Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30832809/



So remember Americans, the rights that really matter are being protected.

Are shootings in national parks really a major issue?

weird that so many people thought it was "urgent" to change the law though

Originally posted by inimalist
Are shootings in national parks really a major issue?

Wh- Who cares?

Originally posted by inimalist
weird that so many people thought it was "urgent" to change the law though

That was the credit card bill it was attached to (which really highlights a problems that need fixing more than gun-control).

I was more amused that the NRA stated that "we didn't threaten anybody".

Yeah, I'm sure bullets will help vigilant citizens mitigate the invasive plant species that are threatening our national parks. Eat lead, Russian Olives!!!

hows comes all the animals just dont go to National parks? I mean, that's what id do if i were a deer.

america is getting stupider by the minute

Originally posted by leonheartmm
america is getting stupider by the minute


WHo so?


The 2nd ammendment allowed from the beginning.


Then someone thought of rules.


Then someone else complained and Bush made it a law to allow.


Then the libs revoked it.


Then congress reapproved it.


Looks like we are back at square one except, this time, it is explicitily allowed without an implied interpretation of the second ammendment. Sounds smarter, to me.

the second ammendment only makes sense in a near anarchist state. america was that in its foundation. but not so much the last century. the second ammendment has no role in today's america, nor should it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the second ammendment only makes sense in a near anarchist state. america was that in its foundation. but not so much the last century. the second ammendment has no role in today's america, nor should it.

This is where I disagree. Sure, the "original intent" is los slightly in its application today, but it is still useful.


I am in agreement with how it is run today.



There is not reason to go deer hunting with a RPG Launcher.


There's no reason to defend yourself with a gatling gun...unless you're in a gang.



But, certainly knowing that if pulling a gun on someone to take their money, which gun was obtained illegally, and getting your ass pumped full of lead, is certainly a better choice than getting a knife pulled on you...slashed...and then the perp runs away before other's get the opportunity to help you.


I'm all for as many rights as possible, within reason.









No matter what, guns will be obtained illegally. The whole idea of "it's safer without guns" has been proven wrong and right. Go with the liberal application of the law and stick with it.


When someone can show me that gun control has reduced the amount of violent crime, before and after...then I'll concede and side with "no guns". Until the, I'll err on the side of keeping guns in the hand of my people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is not reason to go deer hunting with a RPG Launcher.

No reason not, really.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where I disagree. Sure, the "original intent" is los slightly in its application today, but it is still useful.


I am in agreement with how it is run today.



There is not reason to go deer hunting with a RPG Launcher.


There's no reason to defend yourself with a gatling gun...unless you're in a gang.



But, certainly knowing that if pulling a gun on someone to take their money, which gun was obtained illegally, and getting your ass pumped full of lead, is certainly a better choice than getting a knife pulled on you...slashed...and then the perp runs away before other's get the opportunity to help you.


I'm all for as many rights as possible, within reason.









No matter what, guns will be obtained illegally. The whole idea of "it's safer without guns" has been proven wrong and right. Go with the liberal application of the law and stick with it.


When someone can show me that gun control has reduced the amount of violent crime, before and after...then I'll concede and side with "no guns". Until the, I'll err on the side of keeping guns in the hand of my people.


the "whole idea" has never even been implemented much less allowed to give results. owing to just how many privately owned firearms there have always been in america.

when sum1 can show me that HAVING legals guns = protection of life and property from those who have illegal guns, then maybe ill think about considering the validity of the second ammendment, fact is, it hasnt been owing to {with the exclusion of all considerations} the rarity of having a gun at HAND at the exact moment sum1 with an illegal pulls it on you, then going on to you being able to HANDLE it effectively enough to incapacitate the attacker in enough time that he or she is not able to shoot and wound you, much less the entire idea of criminals being AFRAID of attacking people for the general fear of guns{which is compareable to "the death penalty scares criminals into avoiding such crimes" which has been proven wrog}

if it is for personal SENSE of security than non lethal air tasers and non lethal guns are just as if not more effective than an average handgun.

no justification for owning firearms.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the "whole idea" has never even been implemented much less allowed to give results. owing to just how many privately owned firearms there have always been in america.


That just shows your ignorance. There are militias in the U.S.

Nice try, though.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
when sum1 can show me that HAVING legals guns = protection of life and property from those who have illegal guns, then maybe ill think about considering the validity of the second ammendment, fact is, it hasnt been owing to {with the exclusion of all considerations} the rarity of having a gun at HAND at the exact moment sum1 with an illegal pulls it on you, then going on to you being able to HANDLE it effectively enough to incapacitate the attacker in enough time that he or she is not able to shoot and wound you, much less the entire idea of criminals being AFRAID of attacking people for the general fear of guns{which is compareable to "the death penalty scares criminals into avoiding such crimes" which has been proven wrog}


No, the burden of proof is on the people wanting to take the rights away. When taking rights away under the banner of "it will make us safer", you must prove, almost inexorably, that the loss of rights is warranted.

If nothing changes, on average, after guns are taken away, then they most certainly should be allowed to keep them as a "freer" society is a better society. Opressing rights with a false idea is not a good idea.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if it is for personal SENSE of security than non lethal air tasers and non lethal guns are just as if not more effective than an average handgun.

no justification for owning firearms.

No justification for owning fire arms is needed as it's a law that is allowed. There is no need to justify something that is rediculously legal. However, if you want to take away rights, you must demostrate why.


Again, prove your idea. I don't have to prove jack beause it's already a law. I already have the right.

"there are militias in the us." how does this disprove my point? it infact proves that gun control has never been implemented. silly

but things do change, for one all accidental deaths due to domestically owned firearms are avoided, this is a demonstrable fact. as well as all deaths of innocent civilians who were shot by a legally owned weapon. as well as most deaths due to tresspassing and excessive use of force. do you deny any of this?

i find it funny that you go from "trying" to justify gun rights with examples to claiming that they need no justification. atleat stick to one.

its a law, as is prop 8. doesnt make it right.

Well, I am a life member of the NRA. I support the right to own small arms with almost no restrictions. I have a conceal carry permit and own several assult rifles among several other firearms, I own 16 guns in all.

Having said that I am opposed to firearms being allowed in national parks and wildlife refuges. I am also opposed to private vehicles being allowed in many of the parks as well.
The amount of wilderness area left in the world is small and getting smaller by the day. We should protect what is left, even at the expense of individual freedoms.

Well said, TDC.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I have a conceal carry permit and own several assult rifles among several other firearms, I own 16 guns in all.
So you're planning an invasion...or...?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No matter what, guns will be obtained illegally. The whole idea of "it's safer without guns" has been proven wrong and right.
Curious then that countries with high gun control have next to no gun violence like England.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So you're planning an invasion...or...?

If I knew how to invade a certain way of thinking I would

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Well, I am a life member of the NRA. I support the right to own small arms with almost no restrictions. I have a conceal carry permit and own several assult rifles among several other firearms, I own 16 guns in all.

Having said that I am opposed to firearms being allowed in national parks and wildlife refuges. I am also opposed to private vehicles being allowed in many of the parks as well.
The amount of wilderness area left in the world is small and getting smaller by the day. We should protect what is left, even at the expense of individual freedoms. why the HELL do you own 16 guns?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
why the HELL do you own 16 guns?

To gun down the cops when they try to bust down his door.

Thats alot of ****ing firepower.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Curious then that countries with high gun control have next to no gun violence like England.
Isn't the rate of violent crime in England nearly twice that of America?

Teehee.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
why the HELL do you own 16 guns?

Why do you own a computer? A car? A television set? An Ipod? A Microwave? An Suv? A boat? etc, etc, etc

I dont own 16 PC's, 16 boats, 16 TV's etc;

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Why do you own a computer? A car? A television set? An Ipod? A Microwave? An Suv? A boat? etc, etc, etc

You use guns to communicate, do math, travel, listen to music and cook food?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Why do you own a computer? A car? A television set? An Ipod? A Microwave? An Suv? A boat? etc, etc, etc
Come on, what an idiotic comparison.

I also own a cat. But it doesn't spit bullets at people and kills them.


Originally posted by Kinneary
Isn't the rate of violent crime in England nearly twice that of America?
Where did you get that information, seriously? After South Africa, United States has the highest murder rate in the First World.

American ratio is 5.8 while England's is 1.37.

EDIT: I just checked and South Africa is not First World. Therefore America has the hitghest murder rate in the First World.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You use guns to communicate, do math, travel, listen to music and cook food?

I use guns for fun. I shoot at a lot of different types of targets. I collect for historical and monetary value. I shoot nothing alive, I don't hunt. All of my guns except 2 are disassembled when not in use.

Lets talk about how many people guns kill in America every year , then lets talk about how many alchohol and tobacco kill.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Lets talk about how many people guns kill in America every year , then lets talk about how many alchohol and tobacco kill.


In ****in' deed.


Yet, people get their panties in a wad over guns, weed, and steroids....BUT ALCOHOL IS OKAY!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Come on, what an idiotic comparison.

I also own a cat. But it doesn't spit bullets at people and kills them.


.

Oh gimme a break. Lets look at the REAL numbers behind gun vioence. Canada, has a rate of gun ownership comparable to the US yet it's rate of gun violence is much lower, there must be other contributing factors.

As for your sig, what's your alternative?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You use guns to communicate, do math, travel, listen to music and cook food? haermm

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Oh gimme a break. Lets look at the REAL numbers behind gun vioence. Canada, has a rate of gun ownership comparable to the US yet it's rate of gun violence is much lower, there must be other contributing factors.

As for your sig, what's your alternative?

Canada has hardly comparable rate to America, seeing how out of 100 people in America 90 will own guns while in Canada 30 would - three times less.

Switzerland is a society with one of the lowerst crime rates in the world (together with Japan) and the gun ownership high there (comparable with US), but the murder rate is not.

That says a lot about people who own guns, no?

I own a Winchester Defender 12 gauge, ONE. Because I live in a crappy part of town.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Switzerland is a society with one of the lowerst crime rates in the world (together with Japan) and the gun ownership high there (comparable with US), but the murder rate is not.

And in contrast Japan has almost absurdly strict gun control laws. That begin with the words "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords." and then proceeds to list like four exceptions.

So Switzerland and Japan together would be perfect proof that owning and not owning guns doesn't really have the biggest effect on crime rates.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/8411/UKguns.gif

UK Home Office of what?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
UK Home Office of what?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UK+home+office

Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/8411/UKguns.gif

1. Seems like guns were not the problem of violence.

2. It would seem that gun control is obviously not the answer. In fact, it is ALMOST mutually exclusive. (BTW, this is the kind of stuff I was trying to get Leon to post in the other thread, but he wouldn't. I already know most of this stuff...but I wanted him to post it. That's why he wouldn't post it because his argument didn't fit the data in most places.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Seems like guns were not the problem of violence.

2. It would seem that gun control is obviously not the answer. In fact, it is ALMOST mutually exclusive. (BTW, this is the kind of stuff I was trying to get Leon to post in the other thread, but he wouldn't. I already know most of this stuff...but I wanted him to post it. That's why he wouldn't post it because his argument didn't fit the data in most places.)

Exactly. All the restriction did was put the law abiding citizens that carry guns for protection at risk.

Originally posted by KidRock
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UK+home+office

What a delightfully dickish site. Home Office is such a delightfully generic name that googling it didn't really occur to me.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Why do you own a computer? A car? A television set? An Ipod? A Microwave? An Suv? A boat? etc, etc, etc

Your question/analogy would be more honest if you had said:

Why do you own 16 computers? A 16 cars? A television set? 16 Ipods? 16 Microwaves? 16 Suvs? 16 boats? etc, etc, etc

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I use guns for fun. I shoot at a lot of different types of targets. I collect for historical and monetary value. I shoot nothing alive, I don't hunt. All of my guns except 2 are disassembled when not in use.

Lets talk about how many people guns kill in America every year , then lets talk about how many alchohol and tobacco kill.

Lets talk about how if you pay for a beer, you drink.

If you pay for some cigarettes, you smoke.

But you can always get some lead through you for free, courtesy of someone else against your will....

So by your analogy, would it be acceptable for you for have cigarette smoke blown in your face all day..?

Or have every drop of liquid in your life changed magically to pure alchohol, without your permission...?



And when was the last time that a kid stole his dads beers/smokes and killed like 30 people in a school...?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Your question/analogy would be more honest if you had said:

Why do you own 16 computers? A 16 cars? A television set? 16 Ipods? 16 Microwaves? 16 Suvs? 16 boats? etc, etc, etc


Lots of people have multiple cars, TV sets, computers, etc. I live by myself and have 3 cars.

I have different guns because the guns themselves are different from each other.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Lets talk about how if you pay for a beer, you drink.

If you pay for some cigarettes, you smoke.

But you can always get some lead through you for free, courtesy of someone else against your will....

So by your analogy, would it be acceptable for you for have cigarette smoke blown in your face all day..?

Or have every drop of liquid in your life changed magically to pure alchohol, without your permission...?



And when was the last time that a kid stole his dads beers/smokes and killed like 30 people in a school...?


What about the people second hand smoke kills?

How about the people killed by drunk drivers?

I like ways of thinking like yours. Lets ban everything that's potentially dangerous....oh wait...lets only ban what OTHERS use, not what I use.
It's like one of the biggest gun control advocates in the US Senate, Diane Feinstein of Ca, wants to take everyone elses guns away but carries one herself. It's all about justice...just us.
****ing hypocrites.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Lots of people have multiple cars, TV sets, computers, etc. I live by myself and have 3 cars.

I have different guns because the guns themselves are different from each other.

But why not 16?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
What about the people second hand smoke kills?

How about the people killed by drunk drivers?

I like ways of thinking like yours. Lets ban everything that's potentially dangerous....oh wait...lets only ban what OTHERS use, not what I use.
It's like one of the biggest gun control advocates in the US Senate, Diane Feinstein of Ca, wants to take everyone elses guns away but carries one herself. It's all about justice...just us.
****ing hypocrites.

Thats not where I stand on it.
But way to pre-emptively slander my pov though.

Im not talking about banning everything. Just dangerous weapons.

Its true that passive smoking can do damage. And I support the enclosed workplace non-smoke rule. So thats part of why your hypocrite tag is the bullshit that it clearly is.

Its true that drinking kills but If you drink enough, you are the one who's organs will fail..
Banning drink driving maybe more helpful if you want to analogise it better. (since that harms others) And they've done that.

(And smoking is a near hanging offence in public places now,
so the time has come for flying hot lead to be taken out of our air too.)

But seriously, I would just rather have everyone be moderate and sensible on such issues, but nope. That never seems to work.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Thats not where I stand on it.

Im not talking about banning everything. Just dangerous weapons.

Its true that passive smoking can do damage.

Its true that drinking kills but If you drink enough, you are the one who's organs will fail..
Banning drink driving maybe more helpful if you want to analogise it better. (since that harms others) And they've done that.

(And smoking is a near hanging offence in public places now,
so the time has come for flying hot lead to be taken out of our air too.)

But seriously, I would just rather have everyone be moderate and sensible on such issues, but nope. That never seems to work.

There are 250 million guns in America. What do you honestly think would happen if they were banned outright?
I am not opposed to tougher background checks and safety standards.
I am not opposed to someone having to show they compentantly know how to handle and fire a gun before they own one. I am opposed to only the government and some corporations being able to have them though.

Well, naturally it'd drive a bunch underground, (but there are TONNES of unlicenced firearms already.)
Then the police'd have to declare an amnesty, then with massive sentences introduced for those with illegal possession of a firearm, time and effort would likely start to get the numbers down.

And for all those still thinking that bullets can prevent you being shot, buy bullet proof vests...?

Put pressure on the government to stop making so much money selling the things...? IE "F**k with us on this and you and your administration are history." at the voting....

Good to hear that at least you seem to be a moderate.

Problem is with screening is, its not infailiable. And life can really throw you into some crazy positions with next to no notice whatsoever.
The test cannot detect that your wife sleeps with the gym instructor later down the line or whatever that causes that magic moment of snapping that causes those rampages.

IE you cannot guarantee where you'll be in 5 years in this crazy old life, let alone 1 test working for life.

And I can feel you thining maybe "Yeah but Im mentally stronger than that" well you never know, besides, there are al lot of folk out there who arent.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But why not 16?


16 guns cost waaaaaaaaaay less than 3 cars, I'm sure.


Also, I'm sure that those 16 guns are separate models or even multiple gun classes.


You should go shooting. It's fun. It's a whole lot more acurate then shooting a bow and Arrow or a rubber band gun. I like it.

BTW, I got my rifle shooting merit badge.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
There are 250 million guns in America. What do you honestly think would happen if they were banned outright?
Less gun related violence?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Less gun related violence?

Unlikely, because they would now all be unregistered.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Unlikely, because they would now all be unregistered.


QFT.


ON top of that, the violence, for some, would shift to other means, as seen by the UK's numbers.


Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And a gun isn't required.

Well ban bullets then.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well ban bullets then.

Hmmm.....








Though you jest...you could be on to something.

time to produce the overexposed "chris rock every bullet 5000 dollars" video?

Originally posted by WO Polaski
time to produce the overexposed "chris rock every bullet 5000 dollars" video?

DAMN YOU!


Lol



That's where I was going with it. I was going to wait for his response and post the vid....but go ahead and do the honors.

I don't mind people having guns, but what the hell do you need them in the park for?

What the hell did this accomplish?

Hunting deer haermm