I've been in a lot of open debates in my life but that's the first time anyone's ever used "shut up and mind your business" as a counter argument.
Gun Control debate - What the hell is wrong with people???
- Thread starter just play
- Start date
- Status
I've been in a lot of open debates in my life but that's the first time anyone's ever used "shut up and mind your business" as a counter argument.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Everyone in this forum has an equal voice in this discussion. It's a dialogue between all of us - not just members who happen to live in the States.
You need to understand that there are few countries - if any - that have an article in their constitution that protects its citizens' rights to bear arms. This is why this issue is so difficult for non US members to grasp. But saying that, there are few constitutions that are as old as the US's - who is to say that an armed public has anything to do with that?
Another thing, Obama has nothing to do with anything here. He is only the President and Presidents can't go around changing the articles of the constitution. A President can form committees, make suggestions, and sign laws, but he is only allowed to do so much. This is a non-partisan issue by the way. Ronald Reagan, who is admired and worshiped by most conservatives, was an opponent to ownership of assault rifles, as was Gerald Ford.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
This need not be another divisive attack on the truly and lawfully elected US government.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
With all due respect Bryan, you need to understand how it feels to be bashed consistently. Just because certain members in this thread aren't using our names, (actually some do quote and point their nastiness right at another member) they are pointing their nastiness at us, and get away with it quite comfortably.
I wonder if there was ever a thread where members got to bash people from another country? My guess would be no, it's only allowed to bash Americans. Of course some people are just debating, but others are downright nasty and I find it disgusting this is allowed.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Location
- nashville tn
I am an American. I do not believe that anyone needs an assault weapon for protection. We need regulations. Gun show private sellers do not have to do background checks to sell assault weapons. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? How can anyone in America think that's right? Think of all the lunatics that can just buy a gun, including felons etc. Anyone who lives in this country and doesn't think we need regulation on this matter is not seeing the same news I am. Dead children outweigh anyone's right to carry a gun PERIOD!
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
I'm an American. No one is bashing me. I also own several guns (to include an assault weapon), and I really love(ed) to shoot things. Not animals mind you - things.
This topic is chuck full of pitfalls, and some members are vehement on their points of view - it's just the way it is when you're talking about violence, guns, slaughter of innocents, and protecting oneself from crime. Making personal attacks in the forum is not acceptable though, that should not be happening here. If it does, please let me know.
I hope I'm not being nasty. To be honest, when I'm in a debate is really the only time I really try to be nice. I'm trying to speak in generalities because I know that not all Americans think the same way. Many Americans are pushing for tighter gun control and some just want gun ownership to be a free for all. Not allowing Americans or Canadians or anyone else to own any kind of gun at all is unrealistic. Allowing them to own any kind of gun they like is just plain dangerous. I think allowing people to own specific types of guns and quantities of weapons for specific reasons, having strict rules about how they have to be stored and transported, solid background checks on applicants for licenses and reoccurring safety training are some of the measures that can be taken for a safer society.
I'm not against guns. I'm just against people getting killed needlessly. I just don't understand why there needs to be enough civilian owned guns to put one in the hands of every one of the 300 million men, women and children in the country. To me, it just seems unnecessary and if something that is unnecessary is even partly responsible for needless deaths then maybe it should change. I'm not talking about disarming America. I'm talking about creating laws that keep convicted felons from walking into a gun show and walking out with a deadly weapon. Making sure that weapons are stored safely so children can't find them and shoot each other by accident.
It's fine to say that owning a gun is every American's right but certainly most sensible people would agree that if people can't follow rules and regulations those rights can be taken away. I'm not a fork lift driver but I have a fork lift license. I've had the thing forever. I have to retake the practical refresher course yearly and the written test every few years to retain the license. The company keeps paying for it so I keep doing it and I've never complained once about having to do it. I like to know that anyone anywhere near me driving a fork lift has taken these courses on a regular basis. If you have to follow strict guidelines that means everyone has to follow strict guidelines and that makes you safer. People say they want personal protection. I think that's a good place to start.
Where the hell have you been?
Missing i also think should be a global debate on the many countries who do not have a voice in the gun debate. Many countries around our planet are constantly being flooded with arms and other munitions. Death, terror and chaos of countless artrocities are being thrust upon so many innocent babies, children, women & men and it's not just the U.S.A. involved with this:
World's largest arms exporters:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
1) USA
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) China
6) UK
7) Italy
8) Israel
9) Sweden
10) Ukrain
11) Spain
12) Switzerland
13) Canada
14) South Korea
These 14 countries are directly responsible for millions upon millions of deaths and destruction.
List of modern armament manufacturers:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
The president is a puppet & owned and operated by wall street and multinational corporations. Hell, just look at his donors list!
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Go through the various tabs as there's much info covering corporate names.
As for Obama not be able to change articles of the constitution...well what about the NDAA. The NDAA basically nulifies the habeas corpus rights of any American whether foreign or domestic.
Exert from Guardian article & writer Naomi Wolf: The NDAA: a clear and present danger to American liberty:
NDAA critics say that it enables ordinary US citizens to be treated like 'enemy combatants' in Guantánamo. Photograph: Paul J Richards/AFP/Getty Images
Yes, the worst things you may have heard about the National Defense Authorization Act, which has formally ended 254 years of democracy in the United States of America, and driven a stake through the heart of the bill of rights, are all really true. The act passed with large margins in both the House and the Senate on the last day of last year – even as tens of thousands of Americans were frantically begging their representatives to secure Americans' habeas corpus rights in the final version.
Link to article:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
ON obama's main donators list you'll see JP Morgan Chase. Here's a small exert from CorpWatch:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
However, the institutions most heavily involved in financing nuclear arms makers include Bank of America, BlackRock and JP Morgan Chase in the United States; BNP Paribas in France; Allianz and Deutsche Bank in Germany; Mistubishi UJF Financial in Japan; BBVA and Banco Santander in Spain; Credit Suisse and UBS in Switzerland; and Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland in Britain.
Bloody hell where's the "nuke control" compared to the "gun control" with these these gits? And i only took the time to backtrace one of Obama's main donars.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Location
- USA
those without a dog in the fight are the most vocal.
Can someone please tell me what an assault weapon is?
knife? baseball bat? machine gun?
if you break in my house and I don't have my weapon (unlikely, unless i just got out of the shower), and I bash your skull in with my coffee table, is that an assault weapon? hey, I assaulted you with it. I used it as a weapon, no?
again... the most argumentative are not from the US.
to quote bryan from earlier:
"I'm an American. No one is bashing me. I also own several guns (to include an assault weapon"
of course they won't. you can kick them out of here., but what exactly is this assault weapon you speak of owning?
AR15? just another semi-automatic weapon, much like a 6 shot revolver, which is semi-auto as well. pull the trigger, a projectile comes out...ONE AT A TIME.
US citizens CANT OWN MACHINE GUNS!!!!
as I stated earlier, you don't like guns, don't get one, and hope you never have to deal with someone who wants to do bodily harm to you or your family, and moreso, hope that an ex-marine with a CCW permit happens to see whats about to happen to you and saves your sorry ass.
and someone please, answer my earlier question..."why don't you ever hear of a police car getting car jacked"???
nevermind, I'll save the the typing. Its beacuse cops have guns and are trained to use them and they will kill you if you try to fuck with them.
A well trained citizen can do much to protect him/herself and others.
No one seems to have any problem with an armed guard in a bank to protect their money, but mention putting armed guards in schools to protect children, and its OMGWECANTHAVEGUNSINSCHOOLS!!!
bunchatreehugginhppies.
Can someone please tell me what an assault weapon is?
knife? baseball bat? machine gun?
if you break in my house and I don't have my weapon (unlikely, unless i just got out of the shower), and I bash your skull in with my coffee table, is that an assault weapon? hey, I assaulted you with it. I used it as a weapon, no?
again... the most argumentative are not from the US.
to quote bryan from earlier:
"I'm an American. No one is bashing me. I also own several guns (to include an assault weapon"
of course they won't. you can kick them out of here., but what exactly is this assault weapon you speak of owning?
AR15? just another semi-automatic weapon, much like a 6 shot revolver, which is semi-auto as well. pull the trigger, a projectile comes out...ONE AT A TIME.
US citizens CANT OWN MACHINE GUNS!!!!
as I stated earlier, you don't like guns, don't get one, and hope you never have to deal with someone who wants to do bodily harm to you or your family, and moreso, hope that an ex-marine with a CCW permit happens to see whats about to happen to you and saves your sorry ass.
and someone please, answer my earlier question..."why don't you ever hear of a police car getting car jacked"???
nevermind, I'll save the the typing. Its beacuse cops have guns and are trained to use them and they will kill you if you try to fuck with them.
A well trained citizen can do much to protect him/herself and others.
No one seems to have any problem with an armed guard in a bank to protect their money, but mention putting armed guards in schools to protect children, and its OMGWECANTHAVEGUNSINSCHOOLS!!!
bunchatreehugginhppies.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are these countries illegally exporting guns? Guns are legal to produce and sell. I don't think it's logical to trace the blame for gun related crimes all the way back to the manufacturer or the salesmen. Guns are not evil. Unrestricted ownership and use of guns is dangerous. Now if you're talking about the illegal sale of firearms then yes, the salesmen are in part to blame because the sale is unrestricted.
I thought about answering this but that's not what this thread is about.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Yes, you're right....much better with a president like Bush who was in bed with the Bin Ladens and Haliburton
Honestly, all presidents are backed by powerful groups and people, most of whom could be said to be dodgy one way or another...it comes with the territory. It's wrong to just point out Obama when they all have and will do it. Again, with the Obama thing....I really hope this thread doesn't get hijacked by conspiracy theorists like so many others.
those without a dog in the fight are the most vocal.
Can someone please tell me what an assault weapon is?
knife? baseball bat? machine gun?
if you break in my house and I don't have my weapon (unlikely, unless i just got out of the shower), and I bash your skull in with my coffee table, is that an assault weapon? hey, I assaulted you with it. I used it as a weapon, no?
again... the most argumentative are not from the US.
to quote bryan from earlier:
"I'm an American. No one is bashing me. I also own several guns (to include an assault weapon"
of course they won't. you can kick them out of here., but what exactly is this assault weapon you speak of owning?
AR15? just another semi-automatic weapon, much like a 6 shot revolver, which is semi-auto as well. pull the trigger, a projectile comes out...ONE AT A TIME.
US citizens CANT OWN MACHINE GUNS!!!!
as I stated earlier, you don't like guns, don't get one, and hope you never have to deal with someone who wants to do bodily harm to you or your family, and moreso, hope that an ex-marine with a CCW permit happens to see whats about to happen to you and saves your sorry ass.
and someone please, answer my earlier question..."why don't you ever hear of a police car getting car jacked"???
nevermind, I'll save the the typing. Its beacuse cops have guns and are trained to use them and they will kill you if you try to fuck with them.
A well trained citizen can do much to protect him/herself and others.
No one seems to have any problem with an armed guard in a bank to protect their money, but mention putting armed guards in schools to protect children, and its OMGWECANTHAVEGUNSINSCHOOLS!!!
bunchatreehugginhppies.
Again...what's with the "if you're not American you can't have an opinion"?
I assume that's the point you're making by saying non-US members are the "most vocal". I can't see any other reason for saying it, and Bryan already stated we are entitled to our opinion the same as you. Maybe outsiders can see how pathetically stupid it is for just about every citizen to own a gun for "protection".
Police are fully trained in law enforcement and appropriate weapon use. Most people don't attack police because they RESPECT them...not because they are armed. The crims who hate police might be deterred from attacking because the police are armed and will shoot them if attacked, but to say it's the reason people don't attack cops in general is ridiculous IMO.
If you want a safer America, do something about the CRIME. If every US citizen arms themselves to the teeth (which the gun lobby want because they are run by the armaments industry...go figure), it will NOT stop home invasions, burglaries, theft, muggings etc....it will just mean that all the criminals will also arm themselves to the teeth, and are more likely to sneak in and shoot you and your family first, and then rob you. Neighbour disputes will become shootouts. It goes on and on.
Guns breed violence breeds death breeds fear breeds need for protection breeds guns....breeds violence etc etc etc.
Round and round you go.
I'm not saying someone should not be allowed to own a gun for sport or hunting etc....but you don't need M15's for that. Over here, semis are kept under lock and key at gun clubs, where they belong.
Some interesting stats:
With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison
The USA is number 28 on the highest gun homicides per 100,000 citizens. Well, that's not bad you might think, but when you see who the other 27 countries are, it is a damning statistic.
Also, for those who think Australia needs to "take care of it's own backyard":
Gun homicides per 100,000:
USA: 2.79
Australia: 0.14
Still, strict gun laws don't work.
Almost nobody here has a gun in their house....but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.those without a dog in the fight are the most vocal.
Can someone please tell me what an assault weapon is?
knife? baseball bat? machine gun?
if you break in my house and I don't have my weapon (unlikely, unless i just got out of the shower), and I bash your skull in with my coffee table, is that an assault weapon? hey, I assaulted you with it. I used it as a weapon, no?
again... the most argumentative are not from the US.
to quote bryan from earlier:
"I'm an American. No one is bashing me. I also own several guns (to include an assault weapon"
of course they won't. you can kick them out of here., but what exactly is this assault weapon you speak of owning?
AR15? just another semi-automatic weapon, much like a 6 shot revolver, which is semi-auto as well. pull the trigger, a projectile comes out...ONE AT A TIME.
US citizens CANT OWN MACHINE GUNS!!!!
as I stated earlier, you don't like guns, don't get one, and hope you never have to deal with someone who wants to do bodily harm to you or your family, and moreso, hope that an ex-marine with a CCW permit happens to see whats about to happen to you and saves your sorry ass.
and someone please, answer my earlier question..."why don't you ever hear of a police car getting car jacked"???
nevermind, I'll save the the typing. Its beacuse cops have guns and are trained to use them and they will kill you if you try to fuck with them.
A well trained citizen can do much to protect him/herself and others.
No one seems to have any problem with an armed guard in a bank to protect their money, but mention putting armed guards in schools to protect children, and its OMGWECANTHAVEGUNSINSCHOOLS!!!
bunchatreehugginhppies.
Your right, Mike. peps don't f&%k with cops cos they know what would happen & i like your logic about the bank guard as well. I don't know if you would be interested, but here's a link of some old wise words from the founding fathers: Outdated URL (Invalid)
I personally like: The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
- Samuel Adams
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
- Joseph Story
Gun Quotes from our Founding Fathers
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
- George Washington
Personally I don't think anyone capable of bashing someone's skull in for any reason should be carrying a weapon of any kind.
I'm not sure what you mean by "most argumentative" both sides have points and counter points. I'm going to assume you mean "People who agree with me the least."
Do you really think someone in this forum is worried about getting kicked out for disagreeing with Bryan about gun control laws? The way I read that statement was that the posts he read in this thread weren't taken as personal attacks on him and other people shouldn't be taking them personal either.
But they can own guns with high capacity magazines making it possible to shoot many rounds off without reloading.
Do you really think even one person is going to accredit the lack of police car jackings on the fact that the police carry guns? You would really have to be a special kind of stupid to decide to jack a car and expect to get away with it after choosing one of the tiny handful of extremely well marked cars driven by police officers equipped with radios and GPS as opposed to the millions of cars driven by little old ladies. The question was silly. Why do people rob corner stores or gas stations instead of boutiques in the middle of big shopping malls? The gas bar attendant is MORE likely to have a gun behind the counter but it's still EASIER to get away so they do that instead.
A well trained citizen can do much to protect him/herself and others.
No one seems to have any problem with an armed guard in a bank to protect their money, but mention putting armed guards in schools to protect children, and its OMGWECANTHAVEGUNSINSCHOOLS!!!
bunchatreehugginhppies.
Guns do not belong in schools for any reason. We've already discussed the perpetuation of fear mongering by teaching children they need to guard themselves with weapons 24 hours a day. Instead of finding new reasons to arm everyone in the country find ways to create a society where you don't have to. Doesn't that make a whole lot more sense?
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Location
- USA
you would stand by idly if someone were to enter your home and try to harm to your wife/husband/kid/bf or whatever. sure you would skiny. you aren't capable? bullshit.
you would do whatever it took to remove the threat, including bash their skull in with the coffee table, (since obviously to you, guns are evil and have place in your house) but, to each there own. you head to timmys, I'm gonna go have a beer and some dinner.
peace.
you would do whatever it took to remove the threat, including bash their skull in with the coffee table, (since obviously to you, guns are evil and have place in your house) but, to each there own. you head to timmys, I'm gonna go have a beer and some dinner.
peace.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
The idea that someone doesn't attack cops because they're gun-toting is ridiculous. The general population doesn't because we conform to the social contract. The average criminal also doesn't have any reason to believe the average cop has a cash register in his back-seat.
They don't go after them, because it doesn't make sense to. A cop's trained in taking down people. He's inside, quite likely, an idling car or on foot. He doesn't likely have anything the criminal wants. I doubt he's carrying a purse. Not all criminals are idiots and a cop isn't an easy picking.
None of these have anything to do with being armed.
They don't go after them, because it doesn't make sense to. A cop's trained in taking down people. He's inside, quite likely, an idling car or on foot. He doesn't likely have anything the criminal wants. I doubt he's carrying a purse. Not all criminals are idiots and a cop isn't an easy picking.
None of these have anything to do with being armed.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Location
- USA
and of course, it has nothing to do with the cop having a gun, right??? nothing at all.
They have LOTS of cool shit. police in my city drive new dodge chargers. damn nice car with all the lights and computers and shit. why not go and take it from him or her???
oh, thats right... THEY HAVE GUNS!!!
the "average criminal" who tried to rip my 83 year old moms purse off her arm surely must have thought she had a shitstack of cash. no. she was an easy target. personally, I refuse to be one.
They have LOTS of cool shit. police in my city drive new dodge chargers. damn nice car with all the lights and computers and shit. why not go and take it from him or her???
oh, thats right... THEY HAVE GUNS!!!
the "average criminal" who tried to rip my 83 year old moms purse off her arm surely must have thought she had a shitstack of cash. no. she was an easy target. personally, I refuse to be one.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
My point exactly. Thank you for proving it
She's an easy target. Any criminal with two brain cells knows an old lady is easier to mug than someone they KNOW has special training. Hmm, who would I try to knock over? Someone is poor health, aged, infirmed, or the guy who went to the academy, met height requirements, passed his physical etc. The average criminal doesnt know if the old lady has a gun in her purse. He's just going for what appears to be easier.
LOL, because it's easier to steal a car from a lot noone will miss for an hour or two than a cop's, with a thug driving behind the whee,l that's expected to radio in and generally has 2 passengers. Why steal the the most obvious car when there's a regular one down the street easier to grab. Because of the gun? No, you go for what's simplest to take and keep.
Last edited:
No, it's not entirely what this thread is about but, i'm only commenting on what meister was saying about Obama and the Constitution ect and showing what a Hippocrate Obama is when he preaches gun control yet he accepts big money from corporations who are funding conflicts across the globe.
Also here's the result of so called "legal arms". POLITICS: Unchecked Arms Trade Fuelling Conflict, Poverty
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 9 2008 (IPS) - With 1.3 trillion dollars spent every year on the world's militaries, countries enmeshed in conflict are often flooded by weapons which are then turned against helpless civilian populations, say human rights organisations pushing for an international treaty to closely regulate arms sales.
The so called "legal" guns are fueling conflicts across the globe and it's treated as big business. It's not just guns the "legal" corporations are selling, it's munitions of every kind. Just because something is referred to as "legal" does not mean it's moral and more often than not, the conflicts are created with intent and sustained for time for maximum profit.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2008
Good Old Days...
Was way back in Jan 2009, I posted a pic of an Australian collection of hand made revolvers
(Civil War Wooden Replicas).
My profile page:
See Albums "WHAT THE..."
Linked to a video. Just noticed link's been broken some time.
Tried updating but can't edit it properly.
Anyhow - Go check em out? (Sorry - copy 'n paste in browser)
regardless of politics
Was way back in Jan 2009, I posted a pic of an Australian collection of hand made revolvers
(Civil War Wooden Replicas).
My profile page:
See Albums "WHAT THE..."
Linked to a video. Just noticed link's been broken some time.
Tried updating but can't edit it properly.
Anyhow - Go check em out? (Sorry - copy 'n paste in browser)
regardless of politics
Last edited:
200 year old quotes that don't apply in today's society are useless. How about this one?
The United States Declaration of Independence- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. (Except for about 1/5th of the population which are bound by slavery.)
I have news for you. People do shoot at cops. They just find easier places to steal things.
That's like saying someone is a hippocrite because he owns a liquor store and doesn't think people should drink and drive. You mistake advocating gun control for being anti-gun. There's a difference.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Location
- az
o.k so its o.k for our goverment to sell guns to drug dealers (the fast and furious) that are then used to kill u.s people and nothing is done about it.
but let a madman shoot a school up and everyone in the u.s that owns a gun is then viwed as a bad person that at any moment will go on a killing spree?
am i getting it right so far?
so the goverment thinks that a drug dealer across the border is more trust worthy then their own people?
kind of makes you look at the goverment as being two faced right and makes you not trust a word that comes out of their mouths.
and bryan no where in my earlyer post did i say anything about obama i said s.s.i and the i.r.s even tho i really don,t like obama at all i think he is pure evil.
and no guys i have,nt really liked anyone in the goverment caz they all do backdoor deals and r in it to line their own pockets. i think the last one i liked was j.f.k
and bryan you don,t live in the states anymore do you? forgive me if i,m wrong but i thought i read somewhere that you no longer live here and if thats true mind
if i ask you why you lifted? if you still live here sorry.
and you all do know that if the goverment made the punishment fit the crime then people would think twice about doing anything if they knew that they would,nt
be deemed sick or anything eles that they would be put to death and not 20 years after they do the crime. thats what sucks someone kills someone and even if
they are given death they may live 10,20 or even 30 years longer before they are put to death. but the person they killed don,t get that extar time they are just dead.
and from what i have read the shooter was not alone and he did not have a assault rifle in the school with him only hand guns and the gun the cops take out of his
trunk is more then likly a shotgun(some say it is some say it is,nt a shotgun) but seeing the shooter never lift the school after going in i really don,t see how they
say he used a rifle. and this was a news clip that i got this from but hell the news changes its story to fit what they want people to believe so thats kind of up in the
air seeing they can,t make up their minds.
but let a madman shoot a school up and everyone in the u.s that owns a gun is then viwed as a bad person that at any moment will go on a killing spree?
am i getting it right so far?
so the goverment thinks that a drug dealer across the border is more trust worthy then their own people?
kind of makes you look at the goverment as being two faced right and makes you not trust a word that comes out of their mouths.
and bryan no where in my earlyer post did i say anything about obama i said s.s.i and the i.r.s even tho i really don,t like obama at all i think he is pure evil.
and no guys i have,nt really liked anyone in the goverment caz they all do backdoor deals and r in it to line their own pockets. i think the last one i liked was j.f.k
and bryan you don,t live in the states anymore do you? forgive me if i,m wrong but i thought i read somewhere that you no longer live here and if thats true mind
if i ask you why you lifted? if you still live here sorry.
and you all do know that if the goverment made the punishment fit the crime then people would think twice about doing anything if they knew that they would,nt
be deemed sick or anything eles that they would be put to death and not 20 years after they do the crime. thats what sucks someone kills someone and even if
they are given death they may live 10,20 or even 30 years longer before they are put to death. but the person they killed don,t get that extar time they are just dead.
and from what i have read the shooter was not alone and he did not have a assault rifle in the school with him only hand guns and the gun the cops take out of his
trunk is more then likly a shotgun(some say it is some say it is,nt a shotgun) but seeing the shooter never lift the school after going in i really don,t see how they
say he used a rifle. and this was a news clip that i got this from but hell the news changes its story to fit what they want people to believe so thats kind of up in the
air seeing they can,t make up their minds.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Location
- az
and this is the goverment that i,m told to trust right? not in this lifetime. and fema is a joke.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Location
- az
A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT.......December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.
We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.
As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.
Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.
Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.
could not have said it better then this.
We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.
As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.
Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.
Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.
could not have said it better then this.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
hahaa....I'm speechless.
I was going to reply to some of the latest posts here, but I'm just speechless, and now better understand the mystified/horrified look on Pierce Morgans face.
I've watched some of the videos on youtube, where he interviewed pro gun people on CNN, and must admit he has my deepest sympathy.
I was going to reply to some of the latest posts here, but I'm just speechless, and now better understand the mystified/horrified look on Pierce Morgans face.
I've watched some of the videos on youtube, where he interviewed pro gun people on CNN, and must admit he has my deepest sympathy.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
I forgot, where was Piers Morgan born and raised?
Thats nice he has your deepest sympathy.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
In England I believe ...I don't quite understand why that's relevant ?
I forgot, where was Piers Morgan born and raised?
Thats nice he has your deepest sympathy.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Location
- nashville tn
Skiny- I've been knocked up and really cranky for like the last 2 years 
Nobody seems to want to address the fact that at gun shows private sellers can sell what they want to who they want....WITH NO BACKGROUND CHECK!!! Seriously....I should never own a gun I have a shite temperment.....but I could if I wanted go pick up a sweet assault rifle Seriously do pro gun people really want FELONS walking around with any gun they like?
The second amendment also states WELL REGULATED MILITIA.....I don't see any militia. Read the 3rd amendment it makes no sense in todays world. The constitution is outdated period.
Nobody seems to want to address the fact that at gun shows private sellers can sell what they want to who they want....WITH NO BACKGROUND CHECK!!! Seriously....I should never own a gun I have a shite temperment.....but I could if I wanted go pick up a sweet assault rifle
Seriously do pro gun people really want FELONS walking around with any gun they like?The second amendment also states WELL REGULATED MILITIA.....I don't see any militia. Read the 3rd amendment it makes no sense in todays world. The constitution is outdated period.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Location
- Texas, USA
Jelsmith,
I've been to many a gun show, mainly in Texas, and at each one if we purchased a gun, the seller ran a background check, using the same form that is required to purchase a gun at a pawn shop or Walmart etc. I believe it is the DPS that they have to call, give them your name, DL # and a criminal check is run. If you are a convicted felon or have a history of domestic violence, you cannot purchase the firearm. As to what else is looked at by the DPS, I don't know, but I know a background check is required in Texas for gun purchase. The gun's serial number is also given as well as Model # and brand.
Also, if you purchase a firearm online, the firearm has to be shipped to a licensed dealer and that dealer has to run the background check before he can let you have the gun.
As far as I know, mental stability or the lack thereof, isn't checked and should be but possibly that will come.
Just letting you know what happens in Texas when you buy a gun.
I've been to many a gun show, mainly in Texas, and at each one if we purchased a gun, the seller ran a background check, using the same form that is required to purchase a gun at a pawn shop or Walmart etc. I believe it is the DPS that they have to call, give them your name, DL # and a criminal check is run. If you are a convicted felon or have a history of domestic violence, you cannot purchase the firearm. As to what else is looked at by the DPS, I don't know, but I know a background check is required in Texas for gun purchase. The gun's serial number is also given as well as Model # and brand.
Also, if you purchase a firearm online, the firearm has to be shipped to a licensed dealer and that dealer has to run the background check before he can let you have the gun.
As far as I know, mental stability or the lack thereof, isn't checked and should be but possibly that will come.
Just letting you know what happens in Texas when you buy a gun.
Skiny- I've been knocked up and really cranky for like the last 2 years
Nobody seems to want to address the fact that at gun shows private sellers can sell what they want to who they want....WITH NO BACKGROUND CHECK!!! Seriously....I should never own a gun I have a shite temperment.....but I could if I wanted go pick up a sweet assault rifle
The second amendment also states WELL REGULATED MILITIA.....I don't see any militia. Read the 3rd amendment it makes no sense in todays world. The constitution is outdated period.
You've been knocked up for 2 years? Didn't your health teacher tell you what the average gestation period is supposed to be? You should have studied more. You could have had a baby in less than half that time.
That's good. These are exactly the kinds of things I'm talking about. Now if every state had to follow the same rules it wouldn't be so easy for people to buy guns and just drive over the state border. I think gun owners should be monitored as well so they can't sell them privately and claim they're lost or stolen. If it happens once you can't really prove anything but if it's happening a lot it would start to get a little suspicious.
As for the big story about the cavalry riding in and shooting up a bunch of Indians, that's a nice take on a historical event but realistically it's meaningless in a gun control debate. I challenge anyone to explain to me how they can possibly protect themselves from the US. military with a gun they bought at Wal-Mart. Forming a militia against the US military is not only pointless but silly. Just apply a little logic to what's being suggested. There is no way any private militia group is going to arm itself against the biggest, most well funded military on the planet. If this is the reason you're fighting against gun control you're wasting your time.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Location
- nashville tn
A private seller does not have to. They can but do not have to. In any state if they are at a gun show and are a private seller they don't have to. That's how a buttload of guns are winding up in Mexico from Texas.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Location
- nashville tn
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Several sources citing the loophole from both sides
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
Yes, he is British and makes his millions here in America. For such a crappy place like USA, it sure is funny how people from other countries come here to make millions, or to have a better life.
It's relevant because most British people feel the same way as you, so of course he would have (to use your words) a "mystified/horrified look" on his face. As said previous by other posters, other countries have different views about this than some Americans.
The funny thing is I don't own a gun, I'm actually afraid of them, I just don't like them. (I would probably change my mind if a few men busted in my house and raped/shot/killed my family) But, if others want to own them I have no problem with it at all. I am pro-gun for a few reasons, and yes protecting my family would be one of them if I were to live in certain areas. Another reason is, criminals will always get guns, why would they try to take them from law abiding citizens. Other people I'm sure have other reasons for owning theirs, but those are 2 off the top of my head.
The same things have been said about 100 times by the same people, this thread is getting tiresome. Going in circles, having people from other countries bark at us for wanting to own guns (along with a few insults thrown in of course, because that's allowed) and some Americans saying we want to own guns.
I don't even see the point of debated this after 40 pages, it just gets members upset with other members and I see no good coming from that. No one will change their minds. This could go another 1,000 pages, and what will be accomplished? Absolutely nothing.
Since I started this thread (not for a gun debate thread, but that's what it turned into) can I ask Bryan, Max or Simmo shut it down now?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
You might have began it. But just because you no longer want to participate in it, doesnt meean others shouldn't.
If you don't like it, there's no obligation for you to take part in it.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
First of all I'm not British, but yes I feel the same way most British or anyone else outside of the USA does about this issue, who btw get the excact same mystified/horrified look on their faces, when they hear some of the arguments some Americans come up with, for keeping their guns. (Read some of the replies in this thread about killing Indians etc.)
I'm pretty sure Mr. Morgan was doing quite well in Britain money and otherwise, and simply accepted a job offer in the states, because they wanted him, and he thought it would be interesting to take the challenge.
The fact that some people don't like that he speaks his mind, on some delicate matters, just prove that it's very much needed, and I applaud that he stands up for himself and his opinions, despite that some Americans actually want him thrown out of the states, for having his opinions ( Are you effing kidding me ???).
Now both you and other "Americans" have implied more than once in this thread, that people who are not Americans, or no longer live in the states (Even if they were born and raised there) are allowed to have, or state their opinion about anything that's going on there. Can you please tell me how many generations do your family have to have been "American" to be allowed to have an opinion ? And for how long, after you leave the states are you allowed to have an opinion ? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work in the real world.
American politicts have an impact on the whole world, and therefore educated people from outside will, and should have, opinions about what you do, and people from outside certainly have every right to state their opinion about it. THAT'S how it works, whether a few people on a public forum likes it or not, and whether those few people agree with what they hear or not.
To ask anyone to close a thread like this, because you don't agree with what's being said doesn't belong in the democratic world in my opinion. If you don't like it or agree with what's being said, then either come up with some valid counter arguments or stay out of it, and simply don't read it. The second this thread started to develop it became public property, and is no longer considered yours to close. Things like that only happens in countries, that most people from the western world don't want to be associated with.
Edit to add: Not a single person in this thread said that America is a "crappy place". You're the only one.
Maybe if Americans didn't take things so personal, and tried to actually hear what's being said, instead of constantly getting personally offended, they could get some valuable input and opinions from the world outside.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Morgan was doing quite well in Britain money and otherwise, and simply accepted a job offer in the states, because they wanted him, and he thought it would be interesting to take the challenge.
The fact that some people don't like that he speaks his mind, on some delicate matters, just prove that it's very much needed, and I applaud that he stands up for himself and his opinions, despite that some Americans actually want him thrown out of the states, for having his opinions ( Are you effing kidding me ???).
Now both you and other "Americans" have implied more than once in this thread, that people who are not Americans, or no longer live in the states (Even if they were born and raised there) are allowed to have, or state their opinion about anything that's going on there. Can you please tell me how many generations do your family have to have been "American" to be allowed to have an opinion ? And for how long, after you leave the states are you allowed to have an opinion ? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work in the real world.
American politicts have an impact on the whole world, and therefore educated people from outside will, and should have, opinions about what you do, and people from outside certainly have every right to state their opinion about it. THAT'S how it works, whether a few people on a public forum likes it or not, and whether those few people agree with what they hear or not.
To ask anyone to close a thread like this, because you don't agree with what's being said doesn't belong in the democratic world in my opinion. If you don't like it or agree with what's being said, then either come up with some valid counter arguments or stay out of it, and simply don't read it. The second this thread started to develop it became public property, and is no longer considered yours to close. Things like that only happens in countries, that most people from the western world don't want to be associated with.
Edit to add: Not a single person in this thread said that America is a "crappy place". You're the only one.
Maybe if Americans didn't take things so personal, and tried to actually hear what's being said, instead of constantly getting personally offended, they could get some valuable input and opinions from the world outside.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
It's just another way of saying "we have no actual argument that has any logical or factual basis to support anybody and everybody being armed to the teeth, so please silence others who have actually provided counter-arguments that have a solid logical and factual basis, as it is making some people look ill-informed and ignorant (regarding the subject). The "you aren't American so get lost" argument has been nullified, and we have nothing else"
I have to wonder that if Bush was anti-gun, most of the pro-gun members here would have been saying "oh yes guns are awful. Get rid of them!" I see a disturbing trend where Americans from certain geographical areas display a real tangible hatred ("Obama is pure evil") of Obama. I have to wonder why.....I didn't see the same hatred of Clinton (both) or Gore, etc.....all Dems, but somehow different.....
Dionysus is right. If one doesn't wish to read or post....then don't. Simple. One shouldn't assume that starting a thread means you "own" it and can close it, especially when the only reason is that one is losing an argument in a big way.
If US citizens can't or won't take a long hard look and realise that their attitudes and ways are sending them to the same fate as the Romans, then they better start learning mandarin.. Ignore history, and you're deemed to repeat it.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
All due respect, but what are you trying to say?
I understand the last bit...kind of...who cares what gun it was or what he had in the trunk? The people he killed are still dead, and so is he.....unless you're one of those kooks who think he didn't exist
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
LaHutti, please point out where I said non Americans can't say their opinions.
Nifty...
Ya, we are just "pathetically stupid" with our opinions. (those are some peoples opinions)
It's not another way of saying that, someday you will realize your not a mind reader. It was my way of saying "I wouldn't want to see members being upset with other members, and disrupt other parts of the forum because of this thread."
You and other posters convieniently forget I couldn't give 2 shits what they do about gun control, doesn't affect me one bit. I am pro-gun, and that is my decision to have. Does it make me pathetically stupid? In your eyes sure, in others eyes no.
edit...all the pro-gun people could always just stay out of this thread, then you anti-gun people could have a nice chat.
Because I'm pretty possitive this thread will stay open, so have at it, and enjoy.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
1. What do you hunt with a revolver? I'm not a hunter, but I've never seen a hunter with one.
2. If there was no gun in the house, the kid couldn't have taken it to school. Its lucky nobody was killed.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Location
- Texas, USA
Just Play,
I think this is probably the sanest post in this whole thread. Thank you.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Sorry annie, but I beg to differ.
It's pretty obvious that she did not mean that at all....otherwise she would have said it in the first place, instead of having a dummy spit and yelling "close it down!". IMO it's backtracking because she was called out on it...but to each their own, and you opinion is one I respect.
I don't see ANY part of this debate spilling over into any other thread. Well, for me it doesn't anyway. If it has, can you link it for me as I would be also disappointed if that was happening.
I'm disappointed that you would think that everyone else's opinions in this thread are "less sane"...especially when the person above is pro-gun "just because" and she doesn't want to explain any further....and that's fine, but she should not expect to be taken seriously in a debate with that POV. I've seen a dozen posts far more logical and sane than the one you refer to here.
(Disclaimer...I have justplay on ignore so unless someone replied with quote I may have missed something)
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Okay guys, we're beginning to get personal here - which is uncool.
For what it's worth, even though I don't live in the States right now, I own property there, I vote, I still have to file my taxes to the IRS, and my voice and opinion is a legit as any other American.
And in case you were wondering, my direct ancestors (specifically Godfrey Bailey from Almondsbury, Yorkshire, England) settled in Rowley Massachusetts in 1612. So my family has been Americanized for about 400 years i.e. we have guns in our history.
Agreed - Wounded Knee was an atrocity - but it was in the classrooms at least back in the 70s when I was in high school. Of course the American "Indian" were victims, but there was a lot of tit-for-tat going on. The style of warfare acceptable amongst Native Americans shocked the Europeans since non-combatants were considered fair game by the natives. It was normal to kill women and children and torture captives. Two hundred some odd years of fighting went on until the mid to late 1800s when the US Army was given the right to do the same. This climaxed with the Sioux at Wounded Knee.
But applying Second Amendment rights to the Sioux is ridiculous revisionist history. The Indian wars had been going on for centuries, and I don't believe the Indians had citizenship back then. And I don't believe anyone had semi-automatic assault rifles back then either.
That's the issue. Military assault rifles have been used in each of the recent mass killings. Military assault rifles are for shooting at many people at the same time. They are offensive weapons as opposed to defensive weapons (pistols, revolvers). If you are going on the offense - for instance a raid or ambush - you use rifles that are accurate at long ranges with a rapid rate of fire. If you want to defend yourself, you need a pistol that can be concealed and shot at close range. Pistols/revolvers are not accurate beyond 50 meters.
So unless you are planing to aggressively "assault" a group of people, assault rifles are not needed. Simple as that.
For what it's worth, even though I don't live in the States right now, I own property there, I vote, I still have to file my taxes to the IRS, and my voice and opinion is a legit as any other American.
And in case you were wondering, my direct ancestors (specifically Godfrey Bailey from Almondsbury, Yorkshire, England) settled in Rowley Massachusetts in 1612. So my family has been Americanized for about 400 years i.e. we have guns in our history.
Agreed - Wounded Knee was an atrocity - but it was in the classrooms at least back in the 70s when I was in high school. Of course the American "Indian" were victims, but there was a lot of tit-for-tat going on. The style of warfare acceptable amongst Native Americans shocked the Europeans since non-combatants were considered fair game by the natives. It was normal to kill women and children and torture captives. Two hundred some odd years of fighting went on until the mid to late 1800s when the US Army was given the right to do the same. This climaxed with the Sioux at Wounded Knee.
But applying Second Amendment rights to the Sioux is ridiculous revisionist history. The Indian wars had been going on for centuries, and I don't believe the Indians had citizenship back then. And I don't believe anyone had semi-automatic assault rifles back then either.
That's the issue. Military assault rifles have been used in each of the recent mass killings. Military assault rifles are for shooting at many people at the same time. They are offensive weapons as opposed to defensive weapons (pistols, revolvers). If you are going on the offense - for instance a raid or ambush - you use rifles that are accurate at long ranges with a rapid rate of fire. If you want to defend yourself, you need a pistol that can be concealed and shot at close range. Pistols/revolvers are not accurate beyond 50 meters.
So unless you are planing to aggressively "assault" a group of people, assault rifles are not needed. Simple as that.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Food for thought: how about enacting gun laws that allow only proclaimed atheists to purchase and own assault rifles. Most atheists don't believe in an afterlife (or they claim to just not know). And I would almost bet that most shooters were religious in some way or another thinking they were sending people to heaven (or hell), then clocked out thinking they were doing the same.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Location
- nashville tn
I'm an anti-theist and I agree with statement 1000%
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Location
- Texas, USA
Oh for heavens sake, Nifty.
I don't really give a big rat's behind if this thread goes on forever, but I can see it tailspinning into name calling and snide remarks and in my opinion, will only lead to more harsh words and bannings.
I am getting pretty tired of being called 'pathetically stupid', your words, just because I own guns. Last I took an assessment, I'm pretty smart, pretty literate, knowledgeable about current affairs and can feed myself. I don't think that makes me 'pathetically stupid'.
Do you or any other non-US person think that we haven't tried to change things around here? We vote, we write our elected officials and we might as well be spitting in the wind for all the good it does us. Our democratic, land of the free is one big joke and we know it. Yet we keep on trying.
Why don't you folks come one down and take a walk in a Texas border town? While your at it, mosey on over across the border and see how you like that? We can't keep the drugs from coming across and can't keep the criminals from coming with it. You might change your mind about having a gun for protection.
FYI, I personally don't think that there is one person in the US that needs an assault rifle. They are useless for personal use. But I will defend my right to have a gun in my home.
So, if ya'll want to dance in a circle with this thread and you think it's serving a purpose, knock yourself out. And yep, I'm already brushing up on my Mandarin.
I don't really give a big rat's behind if this thread goes on forever, but I can see it tailspinning into name calling and snide remarks and in my opinion, will only lead to more harsh words and bannings.
I am getting pretty tired of being called 'pathetically stupid', your words, just because I own guns. Last I took an assessment, I'm pretty smart, pretty literate, knowledgeable about current affairs and can feed myself. I don't think that makes me 'pathetically stupid'.
Do you or any other non-US person think that we haven't tried to change things around here? We vote, we write our elected officials and we might as well be spitting in the wind for all the good it does us. Our democratic, land of the free is one big joke and we know it. Yet we keep on trying.
Why don't you folks come one down and take a walk in a Texas border town? While your at it, mosey on over across the border and see how you like that? We can't keep the drugs from coming across and can't keep the criminals from coming with it. You might change your mind about having a gun for protection.
FYI, I personally don't think that there is one person in the US that needs an assault rifle. They are useless for personal use. But I will defend my right to have a gun in my home.
So, if ya'll want to dance in a circle with this thread and you think it's serving a purpose, knock yourself out. And yep, I'm already brushing up on my Mandarin.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Location
- az
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
. a rifle was not used in the shooting.
there were only 4 handguns that were found.
and nifty the reason i put this is because this is what almost all the people on here are debating about the big bad assault rifle.
and weather we should be allowed to own one. and with the u.s goverment it won,t stop at just this when we let them take one right they will keep taking more and more.
and if they r going to outlaw these then outlaw planes too caz in one swipe they took out about 3000 people babys,women and men on 9/11.
again i will say anything can be used to kill someone eles its the person behind the gun or the plane or anything eles that we have to do something about.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
If guns are banned, then planes should be banned.
Right. OK.
I'm leaving it there.
Oh and I didn't say I oppose just assault rifles. I think all guns should be banned save for specific reasonable uses. I don't see shooting Mexicans as reasonable. Of course, if drugs were decriminalized the crime and smuggling would stop very quickly.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
Im sprry, i cant fathom how you compare planes to guns; average commercial pllanes arent designed to kill people regardless of whether a couple nuts used them to. I could probably slice someones neck with a potato peeler, a starfish or the imsides of a toaster, i dont expect we should remove them. At the end of the day, guns are designed to kill, they arent purchased as doorstops, for slicing bread or anything else.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
More guns would have prevented this....no doubt about it.
This video was already posted once. It is dated one day after the shooting and is known to be incorrect. The reporter even states in the video that there is still a lot of contradictory information coming in. This isn't uncommon for any breaking news story. Once the dust settled and all the reports were sorted out the "4 hand guns only" story was found to be incorrect. In fact since then I've read or heard nothing about 4 hand guns found at all. 2 hand guns, one assault rifle. It wasn't a conspiracy or a cover up. It was a mistake that was corrected the day after the shooting.
Guns used by Adam Lanza -
I think where we're hitting the brick wall is the all or nothing attitude. A lot of people seem to think any gun control at all means they lose everything. We should keep in mind that there already is gun control. That's why you're not allowed to own automatic weapons. Realistically people should be taking a good look at what they actually need and what is really too dangerous for the average citizen to have lying around the house. It doesn't matter what country you live in, you're going to have restrictions. Personally I'd like to drive 130 kph everywhere I go but every time I do that I get a ticket. Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights we have as citizens in a democratic society but I totally agree that there are some things people shouldn't be allowed to say if they fall under what the general population feels is hateful to certain other groups of people. It is possible to fight for your right to bear arms and still agree that certain restrictions need to be applied for the safety of the general population. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
- Status
Similar threads
