its wierd that gun people are always talking about government trying to take away their guns. I don't really think that's a legit concern in the good old US of A.

 

[-SD-]

I think its wierd that gun people are always talking about government trying to take away their guns. I don't really think that's a legit concern in the good old US of A.

its not since that pesky constitution gets in the way everytime. but its cool to talk about loolol

 

[themondtster]

I think its wierd that gun people are always talking about government trying to take away their guns. I don't really think that's a legit concern in the good old US of A.

That's because it is an issue at times. They are constantly trying to pass new laws that would further restrict what you can own or who can get it. Most get shot done in senate. If you are a NRA member or even read the small print government section in the paper you'll come across something every now and then.

 

[themondtster]

its not since that pesky constitution gets in the way everytime. but its cool to talk about loolol

It won't always. A lot of the new era politicians and judges don't see the constitution as a black and white rights issue, but as an interpretation of what was good for back then and that it should be modernized. Same goes for freedom of speech and others. People will always question it and try to change it. I believe they'll never actually ban guns because a lot of politicians are hunters and gun owners themselves,but prob will pass some stricter laws and make it a pain in the ass to own or purchase one.

 

[bigbassturd]

Which is why I'll already have plenty....no reason to wait until you have to run a gauntlet to purchase a pellet gun.

Sent from my Droid using EliteFitness

 

[mrplunkey]

I think its wierd that gun people are always talking about government trying to take away their guns. I don't really think that's a legit concern in the good old US of A.

The government already has taken away a lot of guns -- and placed restrictions on even more.

I think there is a simple solution. The gun ownership requirements should mirror voting requirements. If I need thorough documentation to own a gun, then place those same restrictions on voting. And if I can just parade in with no ID to vote, then let me do the same thing for buying a gun.

 

[uamaverick]

I want to own an MP7 so bad, but I can't. Fuck.

 

[Headholio]

That's because it is an issue at times. They are constantly trying to pass new laws that would further restrict what you can own or who can get it. Most get shot done in senate. If you are a NRA member or even read the small print government section in the paper you'll come across something every now and then.

I think the NRA and some other groups try to instill unwarranted fear in people about losing their guns.

It helps with membership and recruitment. Fear is a good, yet often unethical, political tool.

There is always debate about certain gun control laws and restrictions, but the country has never come close to banning guns and is farther from that possibility than ever.

Recent SCOTUS decisions have made clear that the second amendment applies to states as well as the federal government. They struck down Washington DC's and Chicagos attempt to ban hand guns. They even said that trigger locks couldn't be required.

Regardless of changing political times, the law of the land is more clear than ever, and there is probably less reason to fear loss of gun rights now than any time in the last century.

But like SD said, I guess its cool to talk about.

 

[mrplunkey]

I think the NRA and some other groups try to instill unwarranted fear in people about losing their guns.

It helps with membership and recruitment. Fear is a good, yet often unethical, political tool.

There is always debate about certain gun control laws and restrictions, but the country has never come close to banning guns and is farther from that possibility than ever.

Recent SCOTUS decisions have made clear that the second amendment applies to states as well as the federal government. They struck down Washington DC's and Chicagos attempt to ban hand guns. They even said that trigger locks couldn't be required.

Regardless of changing political times, the law of the land is more clear than ever, and there is probably less reason to fear loss of gun rights now than any time in the last century.

But like SD said, I guess its cool to talk about.

The gun loss has already occurred.

Our nation was founded by rebels who opposed a tyrannical government. One of their first measures (the second amendment, to be precise) was to insure a built-in mechanism to 1) Protect their fledgling democracy from the British (and any other foreign power, for that matter) and 2) Insure a built-in mechanism for future rebellion should another tyrannical government rise to power.

So you tell me: Do we have the innate ability to rise up against our government should it become tyrannical? How well would our glocks with restricted magazines and rifles that can't go automatic fare against F-16's, M1-A1 tanks and tomahawk missiles? I can't fire a rocket in my own back yard with more than 160 Newton-seconds of thrust without government approval. And exactly how is that going to compete with a Hellfire missile?

 

[Headholio]

The gun loss has already occurred.

Our nation was founded by rebels who opposed a tyrannical government. One of their first measures (the second amendment, to be precise) was to insure a built-in mechanism to 1) Protect their fledgling democracy from the British (and any other foreign power, for that matter) and 2) Insure a built-in mechanism for future rebellion should another tyrannical government rise to power.

So you tell me: Do we have the innate ability to rise up against our government should it become tyrannical? How well would our glocks with restricted magazines and rifles that can't go automatic fare against F-16's, M1-A1 tanks and tomahawk missiles? I can't fire a rocket in my own back yard with more than 160 Newton-seconds of thrust without government approval. And exactly how is that going to compete with a Hellfire missile?

So what do you suggest, selling nukes to the general public at Walmart?

 

[theoak01]

if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns.

try and take mine away and we will have some serious issues, hell even canada doesnt try and disarm me,just limits what I can own

 

[mrplunkey]

So what do you suggest, selling nukes to the general public at Walmart?

No, I support aggressive global nuclear non-proliferation -- something that Barry and Buba never understood.

But the restrictions we place on guns and munitions in general are disgraceful. As I said earlier: Any check or identification you need to provide when buying a gun should also be required when you vote. That's just basic fairness.

 

[Headholio]

Your argument is that the public shouldn't be restricted from weapons that would allow defense against a tyrannical government. Now don't dodge it Plunkey. If you are going to say crap like that then you need to defend it with a plan. How do you arm the public to defend itself from a government that has nukes, stealth bombers, and aircraft carriers?

Are you going to blame Obama for not letting you buy a B-2 and a stash of Tomahawk missles?

(And your analogy to voting is typically weak of you-not biting)

Aren't you supposed to be being a dad right now?

 

[oxymoron]

NO ONE will be breaking into Tommy's house.

Facebook Parenting: For the troubled teen. - YouTube

 

[mrplunkey]

Your argument is that the public shouldn't be restricted from weapons that would allow defense against a tyrannical government. Now don't dodge it Plunkey. If you are going to say crap like that then you need to defend it with a plan. How do you arm the public to defend itself from a government that has nukes, stealth bombers, and aircraft carriers?

Are you going to blame Obama for not letting you buy a B-2 and a stash of Tomahawk missles?

(And your analogy to voting is typically weak of you-not biting)

Aren't you supposed to be being a dad right now?

"not biting" = You don't have an answer, therefore you'll just dodge the issue entirely.

Just keep living with the hypocrisy that it takes a driver's license, background check and a waiting period to buy a wussy 0.22 caliber pistol yet it's somehow illegal to ask a person for their driver's license or ID when voting for president of the United States.

And the sad thing is, I've grown to expect things like this from you.

 

[PICK3]

And the sad thing is, I've grown to expect things like this from you.

RS replacement?

 

[ppgfreak]

YEEEESSSS! United states Marine corp! No one is taking my toys from me.

Taking away peoples weapons rights is RETARDED! That will not stop the "bad guys" from having them. So what does it do?? Your taking the weapons away from good people, and the bad people will still have them. It just makes the bad guys job easier, and safer....

Someone had a good point about store vs street prices. I paid $1,400 for my AR15 and then added a couple mods to it (yes I can post pictures) But I can buy a used, illegal AR15 for $400-800 on the street. So what will taking my rifle/home defence weapon really solve?

Sent from my ADR6350 using EliteFitness

 

[mrplunkey]

RS replacement?

Perhaps. They have similar intellect but GorillaHung doesn't use as many ellipses and quotation marks.

 

[mrplunkey]

I wonder if GorillaHung hates jews too.

 

[Typo]

Never heard of him

 

[bigbassturd]

YEEEESSSS! United states Marine corp! No one is taking my toys from me.

Taking away peoples weapons rights is RETARDED! That will not stop the "bad guys" from having them. So what does it do?? Your taking the weapons away from good people, and the bad people will still have them. It just makes the bad guys job easier, and safer....

Someone had a good point about store vs street prices. I paid $1,400 for my AR15 and then added a couple mods to it (yes I can post pictures) But I can buy a used, illegal AR15 for $400-800 on the street. So what will taking my rifle/home defence weapon really solve?

Sent from my ADR6350 using EliteFitness

Wtf does the marine corps have to do with gun restriction?

Sent from my Droid using EliteFitness

 

[ppgfreak]

Wtf does the marine corps have to do with gun restriction?

Sent from my Droid using EliteFitness

I brought it up because the united states government gave me guns. Then trained me how to use them and who to use them on. So after years of that, I didn't come home to give up the guns that I've learned to protect my life with.

Sent from my ADR6350 using EliteFitness

 

[machine23]

I agree with everyone here. We should all own a gun andLearn to use it safely. In live in Chicago and guns here were banned since the late 80s. We had someone of the harshest gun laws, but yet, we still had some of the highest crimes rates in America still. How is that so?!! Well cause the drug dealers, gangs and organized crime had guns and would easily acquire them. It doesnt help when your government is so corrupt and the police department is right behind them. I own a gun, but I am not registered with the city. Fuck them! They don't need to know what guns I have. And it's a bullshit tax that is expensive and easily adds up. It's our constitutional right, not a privilege.

 

[Colstreamer]

I agree with everyone here. We should all own a gun andLearn to use it safely.

This^^ guns aren't dangerous, people who don't know how to use them are! I firmly believe EVERYONE should know how to handle firearms even if they choose not to own one.

 

[ismaele00]

Ok guys let me be populist.
This is not what I think but let me ask you.

How would you deffend the 2nd amendment when things like the Columbine crimes or many others crimes like this happens? Should weapons be more controlled?
The guys of the Columbine School bought the weapons legaly...

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Headholio]

"not biting" = You don't have an answer, therefore you'll just dodge the issue entirely.

Just keep living with the hypocrisy that it takes a driver's license, background check and a waiting period to buy a wussy 0.22 caliber pistol yet it's somehow illegal to ask a person for their driver's license or ID when voting for president of the United States.

And the sad thing is, I've grown to expect things like this from you.

Not biting means, as I told you before, I'm tired of explaining logical fallacies to you as if you are in third grade. I have no problem discussing republican voter suppression tactics, but that's not the topic. It's a straw man argument.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

And the reason you engage in straw man arguments so often is that you get caught saying stupid things and you try to divert attention. In this case, you said the people should be armed well enough to defend against a tyrannical government. So I ask once again, how?

What kind of weapons laws do you want Plunkey so that we could defend ourselves against the US Army? That's a straight forward question, Plunkey, so stop dodging. Pretending to make a point is not the same as actually making one. You are good at the former, not the latter.

 

[machine23]

Ok guys let me be populist.
This is not what I think but let me ask you.

How would you deffend the 2nd amendment when things like the Columbine crimes or many others crimes like this happens? Should weapons be more controlled?
The guys of the Columbine School bought the weapons legaly...

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm to lazy to check right now and don't recall te story perfect. I do remember it tho. How were they able to buy guns when they were only 16-17 yrs old. The pipe bombs I know how they were able to do that. But you know what... Things happen! They government will never be able to make this country or this world completely safe. Especially our government when they get caught up with shit like fast and furious.,

 

[machine23]

And to everyone that keeps saying it will protect us from a tyrannical government. We live under a tyrannical government already. Everyone is just used to everything the government does. We are becoming the new(old) nazi Germany..

 

[bigbassturd]

Ok guys let me be populist.
This is not what I think but let me ask you.

How would you deffend the 2nd amendment when things like the Columbine crimes or many others crimes like this happens? Should weapons be more controlled?
The guys of the Columbine School bought the weapons legaly...

Thanks for your thoughts.

The Columbine shooters were highschool children, not adults.

Adults, keep your weapons locked away from children who use them improperly, problem solved. The 2nd amendment can also be defended in this instance by saying that if more people were carrying or had access to a firearm that day, they could have stopped the shooting much sooner.

In the case of the UT sniper in the early 60s, Charles Whitman I think was his name, he used a shotgun to blast his way to the top of the clock tower, killing several people in the process. After reaching the top, he proceeded to shoot at students and faculty with rifles, hitting many from long distances.

The security and local PD began riding through campus asking student with firearms to help. Students went to their dorms and brought deer rifles and hunting guns to return fire. While the shooter was distracted and having to take cover from the returning fire from below, a local cop was able to make his way to the rooftop and shoot him, effectively stopping the killings.

Now, if Whitman had been the only man aside from LE with a firearm, how many more innocent civilians would have been killed or injured?


Fuck gun restriction. I have a license to carry a concealed handgun, and do so everywhere I go. If someone attempts to harm me, my family, or my property, you can bet your ass they will have a bullet hole in their skull without a second thought from me.

Sent from my Droid using EliteFitness

 

[Colstreamer]

Ok guys let me be populist.
This is not what I think but let me ask you.

How would you deffend the 2nd amendment when things like the Columbine crimes or many others crimes like this happens? Should weapons be more controlled?
The guys of the Columbine School bought the weapons legaly...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Making it harder to get guns isn't going to stop people getting them. It'll just increase the likelihood of them getting illegal guns. You're always going to have spree killers who just decide to declare war on the world one day, if they can't do it with guns they'll do it with swords, knives, bats etc.

 

[mrplunkey]

Not biting means, as I told you before, I'm tired of explaining logical fallacies to you as if you are in third grade. I have no problem discussing republican voter suppression tactics, but that's not the topic. It's a straw man argument.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

And the reason you engage in straw man arguments so often is that you get caught saying stupid things and you try to divert attention. In this case, you said the people should be armed well enough to defend against a tyrannical government. So I ask once again, how?

What kind of weapons laws do you want Plunkey so that we could defend ourselves against the US Army? That's a straight forward question, Plunkey, so stop dodging. Pretending to make a point is not the same as actually making one. You are good at the former, not the latter.

I originally contrasted the differences in requirements regarding voting back int post #23 of this thread -- we'll before discussing tyrannical governments. Yet as always when you hold a losing hand, you try to dodge a perfectly valid point.

I'll tell you what buttercup: You explain why it should take a driver's license, background check and a waiting period to buy a wussy 0.22 caliber pistol yet it's somehow illegal to ask a person for their driver's license or ID when voting for president of the United States first.

Then I'll explain with detail how people should be armed well enough to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

 

[ppgfreak]

Ok guys let me be populist.
This is not what I think but let me ask you.

How would you deffend the 2nd amendment when things like the Columbine crimes or many others crimes like this happens? Should weapons be more controlled?
The guys of the Columbine School bought the weapons legaly...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Ok, so they got there guns legally. Your point? They wanted to commit a crime, so they would have gotten the guns illegal if they needed to. Taking away my guns would not have stopped that crime. That's the hole point of this. CRIMINALS WILL STILL BUY GUNS.

Sent from my ADR6350 using EliteFitness

 

[WoodyO]

Ok guys let me be populist.
This is not what I think but let me ask you.

How would you deffend the 2nd amendment when things like the Columbine crimes or many others crimes like this happens? Should weapons be more controlled?
The guys of the Columbine School bought the weapons legaly...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Not entirely true. the guns where purchased via a "straw purchase" by a female friend since CO is a cash n' carry state. Not a big crime, but still a crime.

 

[Headholio]

I originally contrasted the differences in requirements regarding voting back int post #23 of this thread -- we'll before discussing tyrannical governments. Yet as always when you hold a losing hand, you try to dodge a perfectly valid point.

I'll tell you what buttercup: You explain why it should take a driver's license, background check and a waiting period to buy a wussy 0.22 caliber pistol yet it's somehow illegal to ask a person for their driver's license or ID when voting for president of the United States first.

Then I'll explain with detail how people should be armed well enough to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

Look at the thread title Plunkey. We are talking about weapons, not voting. Straw man argument. Diverting the subject is a troll tactic. If you want to talk about voter ID, start a thread. It's pretty universally accepted as bad form to divert from the subject matter in a thread. Don't you have a bridge to crawl under, troll?

It doesn't suprise me you can't defend your own statements. You do it all the time. You are an extremist who buys into every rightie idea to the limit, without thinking about whether it makes sense or not. Then, you regurgitate your brain washing, but get caught up in your own illogic and expose your ignorance when you are challenged.

Now you said something stupid again, and you can't think of a way to back out of it, so you want to talk about voting in a weapons thread

It is interesting how embarrassment doesn't deter you, but I would suggest that a better way out of these blunders of yours is to stop posting and let the conversation move on, rather than doing the Plunkey shuffle.

 

[mrplunkey]

Look at the thread title Plunkey. We are talking about weapons, not voting. Straw man argument. Diverting the subject is a troll tactic. If you want to talk about voter ID, start a thread. It's pretty universally accepted as bad form to divert from the subject matter in a thread. Don't you have a bridge to crawl under, troll?

It doesn't suprise me you can't defend your own statements. You do it all the time. You are an extremist who buys into every rightie idea to the limit, without thinking about whether it makes sense or not. Then, you regurgitate your brain washing, but get caught up in your own illogic and expose your ignorance when you are challenged.

Now you said something stupid again, and you can't think of a way to back out of it, so you want to talk about voting in a weapons thread

It is interesting how embarrassment doesn't deter you, but I would suggest that a better way out of these blunders of yours is to stop posting and let the conversation move on, rather than doing the Plunkey shuffle.

Awww... how cute. You can't explain why one constitutional right continues to be restricted while another can't even be predicated on proving someone is actually who they claim to be.

Outstanding!

P.S. I wouldn't expect you to have the intellectual capacity to understand comparing and contrasting the strings attached to two constitutionally-guaranteed rights. So in a sense I'm not really being fair to you.

 

[ismaele00]

Ok, so they got there guns legally. Your point? They wanted to commit a crime, so they would have gotten the guns illegal if they needed to. Taking away my guns would not have stopped that crime. That's the hole point of this. CRIMINALS WILL STILL BUY GUNS.

Sent from my ADR6350 using EliteFitness

Wouldn't it be harder for them getting weapons if they were more controlled?
I don't know in the US but in Europe, trust me, you can't go to the supermarket and buy an AK, and in the continent (don't know in the UK) it's super-difficult (and super here has it's whole meaning) the black-weapons market is not in the corner near house.

So, the idea of "if they wouldn't get them legally, they wouldn't get them illegally"... sounds to me a little bit populist... I can be wrong of course...
If you think that... what do you think about drugs? Junkies can't get drugs legally so they buy them illegally... does it mean "free drugs for everybody"?

Don't know...

PS: I've got some info from the FBI web page,

Victimization

• According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2000, 533,470 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
• Victimizations involving a firearm represented 8% of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.
• The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms.

 

[WoodyO]

The Largest gun dealer in the US is Wal-mart. You can buy groceries, toilet paper and guns in just about every city of the US. It's really not hard to get any type of gun you want, legal or not.

 

[Colstreamer]

Wouldn't it be harder for them getting weapons if they were more controlled?
I don't know in the US but in Europe, trust me, you can't go to the supermarket and buy an AK, and in the continent (don't know in the UK) it's super-difficult (and super here has it's whole meaning) the black-weapons market is not in the corner near house.

So, the idea of "if they wouldn't get them legally, they wouldn't get them illegally"... sounds to me a little bit populist...

I'm in the UK and I can't get a firearms certificate I've tried for bleedin ages. But I can get an illegal gun tomorrow. The choices aren't great it'll be a glock or a browning hi power both would be 9mm. It'd cost around £1,000 ($1,600) and ammunition is around £10 per round (yeah fukin expensive)

You want irony? One of our largest exports is firearms.

 

[Headholio]

Wouldn't it be harder for them getting weapons if they were more controlled?
I don't know in the US but in Europe, trust me, you can't go to the supermarket and buy an AK, and in the continent (don't know in the UK) it's super-difficult (and super here has it's whole meaning) the black-weapons market is not in the corner near house.

So, the idea of "if they wouldn't get them legally, they wouldn't get them illegally"... sounds to me a little bit populist... I can be wrong of course...
If you think that... what do you think about drugs? Junkies can't get drugs legally so they buy them illegally... does it mean "free drugs for everybody"?

Don't know...

PS: I've got some info from the FBI web page,

Victimization

• According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2000, 533,470 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
• Victimizations involving a firearm represented 8% of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.
• The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms.

You ask good questions ismael. But I think its not so clear that restricting access to guns reduces crime. I have tried to research it a bit but I haven't found a definitive answer. I think there is data that shows that some of the cities with the most violent crime have the strictest gun laws. If you can find any kind of data that shows a correlation between gun access and crime rates, I'd be interested to see it.

You have to remember that guns can deter crime as well as be involved in crime. The argument is that I'm less likely to break down your door if there's a good chance you are armed, etc.

 

[Colstreamer]

.

You have to remember that guns can deter crime as well as be involved in crime. The argument is that I'm less likely to break down your door if there's a good chance you are armed, etc.

^^^ I believe this is why Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate in western Europe.

 

[Colstreamer]

Here's an interesting li'l article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm

 

[-SD-]

Here's an interesting li'l article.

BBC News | EUROPE | Switzerland and the gun

There goes the whole "guns cause crime" argument

 

[ppgfreak]

Wouldn't it be harder for them getting weapons if they were more controlled?
I don't know in the US but in Europe, trust me, you can't go to the supermarket and buy an AK, and in the continent (don't know in the UK) it's super-difficult (and super here has it's whole meaning) the black-weapons market is not in the corner near house.

So, the idea of "if they wouldn't get them legally, they wouldn't get them illegally"... sounds to me a little bit populist... I can be wrong of course...
If you think that... what do you think about drugs? Junkies can't get drugs legally so they buy them illegally... does it mean "free drugs for everybody"?

Don't know...

PS: I've got some info from the FBI web page,

Victimization

• According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2000, 533,470 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
• Victimizations involving a firearm represented 8% of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.
• The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms.

I see your point as far as Europe is concerned. But in the US the illegal gun market is very large. So its not difficult or hard to get illegal weapons. So the criminals that need guns will always be able to get them. So as far as me being allowed to have them or not. I should be able to, so I can protect myself,family and home. Because the criminal that wants to rob my house.....will have a illegal gun. So I should be able to have a legal gun to stop him.

Sent from my ADR6350 using EliteFitness

 

[ledhead]

I think its wierd that gun people are always talking about government trying to take away their guns. I don't really think that's a legit concern in the good old US of A.

It is totally a legit concern. I just recently bought a Kimber .45 Super Carry Custom. That weapon was on back order for 8 months because of Obama's scare tactics. The gun store owner told me that people are flocking to buy guns because they are afraid of what that lune will do. Now, I doubt he or any other left-wing lune will ever be able to take our guns. However, they can do other things to make it difficult for upright citizens to buy weapons. Like, tax the hell out of guns and ammo, which they are doing now. Consequently, that raises the prices on guns, which discourages people to buy guns.

This same gun store owner told me that it took him 8 months to get 9 MM ammo, 8 months to get 9 MM is retarded. Also, they can fuck with gun manufactures by putting silly regulations on certain weapons and ammo forcing them to stop production on certain weapons. Moreover, they can implement trivial mandates that would prevent a lot of people from being able to buy guns..

Don't be so sure of yourself with your blanket statements. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because the left-wing gov. might never be able to pass a law prohibiting the ownership of firearms does not mean they can't use other ways to stop people from owning guns...

 

[ppgfreak]

I hear you ledhead. I bought a SIG 9mm, model 2022. It took Cobelas 4 months to get me more mags/clips for it. It sucked taking it to the range and having to fill my ONE clip over and over lol

Sent from my ADR6350 using EliteFitness

 

[mrplunkey]

Try this: Go buy a $9.00 Estes rocket from your local hobby store.

Then order some servos from a hobby website (the little 2" ones, like they use in radio control cars). Wire it to a gyroscope you can buy from a similar hobby website for around $25.

Congratulations. You just built as "missile" as defined by federal law and committed a federal offense. You don't even have to fire it -- just possessing it is a federal crime.

But naw, we don't have too many regulations...

 

[Typo]

^ now we know what be does in his spare time!

 

[Headholio]

It is totally a legit concern. I just recently bought a Kimber .45 Super Carry Custom. That weapon was on back order for 8 months because of Obama's scare tactics.

You mean Fox news scare tactics. I doubt you can give one example of anything Obama has said or done as President as a scare tactic to threaten gun rights. But you are right. People are scared, because Fox news and rightie radio has everyone thinking that gun confiscation is right around the corner.

The gun store owner told me that people are flocking to buy guns because they are afraid of what that lune will do. Now, I doubt he or any other left-wing lune will ever be able to take our guns. However, they can do other things to make it difficult for upright citizens to buy weapons. Like, tax the hell out of guns and ammo, which they are doing now. Consequently, that raises the prices on guns, which discourages people to buy guns.

Obama has not increased taxes on weapons or ammo. Again, right wing lies.
Fear is one of the NRA's favorite tactics.

This same gun store owner told me that it took him 8 months to get 9 MM ammo, 8 months to get 9 MM is retarded.

Sounds like a supply and demand issue, nothing more.

Also, they can fuck with gun manufactures by putting silly regulations on certain weapons and ammo forcing them to stop production on certain weapons. Moreover, they can implement trivial mandates that would prevent a lot of people from being able to buy guns..

They can fuck manufacturers, and implement trivial mandates or they have? If they have, who is they?

Don't be so sure of yourself with your blanket statements. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because the left-wing gov. might never be able to pass a law prohibiting the ownership of firearms does not mean they can't use other ways to stop people from owning guns...

I'll stick with my blanket statement. There is no cause for fear of losing your gun rights in the USA. Talk of fighting to the death and making them pry your gun from your cold dead hand is laughable.

 

[Dial_tone]

It is totally a legit concern. I just recently bought a Kimber .45 Super Carry Custom. That weapon was on back order for 8 months because of Obama's scare tactics. The gun store owner told me that people are flocking to buy guns because they are afraid of what that lune will do. Now, I doubt he or any other left-wing lune will ever be able to take our guns. However, they can do other things to make it difficult for upright citizens to buy weapons. Like, tax the hell out of guns and ammo, which they are doing now. Consequently, that raises the prices on guns, which discourages people to buy guns.

This same gun store owner told me that it took him 8 months to get 9 MM ammo, 8 months to get 9 MM is retarded. Also, they can fuck with gun manufactures by putting silly regulations on certain weapons and ammo forcing them to stop production on certain weapons. Moreover, they can implement trivial mandates that would prevent a lot of people from being able to buy guns..

Don't be so sure of yourself with your blanket statements. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because the left-wing gov. might never be able to pass a law prohibiting the ownership of firearms does not mean they can't use other ways to stop people from owning guns...

So...... there was an 8 month long back order because people ARE able to buy guns? and even that is obama's fault?

 

[Dial_tone]

Try this: Go buy a $9.00 Estes rocket from your local hobby store.

Then order some servos from a hobby website (the little 2" ones, like they use in radio control cars). Wire it to a gyroscope you can buy from a similar hobby website for around $25.

Congratulations. You just built as "missile" as defined by federal law and committed a federal offense. You don't even have to fire it -- just possessing it is a federal crime.

But naw, we don't have too many regulations...

so, you should be able to buy any combination of individual items, and if you commit a crime we will just punish you after the fact? an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure be damned...