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

The way to DO THINGS RIGHT!

SqJ_4YhYMhE

As a proud owner of firearms, there should be common sense to a point - mentally ill should not be allowed to have weapons.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as a civilian "assault weapon." What people don't realize is that a 30-06, .308 hunting rifle is far more powerful than an AR-15. An AR-15 is designed to look military type. A handgun, if equipped with FMJ hollow point rounds can tear through Kevlar. If you are gonna gripe, know your shite

But Ignorance and Gun Control Liberal Fanaticism enjoy walking hand in hand!?

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
As a proud owner of firearms, there should be common sense to a point - mentally ill should not be allowed to have weapons.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as a civilian "assault weapon." What people don't realize is that a 30-06, .308 hunting rifle is far more powerful than an AR-15. An AR-15 is designed to look military type. A handgun, if equipped with FMJ hollow point rounds can tear through Kevlar. If you are gonna gripe, know your shite

Not just a matter of power, you can kill someone with a .22.

If you're a lunatic set to shoot up some crowded area like a school or a mall, what's going to net you faster kills, the more powerful bolt-action rifle, or the less powerful semi-auto? Exactly.

Shut up about ma gunz, they're very sensitive to criticism.

So I guess we should ban semis trucks now, after all, wasn't one used in French to kill nearly 80 people?

There should be no, a truck is just an object, and we used to make life easier arguments.

While we're add it, let's also ban alcohol. Since we know for a fact that alcohol takes more lives in a year than any gun.

****ing common sense right?!

Originally posted by SquallX
So I guess we should ban semis trucks now, after all, wasn't one used in French to kill nearly 80 people? America's supply and demand system isn't reliant on guns though, people don't drive guns to work.

Not taking a side, just saying that this is a pretty bad example.

The way I see it..most gun murders are done with handguns. I'm not saying ban handguns, but for people out there who do argue to ban certain types of guns..wouldn't it make the most sense to try to ban handguns?

Originally posted by Scribble
America's supply and demand system isn't reliant on guns though, people don't drive guns to work.

Not taking a side, just saying that this is a pretty bad example.

I see where you're coming from, but from my point of view, if you're wanting to ban something I love because of others mistreatment of it, then when we as a society should also ban the other objects that have killed more humans than my object of enjoyment.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not just a matter of power, you can kill someone with a .22.

If you're a lunatic set to shoot up some crowded area like a school or a mall, what's going to net you faster kills, the more powerful bolt-action rifle, or the less powerful semi-auto? Exactly.

And then there's also bombs whose recipes assembly instructions can be gleaned right off the open internet.

If a lunatic is going to kill people, a lunatic can succeed if they are just average in intelligence.


I believe it was Symmetric Chaos that said we should do something reasonable enough to prevent someone from killing tons of people (we were talking about RPGs and RPG Launchers). So I think I agree with that gun control idea: don't let people have things absurdly powerful like RPGs? I guess?

The uk has gun control AND a ban on knives. You know what? There is still knife crime and gun crime.

You know what else? People have killed people with knives and machetes and guns and everything. It isnt the gun. Its crazy people. Sort out your crazy people first.

Guns are safe. If they were as dangerous as people make them out to be, considering the number of gun owners in the world (canada, japan and norway also like guns) there would be millions more homicides and suicides and manslaughters than the shit we hear already.

Originally posted by Withsensibility
Guns are safe. IzaMs5iaX7w

Originally posted by Withsensibility
The uk has gun control AND a ban on knives. You know what? There is still knife crime and gun crime.

Far less than the US and far less lethally.

How many massacres do you think we have a year? I'll give you a hint, it's less than one.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Far less than the US and far less lethally.

How many massacres do you think we have a year? I'll give you a hint, it's less than one. You guys have much bigger problems to worry about than firearms.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You guys have much bigger problems to worry about than firearms. What problems are those?

Originally posted by Scribble
What problems are those?

Their economy is shit. They're one fiscally irresponsible decision away from collapse the way of Greece or 2008 US.

Originally posted by Scribble
What problems are those?

I don't know, how about Muslims killing you're own and the British people are too cowardly to do anything about.

Wasn't it a year or 2 that a Muslims cut off the head of a soldier in the middle of the street and you people didn't do shit about it.

Originally posted by SquallX
I don't know, how about Muslims killing you're own and the British people are too cowardly to do anything about.

Wasn't it a year or 2 that a Muslims cut off the head of a soldier in the middle of the street and you people didn't do shit about it. Well, he got arrested and put in jail, so there's that. What else should we do? Kill all Muslims so they won't hurt us again? Why don't you guys just kill all gun owners so that no more mass shootings happen? (That'd be ****ing stupid, that's why.) I don't really see a couple of attacks here and there as being worse than the amount of shootings that happen in America. Of course these two issues are different and complex in their own way, but it's not like America (I won't refer to you as "you people" have done anything to curb your almost-constant massacres.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Their economy is shit. They're one fiscally irresponsible decision away from collapse the way of Greece or 2008 US. I agree with that. Our economic system is pretty much in shambles right now. Our government is highly corrupt and run by people with lots of ties to the richest people in the country. Our new Prime Minister has been known in the past to overhype issues so that the security company her husband owns major shares in can get contracts and make money. And we have about four years until our next general election. So yeah, we might be pretty screwed.

Originally posted by SquallX
So I guess we should ban semis trucks now, after all, wasn't one used in French to kill nearly 80 people?

There should be no, a truck is just an object, and we used to make life easier arguments.

While we're add it, let's also ban alcohol. Since we know for a fact that alcohol takes more lives in a year than any gun.

****ing common sense right?!

It's reactions like this why we can't have a reasonable discourse on gun control reform, the opposite end of the spectrum is the "Ban all guns! Melt them all down!" ranters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And then there's also bombs whose recipes assembly instructions can be gleaned right off the open internet.

If a lunatic is going to kill people, a lunatic can succeed if they are just average in intelligence.


I believe it was Symmetric Chaos that said we should do something reasonable enough to prevent someone from killing tons of people (we were talking about RPGs and RPG Launchers). So I think I agree with that gun control idea: don't let people have things absurdly powerful like RPGs? I guess?

Hey, ddm, long time no see. Doing well?

Seems your point is that we already have reasonanble gun control laws(ie rps are illegal)? Considering the amount of gun related deaths in the US, I dissagree, I believe we as a nation can do better. I don't pretend to have the answers, but stone-walling any talks of gun control like the NRA pushes isn't it. Other countries lowered their gun related deaths, no reason we shouldn't be able to either.

People always talk about how Chicago has strict gun laws.

More people are killed in car accidents than gun violence, so lets ban cars and go back to horses. Look at Chicago, has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S. and it doesn't seem to work.

It is not guns that are the problem, it is the person who pulls the trigger. A gun cannot magically fire on its own.

We could take cars away from people, then how would idiots be able to drive to voting stations to vote for the next election......




WE NEED TO BAN CARS!!!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!

I've already discussed countries like Israel and Switzerland who have more guns per household than we do yet have minimal damage, if any. I don't see it as a failure of gun laws as much as a product of the gun culture we have in this country, so I'm not sure what we can be "tougher" on.

Your lack of faith in America is disturbing

It's not America, it's human beings. I'd say most humans are stupid and can't be trusted with a bean bag.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
More people are killed in car accidents than gun violence, so lets ban cars and go back to horses.

The difference is that cars are not designed to kill, and when operated properly, they do not kill.




Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Look at Chicago, has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S. and it doesn't seem to work.

Stringent gun restrictions in one jurisdiction are undermined by lax gun restrictions in neighboring jurisdictions. If one cannot obtain a gun in Chicago, he can easily obtain one in East Chicago, and bring it back into the city.




Originally posted by Darth Truculent
It is not guns that are the problem, it is the person who pulls the trigger. A gun cannot magically fire on its own.

That is what many gun safety measures do: restrict who can own a gun.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I'd say most humans are stupid and can't be trusted with a bean bag. Accurate.

Guns arent the problem, and gun laws dont do shit. The police are unanimous at thinking harsher gun laws will increase gun crime.

The problem in chicago is black people keep shooting each other. Once you realise that, then you can understand the problem. Not some hurr durr, police are racist therefore only they should have guns.

Hillary will make this worse.

Originally posted by SquallX
So I guess we should ban semis trucks now, after all, wasn't one used in French to kill nearly 80 people?

Yes.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You guys have much bigger problems to worry about than firearms.

Eh. If every porkchop were perfect, we wouldn't have hotdogs.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
We could take cars away from people, then how would idiots be able to drive to voting stations to vote for the next election......




WE NEED TO BAN CARS!!!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!

Don't be silly now. I agree that cars are a serious problem, but outright banning them is impossible. No, what we need to do is make people take lessons on how to operate cars safely and responsibly and then make it mandatory to perform some sort of exam to prove that it's safe for you to drive. Upon passing you'd recieve, hmmm, I guess some kind of license. If you don't own a license, obviously a car is too dangerous for you to be allowed to drive.

Then if you want to drive larger and more dangerous guns you should need to gain additional training and earn more qualifications to do so, baring in mind the heightened danger of these vehicles.

This seems like a pipe dream though, I guess the current system will have to do. At least cars aren't specially built to murder people and its incredibly easy for anyone to get one or something.


For real though, trying to use cars as a point against gun control is legitimately retarded and you and everyone else should feel bad about yourselves.

Originally posted by Withsensibility
Guns arent the problem, and gun laws dont do shit. The police are unanimous at thinking harsher gun laws will increase gun crime.

Yes, as proven by no country with gun control ever.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Eh. If every porkchop were perfect, we wouldn't have hotdogs. what does this even mean?

Yes, as proven by no country with gun control ever. All those countries are racially homogenous. I refer you to the part of my post you deleted from your quote.

You said black people keep shooting each other. Does that not count as racially homogeneous?

http://cdn1-www.comingsoon.net/assets/styd/assets/uploads/2015/12/MaxOv6.png
You were saying?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You were saying?

That motor vehicle was brought to life by the Rea-M comet.

Doesn't matter. That comet contributed to more deaths than a single hand gun ever could.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You said black people keep shooting each other. Does that not count as racially homogeneous? I meant to say white.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
It's not America, it's human beings. I'd say most humans are stupid and can't be trusted with a bean bag. Imagine if all the gun nuts could be convinced to switch to using beanbag guns.

Originally posted by Withsensibility
I meant to say white.

Ok, so white people keep shooting each other. Does that not count as racially homogeneous?

Then all the left leaning hippies will figure out a way to weaponize hemp and flowers.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Ok, so white people keep shooting each other. Does that not count as racially homogeneous? No, you dont understand. Crime rates always increase when theres more black people near because they are uncivilised. Countries with little to no black people have lower crime rates than countries with higher percentage of black people and when more black people go to those cities or countries, the crime rate increases.

Its just a fact.

Oh gosh. Is there anything we can do about this?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
http://cdn1-www.comingsoon.net/assets/styd/assets/uploads/2015/12/MaxOv6.png
You were saying?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Then all the left leaning hippies will figure out a way to weaponize hemp and flowers. I want to fight in that war.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Then all the left leaning hippies will figure out a way to weaponize hemp and flowers.

That would be nice. The enemy would wind up killing themselves. At least they would all die with a case of the munchies.

Then if guns are a problem, lets ban every knife in America. We can eat our steaks with our bare hands. If I remember correctly, aren't knives considered a weapon too?

They are. They're also good for cutting steaks. And various other tasks that don't involve ending a life.


Guns don't cut steak. Guns have one function: kill people. Kill 'em good and dead Skeeter!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
They are. They're also good for cutting steaks. And various other tasks that don't involve ending a life.


Guns don't cut steak. Guns have one function: kill people. Kill 'em good and dead Skeeter!

Guns also made for hunting too you know?

But I do love you're double standard.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
They are. They're also good for cutting steaks. And various other tasks that don't involve ending a life.


Guns don't cut steak. Guns have one function: kill people. Kill 'em good and dead Skeeter!

So that makes Knives even WORSE! They can be used for a purpose they were NOT DESIGNED FOR!

We need Knife Control NOW!

We must protect the children.

Originally posted by SquallX
Guns also made for hunting too you know?

But I do love you're double standard. Hunting. So killing things then? If removing the thing that is designed only to kill and which has lead to 9,272 deaths in 2016 in the U.S. (so far) means that the community of people who like to kill things can no longer easily blow holes in their favourite things that breathe, then I say it's a small sacrifice to make. Save some human lives, save some animal lives, piss off people who kill things for sport. Win Win Win.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So that makes Knives even WORSE! They can be used for a purpose they were NOT DESIGNED FOR!

We need Knife Control NOW!

We must protect the children.

Well at the very least I think we can agree that you should steer clear of knives. And other sharp objects. Maybe stairs.

Originally posted by SquallX
Guns also made for hunting too you know?

But I do love you're double standard.

Then people should be able to apply for a hunting license if thats what they want to do. It shouldn't be difficult for them to take classes and training on how to safely use a gun. Then they could have a permit to carry while hunting.

It's 2016, how are there still pointy corners in this world?!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Hunting. So killing things then? If removing the thing that is designed only to kill and which has lead to 9,272 deaths in 2016 in the U.S. (so far) means that the community of people who like to kill things can no longer easily blow holes in their favourite things that breathe, then I say it's a small sacrifice to make. Save some human lives, save some animal lives, piss off people who kill things for sport. Win Win Win.

Ah yes, because removing something means the cause is going to stop, as opposed to not removing it (and thereby only giving government agents the right to use firearms), and changing the culture, like Switzerland and Israel.

Or Japan. Remember a little while back I lamented that no matter what law is enacted or policy proposed, America will never get over it's little gun sickness? The country and it's people just aren't capable of it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Or Japan. Remember a little while back I lamented that no matter what law is enacted or policy proposed, America will never get over it's little gun sickness? The country and it's people just aren't capable of it.

Sure, but what you said in no way denotes reality. We don't have a gun sickness (implying love of owning guns) anymore than Switzerland or Israel, who according to you, would have even more a sickness. There's a huge middle ground between "don't touch my guns" and "lets ban all guns".

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Sure, but what you said in no way denotes reality. We don't have a gun sickness (implying love of owning guns) anymore than Switzerland or Israel, who according to you, would have even more a sickness. There's a huge middle ground between "don't touch my guns" and "lets ban all guns". It's not the simple desire to have them, or even the amount of guns that I disparage. It's the attitude. It's the context. Switzerland and Israel are two small, traditionally isolated countries with nation-wide conscription and alot of potential neighboring enemy nations to fight against---for Israel, it still is an active threat in the modern age. Their respective stockpiling and maintenance of civilian firearms has a practical, essential purpose toward their countries' very survival.


The United States... is not like that. At all. Not even close. Your gun culture is one of obsession. The mere suggestion that the laws be tampered evokes visceral rage. I'm not using the term 'sickness' as a pejorative. Your gun deaths per 100,000 people are 10.54. Switzerland and Israel's is 3.08 and 2.10, respectively. They love their guns just as much as you guys do, but I think for very different reasons. There's a reason those ratios are so far apart from another (and they're all too damn high IMO). Given the sheer amount of firearms in all three countries, you'd expect them to be a little closer. What's different is the attitude. Americans treat their guns like a hobby (look at SquallX's "gotta hunt!" up there). They f*cking shouldn't be.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Oh gosh. Is there anything we can do about this?

Okay so I'm only half with him here. I live in Chicago and I know about the crime and yes I know who is responsible for a majority of it. However, I don't feel any specific race is inferior. A culture can be inferior, but not a race.

I can't speak for other countries, but yes he is sort of right when he says crime rates increase as a neighborhood gets more and more..well, you see shit, speaking the truth shouldn't be racist but I still feel hesitant to say certain things.

I mean saying the more black people that move into a neighborhood the worse that neighborhood gets sounds awful. I don't actually like saying that.

Okay, you people REALLY dont understand this, so ill step in seriously this time.

First of all, im in favour of gun control. Just like everything else thats dangerous and lethal, there needs to be laws to restrict misuse, for example, drivers who dont abide by traffic laws, and knives that arent cutting steak. Naturally, hunting licenses and gun restrictions to minors and felons is common sense. There's just this history lesson you need to remember.

The founding fathers of the United States would never have formed an independent country that has become the world leading role had it not been for their weapons. This is not to say guns are good at advancing far, they are, but the point is more that it founded the country from an oppressive monarchy trying to tax the people.
Whether they were entitled to the taxes is another debate entirely, but it w the guns that ensured them the freedom. That is, nothing protects you from the government other than a gun. It is a protection of your right to live how you want. The gun, is your last line of defense and it is the protection of your liberties. Not the police, not the law, not some idealistic communist view of the world, its your gun. The right of the people to bare arms, shall not be infringed.

The "Well rocks and cars and knives can kill people, too!" argument is so cringe worthy.

Originally posted by Withsensibility
Okay, you people REALLY dont understand this, so ill step in seriously this time. Because lord knows we all trust and bow to your great authority. Careful fellas, this one's the real deal!

Originally posted by Withsensibility
First of all, im in favour of gun control. Just like everything else thats dangerous and lethal, there needs to be laws to restrict misuse, for example, drivers who dont abide by traffic laws, and knives that arent cutting steak. Naturally, hunting licenses and gun restrictions to minors and felons is common sense. There's just this history lesson you need to remember.

The founding fathers of the United States would never have formed an independent country that has become the world leading role had it not been for their weapons. This is not to say guns are good at advancing far, they are, but the point is more that it founded the country from an oppressive monarchy trying to tax the people.
Whether they were entitled to the taxes is another debate entirely, but it w the guns that ensured them the freedom. That is, nothing protects you from the government other than a gun. It is a protection of your right to live how you want. The gun, is your last line of defense and it is the protection of your liberties. Not the police, not the law, not some idealistic communist view of the world, its your gun. The right of the people to bare arms, shall not be infringed. So because something worked in a bygone era, it's going to work today? Your founding fathers fought a war and created a country with the right to bare arms when "arms" were muskets that highly trained troops took forever to load and fire a single, highly inaccurate, low-range spherical slug. Not semi-automatic assault rifles that send 30 conical rounds to an effective range of ~600m that any shmuck with a box of ammo and some free time can get in to a good grouping. Your constitution's "right to bare arms" is an outdated law from a time that couldn't predict the obstacles and dangers of the modern age. Dangers such as approximately one firearm per U.S. citizen. All 324 million of you.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because lord knows we all trust and bow to your great authority. Careful fellas, this one's the real deal!

So because something worked in a bygone era, it's going to work today? Your founding fathers fought a war and created a country with the right to bare arms when "arms" were muskets that highly trained troops took forever to load and fire a single, highly inaccurate, low-range spherical slug. Not semi-automatic assault rifles that send 30 conical rounds to an effective range of ~600m that any shmuck with a box of ammo and some free time can get in to a good grouping. Your constitution's "right to bare arms" is an outdated law from a time that couldn't predict the obstacles and dangers of the modern age. Dangers such as approximately one firearm per U.S. citizen. All 324 million of you.

You do realize that it's simple hand guns that are responsible for the majority of firearm related deaths (that aren't suicides which occupy a huge portion), right?

You keep preaching about how outdated our constitution is and I keep telling you it's irrelevant by giving you examples of countries with a much higher guns per capita rate and among the lowest firearm related deaths in the world. Forget the constitution for a second, although if we're going to change one thing I'd change a bunch of different things. Guns aren't the problem or at least the main problem, and taking them away is a stupid solution for those that like to overreact without a modicum of thought.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You do realize that it's simple hand guns that are responsible for the majority of firearm related deaths (that aren't suicides which occupy a huge portion), right? I do know that actually, but I was contrasting the standard weapon of choice on battlefields/hunting grounds in the Revolutionary days vs. it's modern equivalent (I know hunting rifles don't have 30 round-mags ). People back then didn't hunt with pistols. And on the hunting note: since it's handguns that kill the majority of people today, there's no hunting excuse for them. People don't hunt with handguns (unless you're a lunatic, or your prey is people).

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You keep preaching about how outdated our constitution is and I keep telling you it's irrelevant by giving you No, I don't. That was the first time I've written the word "constitution" on this site in ages. And I don't think I've ever mentioned the Constitution as irrelevant on thise site before. Like ever. In over 11 years. Although I would agree with me if I had.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
examples of countries with a much higher guns per capita rate and among the lowest firearm related deaths in the world. Forget the constitution for a second, although if we're going to change one thing I'd change a bunch of different things. Guns aren't the problem or at least the main problem, and taking them away is a stupid solution for those that like to overreact without a modicum of thought. And you're right, taking them away will just lead to something bigger and more catastrophic later. Confiscation, law-changing, policy-changing... these are just formalities and stepping stones. The real change that needs to happen is an entire cultural shift in attitude towards firearms, their role in everyday life, and their value as household weapons. That kind of change would dig right at the core of the values, beliefs, and personal/national identities of tens of millions of people---needless to say, it will (and is) vehemently resisted against. It's not a change I see happening in my lifetime. And I plan on being immortal.

Oh then this wasn't addressed to me.


What exactly makes it outdated? The 2nd amendment?


Ok so we're in agreement to the possible solution. I wish our gun culture mirrored that of the Israelis and the Swiss.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
What exactly makes it outdated? The 2nd amendment? Pretty much. Usually in a firearms debate it just gets dumbed down to "the Constitution!" I'm sure there's other amendments that suck to some degree--the 18th especially--but this is the famous one.


Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Ok so we're in agreement to the possible solution. I wish our gun culture mirrored that of the Israelis and the Swiss. If the options were between staying the same or adopting their style, then I agree. My ideal scenario would be everyone just not really liking guns in general and not bothering with them. They say I'm a dreamer...

The 18th amendment isn't outdated, it was repealed. It was a stupid amendment that had the unintended effect of creating the American Mafia.

Oh I know--it sucked. A small minority of people convinced the government to ban and confiscate something that Americans just absolutely f*cking loved. And it was a complete disaster. The War on Drugs has done the same thing (minus the amendment). Imagine if they tried to do the same with guns. Americans weren't (and still aren't and never will be thank Jebus) ready to give up alcohol, no matter how personally, socially, and literally destructive it's use can be.


Ditto for guns. They need to be baby-stepped toward not wanting them anymore. Eased in to it, over a long ass time. I honestly have no clue how to actually do that effectively.

I'm in favor of pretty heavy gun control. I simply don't believe owning a gun should be a right, I think it should be a privilege given to those only after they prove they are capable of handling one safely, and who go through the necessary training and testing to ensure they mentally fit.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm in favor of pretty heavy gun control. I simply don't believe owning a gun should be a right, I think it should be a privilege given to those only after they prove they are capable of handling one safely, and who go through the necessary training and testing to ensure they mentally fit.

I could go for that, but I also believe the majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners, so you may reduce the number by a minimum.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm in favor of pretty heavy gun control. I simply don't believe owning a gun should be a right, I think it should be a privilege given to those only after they prove they are capable of handling one safely, and who go through the necessary training and testing to ensure they mentally fit. Like requiring minimum time in military service? Like in Starship Troopers? *squeeee*



-_7FaWnlhS4

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Like requiring minimum time in military service? Like in Starship Troopers? *squeeee*



-_7FaWnlhS4

There are already plenty of safety and training courses available to the general public. Joining the Military or Police that is a career choice.

Funny how the LIBERALS always use this argument when it comes to Guns seeing as how they are always claiming the military and police are nothing but a group of racist murders.

So yes. LIBERALS are ok with MURDERERS being the only ones with guns.

Must be why The Hilldawg ran guns thru Libya.....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
There are already plenty of safety and training courses available to the general public. Joining the Military or Police that is a career choice.

Funny how the LIBERALS always use this argument when it comes to Guns seeing as how they are always claiming the military and police are nothing but a group of racist murders.

So yes. LIBERALS are ok with MURDERERS being the only ones with guns.

Must be why The Hilldawg ran guns thru Libya..... Ze casual reference/lazy joke... she went right.... over your head. Your head... she takes things too zeriously.

No no, that would be considered common sense gun control. I think even the gun owners would agree to that. Safety courses and a pass/fail system before you can get your first gun.

As I said before, there's loads of ways you can limit access to guns without banning them. You can levy a ridiculous sales tax on them to price almost everyone out from buying them. You can enforce adoption of technology such as guns with GPS that can only be fired in registered gun ranges or if they are capable of being fired anywhere then as soon as they are they alert the police and give a GPS location of where they were fired, who the registered owner is etc. Or you can have the fingerprint recognition to be able to use the gun. If they can implement a basic version of that on phones without a huge increase in cost then they can easily do it with guns.

How's that fair to the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners? That's essentially screwing 99% of gun owners for the stupidity of the 1%. That will never pass.


Ah yes, because that's what every responsible gun owner needs and that's to be watched everytime he fires his weapon. Another terrible solution.


What's the point of fingerprint recognition other than being totally awesome? That just means that gun owners can....Fire their own weapons? I suppose that will prevent 1 massacre a year so I'm for it. The rest of the suggestions aren't realistic or even logical.

Those kind of measures are nice and all, but they're just shiny coats of paint on a car that's rusted all the way through and the engine is on fire. There's a bigger drive (ha) toward the entire faulty system beyond the visible, surface stuff.

Originally posted by Trocity
The "Well rocks and cars and knives can kill people, too!" argument is so cringe worthy.

I think it depends on the context. Am I saying there is ever a context where cars should be banned? No, but I'm saying..it depends on what the argument is being said about since sometimes I think people say it out of frustration.

Take what happened in Orlando. A horrible shooting, many murders..many innocent people gone. This was terrorism, this was radical Islam. But a lot tried to skirt around the issue and said nope it's the guns. Then a few weeks later bam more Islamists murdering folk, this time with an automobile.

It's about cultures really and you see yep we do have a culture where people essentially wanna bang their firearms but..it's actually not those types of people who usually commit murders with guns.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Ah yes, because that's what every responsible gun owner needs and that's to be watched everytime he fires his weapon. Another terrible solution.

If a responsible gun owner is discharging a weapon anywhere other than at a firing range, something bad has probably happened, and the authorities should be notified.




Originally posted by MS Warehouse
What's the point of fingerprint recognition other than being totally awesome? That just means that gun owners can....Fire their own weapons? I suppose that will prevent 1 massacre a year so I'm for it. The rest of the suggestions aren't realistic or even logical.

It means only the owner can fire the weapon. Not a three-year-old, not a jealous spouse, not a home invader who tries to use your own gun on you, etc. It is actually a brilliant fail-safe device.

With Jaden's suggestion, I believe the authorities would be notified anytime a gun owners fires his weapon, whether it's a shooting range, self defense, or mass murder.


It's not really a fail safe device, because the only guns that will be fingerprinted are ones bought through legal channels. How many deaths are attributed to someone picking up someone else's gun rather than getting one on the black market?

Stricter laws won't ride guns off the black market, but it will drive their price up; thereby lowering the overall number.

But aren't most gun massacres with guns purchased legally?

If someone has it in their mind they want to commit a massacre with a gun they will find a way. If they can't get one legally they will get one illegally.

What a gun ban would do is stop a lot of crimes of passion. Someone who gets pissed off over something and they happen to have a gun on them and boom they kill someone. But the times we tend to see the highest body count is for the planned stuff.

Lord Lucien, what about bows? Bows have been used for hunting and war (for example the Battle of Agincourt: English Archers killed 5,000 French Knights) during the 100 years war. Maybe we should ban bows too! How bout slingshots too? The IRA used those to blind British troops during the 80s and The Troubles.

Hell cops have been paralyzed due to thugs dropping bricks on them.

Hell, why do we have any laws when some people just break them. No bans! No laws!

These "*object* kill too" type of rebuttals are sad and make it nigh impossible to have a sensible conversation on the matter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hell, why do we have any laws when some people just break them. No bans! No laws!

These "*object* kill too" type of rebuttals are sad and make it nigh impossible to have a sensible conversation on the matter.

Perhaps I am missing something here but your response about no laws or anything sounds just as silly as the argument you seem to take issue with.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because lord knows we all trust and bow to your great authority. Careful fellas, this one's the real deal!

So because something worked in a bygone era, it's going to work today? Your founding fathers fought a war and created a country with the right to bare arms when "arms" were muskets that highly trained troops took forever to load and fire a single, highly inaccurate, low-range spherical slug. Not semi-automatic assault rifles that send 30 conical rounds to an effective range of ~600m that any shmuck with a box of ammo and some free time can get in to a good grouping. Your constitution's "right to bare arms" is an outdated law from a time that couldn't predict the obstacles and dangers of the modern age. Dangers such as approximately one firearm per U.S. citizen. All 324 million of you. The technology is not the issue. Its a constitutional right to defend against the tyrannical government. Whether its drones nuclear arms or muskets. Kinda like how BLM fight against the police. Do you get it now?

Poor argument.

DT,

I don't feel the "if someone wants to kill, they'll find a way" stance as valid reasons to not have gun reform, which by that I mean look at our current laws and current state of gun selling practices and see if we can do something to lower gun related deaths. eg the gun show loophole is one that is rediculous and should be revamped or done away with entirely. The length of time for background checks should probably be extended; possibly wait times a well. Are there more? I'd bet on it.

Sure, I can agree with that, but as it is now, mental people and even violent criminals can potentially walk into a gun seller and walk out with a gun in states that have more relaxed laws.

Originally posted by Surtur
Perhaps I am missing something here but your response about no laws or anything sounds just as silly as the argument you seem to take issue with.

That was my point, to show the sillyness in kind. Thought I made that obvious.

Lol, ridiculous post. There is less gun crimes in lax states than strict states.

The second amendment is to defend against a tyrannical government. Your gun control will just produce more gun owners. Good. Luck. With. That.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't feel the "if someone wants to kill, they'll find a way" stance as valid reasons to not have gun reform, which by that I mean look at our current laws and current state of gun selling practices and see if we can do something to lower gun related deaths. eg the gun show loophole is one that is rediculous and should be revamped or done away with entirely. The length of time for background checks should provably be extended; possibly wait times a well. Are there more? I'd bet on it.

Sure, I can agree with that, but as it is now, mental people and even violent criminals can potentially walk into a gun seller and walk out with a gun in states that have more relaxed laws.

You are indeed right the fact if someone wants to kill they will find a way doesn't mean gun reform shouldn't be attempted. However, for a lot of these big massacres that really get people talking about guns..those are usually the times when reform wouldn't work.

Or even worse they are the instances where guns aren't the #1 issue, like in Orlando. We have murders everyday that should spawn these discussions, but the politicians usually pounce on the cases where it wouldn't of done anything.

Originally posted by jaden101
As I said before, there's loads of ways you can limit access to guns without banning them.

Yes, and its called TYRANNY!

No Surprise that a LIBERAL Like Jaden is all for that.


ZIG HEIL You Mo Fo!!!!!!

Originally posted by Withsensibility
Lol, ridiculous post. There is less gun crimes in lax states than strict states.

The second amendment is to defend against a tyrannical government. Your gun control will just produce more gun owners. Good. Luck. With. That.

If you make a claim you should support it, this is one of the many reasons no one takes you seriusly and you're mocked, XYZ.

Anyhow: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

Well Chicago and Illinois has some of the most strict gun cuntrol laws......How that working out for them?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Well Chicago and Illinois has some of the most strict gun cuntrol laws......How that working out for them?

This is usually handwaved by people just going "well the laws aren't so strict in the surrounding areas".

Just proof that if we're going to have gun reform that actually might work, it needs to be on a national level.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you make a claim you should support it, this is one of the many reasons no one takes you seriusly and you're mocked, XYZ.

Anyhow: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ stop posting jewish links.

Facilitating a 13 year-old with easy access to a rifle is as stupid as it gets. What a kid needs to do to massacre people is literally walk into a gun store and buy one. There's a reason school/bar/club massacres happen in the US so often.

To be honest I don't quite understand the oppositions argument to reform. I can see being opposed to a ban obviously but why would anyone(but gun sellers) be upset at things like..a better vetting process? Or better background checks?

I mean at least when it comes to something like the whole fiasco with people on the "no fly" list being banned from buying guns..the opposition could at least say that people have been wrongfully put on the list in the past(even a baby made it on there somehow) and it is hard to get off the list so if you're a legit innocent decent person you might be denied the ability to buy a gun. But..a better background check would not deny a decent person their shot at a firearm.

Also technically I could go purchase a gun and once I pass the background check or whatever I'd get it even if I've literally never even handled a gun before or fired off a shot. That seems strange.

Originally posted by Surtur
If someone has it in their mind they want to commit a massacre with a gun they will find a way. If they can't get one legally they will get one illegally.

What a gun ban would do is stop a lot of crimes of passion. Someone who gets pissed off over something and they happen to have a gun on them and boom they kill someone. But the times we tend to see the highest body count is for the planned stuff.

It's not as easy as it sounds. It won't be easy for a 13 year-old boy to acquire a gun illegally, tbh.

Originally posted by Petrus
It's not as easy as it sounds. It won't be easy for a 13 year-old boy to acquire a gun illegally, tbh.

Okay but a majority of these massacres aren't done by kids that young.

Originally posted by Petrus
Facilitating a 13 year-old with easy access to a rifle is as stupid as it gets. What a kid needs to do to massacre people is literally walk into a gun store and buy one. There's a reason school/bar/club massacres happen in the US so often.

Okay here is where you confuse me because..you are saying a 13 yr. old kid could just legally go into a gun store and purchase a gun?

Originally posted by Petrus
Facilitating a 13 year-old with easy access to a rifle is as stupid as it gets. What a kid needs to do to massacre people is literally walk into a gun store and buy one. There's a reason school/bar/club massacres happen in the US so often.

That depends on the 13 year old. Some you can trust and others will wind up voting Democrat.

But this goes back to the TYRANNY things.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay but a majority of these massacres aren't done by kids that young.

Maybe not, but many of them are teens on their 16s, 15s or 17s. And actually in some special cases, they've been 13.



Well, I was under the impression that it was possible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/27/in-30-states-a-child-can-still-legally-own-a-rife-or-shotgun/

Unless this isn't true? Honest question.

From the article:

That doesn't mean that a child can walk into a gun show and purchase a gun. "There are federal laws for minimum age purchasing of firearms," said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Technically, anybody selling a gun in that context should look for age verification that someone is at least 18 years old."

But a child's parent could. "If dad wants to give his son a rifle or a shotgun on his 13th or 14th birthday, he's pretty much free to do that in most states," Webster said."

Now with all that said I would be shocked if a gun seller has never looked the other way and sold to a young kid.

Originally posted by Petrus
Maybe not, but many of them are teens on their 16s, 15s or 17s. And actually in some special cases, they've been 13.



Well, I was under the impression that it was possible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/27/in-30-states-a-child-can-still-legally-own-a-rife-or-shotgun/

Unless this isn't true? Honest question.

What? You Never got a Shotgun for your Birthday or Christmas?

Such a sad childhood.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Lord Lucien, what about bows? Bows have been used for hunting and war (for example the Battle of Agincourt: English Archers killed 5,000 French Knights) during the 100 years war. Maybe we should ban bows too! How bout slingshots too? The IRA used those to blind British troops during the 80s and The Troubles. Is there something about the words "semi-automatic," "30-clip magazine", or "conical bullet" that you don't understand? How about the words "gas-operated," "iron sights," "armour-piercing," "muzzle-velocity of 900 m/s combined with an effective range of 600 meters?"


Try combining all those together and you get a description of a standard assault rifle. Standard. Unmodified. Contrast that civilian-owned, battlefield weapon to the civilian-owned battlefield weapon of an English longbow. There's a reason literally every soldier on Earth has traded in their bows and arrows. Try to guess why before you bring up this nonsense again in an atrocious attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

Originally posted by Withsensibility
The technology is not the issue. Its a constitutional right to defend against the tyrannical government. Whether its drones nuclear arms or muskets. Kinda like how BLM fight against the police. Do you get it now?

Poor argument. Poor response. You think your little hunting rifles and handheld pistols are going to protect you when the government comes for you in the dead of night with their "drones" or their "nuclear arms"? Face it, either you're hyper paranoid about the willingness and capability of the U.S. governments hourly bureaucrats, or you're dangerously delusional about how effective or willing any attempted resistance is going to be against them with the type of firearms that kill everyday people (at the hands of other everyday people).

"Look out boys, they're sending Abrams, LAVs, helicopters, artillery, fighter jets, stealth bombers, predator drones, aircraft carriers, battleships, f*cking lasers, and an array of satellite and computer technology up against us... but don't worry because I got a hunting rifle!"


Originally posted by Withsensibility
stop posting jewish links. Well then you say stuff like this. Kinda of serves as a confirmation that you're a racist, xenophobic, gun-toting, maniac, doesn't it? All that liberal bullshit you people spout off at doesn't seem so bad when the complaints are coming from the mouths of neo-Nazis.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
What? You Never got a Shotgun for your Birthday or Christmas?

Such a sad childhood.

You'll shoot your eye(and probably the rest of your head) out.

Originally posted by Surtur
From the article:

That doesn't mean that a child can walk into a gun show and purchase a gun. "There are federal laws for minimum age purchasing of firearms," said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Technically, anybody selling a gun in that context should look for age verification that someone is at least 18 years old."

But a child's parent could. "If dad wants to give his son a rifle or a shotgun on his 13th or 14th birthday, he's pretty much free to do that in most states," Webster said."

Now with all that said I would be shocked if a gun seller has never looked the other way and sold to a young kid.

Check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/06/17/watch-this-insane-video-of-a-13-year-old-buying-a-gun-in-seconds/

I will just let The Fonding Fathers answer pretty much everything that LL said.

*"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

*"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". ~ Thomas Jefferson

*"Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ Benjamin Franklin

*Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

*An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

*Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

*Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

*You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

*Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

*You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

*Assault is a behavior, not a device.

*64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

*The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

*The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

*What part of '"shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?

*Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

*When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

*The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Originally posted by Surtur
You'll shoot your eye(and probably the rest of your head) out.

Nope. Unlike our LIBERAL LOONIE Buddies. I got LEARNT which end of the gun is the dangerous end. Its the end the finger is connected to.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I will just let The Fonding Fathers answer pretty much everything that LL said.

*"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

*"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". ~ Thomas Jefferson

*"Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ Benjamin Franklin

*Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

*An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

*Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

*Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

*You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

*Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

*You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

*Assault is a behavior, not a device.

*64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

*The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

*The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

*What part of '"shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?

*Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

*When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

*The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

The British Empire would never have happened with gun control. What's your point?


Your Founding Fathers are men from a different time and era. With different political realities, different technological capabilities, and different social priorities. Those same men upheld slavery and the marginalization of women and non-WASPs. They started a revolution whose primary aim was to trade the rich, white, ruling elites from one country and replace them with the rich, white, ruling elites from their new one. And thousands of peasants and peasant-soldiers died to help them do it.

You would look at those values and social norms from those days and say they were a "product of their time". Why do you think that sentiment should exclude their acceptance on firearms? The post-Revolutionary period was a time when the notion that all men should carry weapons as self-defence made alot of sense. An armed militia made sense when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. The British colonies still existed. Britain was still hostile. Natives still raided settlements. Rebellions still happened--the 2nd Amendment (the whole Bill of Rights) was introduced in 1791, the same year the Whiskey Rebellion broke out. An armed populace and militia made sense.


We don't live in that world anymore. It no longer makes any practical sense.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The British Empire would never have happened with gun control. What's your point?


Your Founding Fathers are men from a different time and era. With different political realities, different technological capabilities, and different social priorities. Those same men upheld slavery and the marginalization of women and non-WASPs. They started a revolution whose primary aim was to trade the rich, white, ruling elites from one country and replace them with the rich, white, ruling elites from their new one. And thousands of peasants and peasant-soldiers died to help them do it.

You would look at those values and social norms from those days and say they were a "product of their time". Why do you think that sentiment should exclude their acceptance on firearms? The post-Revolutionary period was a time when the notion that all men should carry weapons as self-defence made alot of sense. An armed militia made sense when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. The British colonies still existed. Britain was still hostile. Natives still raided settlements. Rebellions still happened--the 2nd Amendment (the whole Bill of Rights) was introduced in 1791, the same year the Whiskey Rebellion broke out. An armed populace and militia made sense.


We don't live in that world anymore. It no longer makes any practical sense.

Things haven't changed that much. And pretty much nothing they said DOESN'T also apply to todays scenarios.

Like how our current LIBERAL Socialist Elitist Leaders have done their best to keep the American African Population ENSLAVED in the Ghettos and Tenements for the past 50 years.

But then using Your Logic. Defending ourselves and Standing up for our rights is wrong and we should always surrender to what is considered a Superior Force.

Which is pretty much what TYRANTS would prefer the people always do.

Jesus you're unpleasant. It's like talking to a brick wall that has platitudes and slogans graffitied all over it. They're eye-catching, but pretty worthless.

LORVfnFtcH0

https://youtu.be/LORVfnFtcH0

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Jesus you're unpleasant. It's like talking to a brick wall that has platitudes and slogans graffitied all over it. They're eye-catching, but pretty worthless.

That's exactly how I felt watching the DNC. ZING!

Originally posted by Robtard
LORVfnFtcH0

https://youtu.be/LORVfnFtcH0 I won't lie, I LOL'd.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
That's exactly how I felt watching the DNC. ZING! #triggered

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Jesus you're unpleasant. It's like talking to a brick wall that has platitudes and slogans graffitied all over it. They're eye-catching, but pretty worthless.

Yeah. Don't it suck when people don't GIVE Up and just SURRENDER when faced with an opposing view point.


Wow. A WALL Can work to stop things!?

Again, worthless.

Figured I'd just post this up real quick:


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


That's the entirety of the 2nd Amendment. The bold text is my emphasis to accompany what I said earlier.

I wish every gun owner would stop killing millions of Americans. Im sure theyre loving the NRA defending their right to kill people.

Originally posted by Withsensibility
I wish every gun owner would stop killing millions of Americans. Im sure theyre loving the NRA defending their right to kill people. Leave the facetiousness to the professionals, kid.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Leave the facetiousness to the professionals, kid. Nice refutal /s

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The British Empire would never have happened with gun control. What's your point?


Your Founding Fathers are men from a different time and era. With different political realities, different technological capabilities, and different social priorities. Those same men upheld slavery and the marginalization of women and non-WASPs. They started a revolution whose primary aim was to trade the rich, white, ruling elites from one country and replace them with the rich, white, ruling elites from their new one. And thousands of peasants and peasant-soldiers died to help them do it.

You would look at those values and social norms from those days and say they were a "product of their time". Why do you think that sentiment should exclude their acceptance on firearms? The post-Revolutionary period was a time when the notion that all men should carry weapons as self-defence made alot of sense. An armed militia made sense when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. The British colonies still existed. Britain was still hostile. Natives still raided settlements. Rebellions still happened--the 2nd Amendment (the whole Bill of Rights) was introduced in 1791, the same year the Whiskey Rebellion broke out. An armed populace and militia made sense.


We don't live in that world anymore. It no longer makes any practical sense. i think youre missing the fact weve always lived in a world where governments can take away our liberties and a gun is a brilliant way to save our life against tyranny. The founding fathers understood this. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I won't lie, I LOL'd.


It's funny and on point

Originally posted by Robtard
It's funny and on point **** off ******.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Figured I'd just post this up real quick:


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


That's the entirety of the 2nd Amendment. The bold text is my emphasis to accompany what I said earlier.

Where in the 2nd Am does it say it can ONLY be a Militia that is Armed? The 2nd part of your quote says "THE PEOPLE". Are "THE PEOPLE" different from "The Militia"?

Originally posted by Withsensibility
The technology is not the issue. Its a constitutional right to defend against the tyrannical government. Whether its drones nuclear arms or muskets. Kinda like how BLM fight against the police. Do you get it now?

Poor argument.

The "tyrannical government" excuse is easily the most retarded of them all. Either you believe your military with act against your civilian population of government orders in which case weapons available to civilians wouldn't have a hope against your military or, as is much more likely, your military wouldn't act on those orders and would be far more likely to remove that tyrannical government from power on behalf of the civilian population.

Either way makes a mockery of the "we need guns to protect us from our government" argument.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
How's that fair to the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners? That's essentially screwing 99% of gun owners for the stupidity of the 1%. That will never pass.


Ah yes, because that's what every responsible gun owner needs and that's to be watched everytime he fires his weapon. Another terrible solution.


What's the point of fingerprint recognition other than being totally awesome? That just means that gun owners can....Fire their own weapons? I suppose that will prevent 1 massacre a year so I'm for it. The rest of the suggestions aren't realistic or even logical.

1. It isnt. But it gets around "banning" weapons

2. They wouldn't be "watched". Either the weapon would only work at designated locations or the police would be notified if the weapon was discharged in an area that wasn't a gun range meaning response times would be much faster to potential fatal shootings. It's not really any different than the gunfire locators they utilitise in high crime areas.

3. As already suggested, it would ensure only the legal owner could use it. There would be less accidental shootings. There would be less instances of a family member taking and using the weapon etc etc. The fingerprint would be programmed at the time of purchase by the vendor for the legal purchaser only and not programmed by the buyer so they couldn't be sold on except to a licenced gun shop.

In my experience, the people who use the "for when the government tries to take over" reason for gun ownership tend to be conspriracy loving loons scared of their own shadow. Several valid reasons to own a gun and they pick the crazy one. eg home protection, sporting, hunting, collector or just the good ole fashioned "I just like guns".

Originally posted by Petrus
Check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/06/17/watch-this-insane-video-of-a-13-year-old-buying-a-gun-in-seconds/

Yes but like I said..that was some douche apparently overlooking laws and stuff. Since the article you gave made it pretty clear a kid isn't supposed to literally just be able to walk in and do that.

So you're saying only government employees' weapons will work in any location, correct? Yea that's awful.


The argument that "it can't happen here" is an idiotic one though, but I digress. I have a hard time giving government employees all the leeway with firearms while I have to get a license and fire only in an area someone designates to be "safe".

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
The argument that "it can't happen here" is an idiotic one though, but I digress.

I have a hard time giving government employees all the leeway with firearms while I have to get a license and fire only in an area someone designates to be "safe".

Wasn't touching on the chances of it happening or not. It very well could, just not likely imo.

It should be equal laws all around. If we made it where Joe Average had to take a basic gun safety test before he's allowed to own a gun, there's no reason why a government employee shouldn't have to pass the same test. Though exceptions could be made for say someone where they already previously had to show aptitude with firearms to be employed in a given job. eg police, military, security. Though I would hope an ex cop could pass a basic gun safety test should he/she want to own gun.

Equal laws all around would negate the conspiracy nut argument.

You can't negate those types of people, they'll find something. I'm still waiting for Obama to declare marshall law in order to suspend the election and declare himself emperor of mankind.

But what exactly did you mean with "leeway", example(s)? Cos I'm pretty sure police and servicemen can't just go shooting around the street freely.

Problem is there is no equality in the law or our criminal justice system. Hilary Clinton alone has proven this.

Our laws, our entire way of doing things when it comes to laws and the courts..needs a complete overhaul.

Do you really have to rant about Clinton in here? There's multiple other threads.

Our justice system favors the wealthy/those in power. Why some common person can get 10 years in federal prison for passing a fake check and a billionaire gets only 2 years; then that's reduced, for trying to rape a 14 year old.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you really have to rant about Clinton in here? There's multiple other threads.

We surely have different views of what constitutes a "rant".



It also favors women. That isn't even a comment on Hilary specifically since she was never charged with anything and I'm talking about people who get charged with a crime.

Originally posted by Withsensibility
i think youre missing the fact weve always lived in a world where governments can take away our liberties and a gun is a brilliant way to save our life against tyranny. The founding fathers understood this. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Yeah how's the going by the way? The whole "protecting your liberties"? Have your guns stopped the government from taking away your rights?

Remember when the NSA scandal blew up, where they were found to be invading everyone's privacy through the phones? Did your guns stop them? Or how about the PATRIOT Act? Did your guns stop that? Remember when the U.S. forcibly made it's citizens fight a decade-long war in some who-gives-a-f*ck southeast Asian country? Not willingly, forcibly--they forced young men through conscription to go fight and die. Where were their rights? Your guns didn't protect their freedom of choice.

People b*tch (rightly so) that the government likes to limit freedoms and liberties in the name of security and its own self-serving power. Because it does. Your guns aren't stopping them.


Originally posted by Flyattractor
Where in the 2nd Am does it say it can ONLY be a Militia that is Armed? The 2nd part of your quote says "THE PEOPLE". Are "THE PEOPLE" different from "The Militia"? Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that "arms" DON'T mean semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols? Or fully-automatic, belt-fed, 7.76 machine guns? Or rocket launchers? Or SAMs? Or thermonuclear warheads? It's almost like it's vague and presumptuous about what "arms" means. Almost like when those words were written and drafted, Thomas Jefferson couldn't predict what manner of weapons would be developed far in to the future. It's almost like the Constitution isn't set in stone, is open to speculative interpretation, and is capable of being updated and modified to fit the needs of a changing world. Ya know, amendments.

Originally posted by Surtur
We surely have different views of what constitutes a "rant". Okay then can she at least be left for the appropriate thread? Complaining about her in here doesn't enlighten anyone in regards to the gun control issue, it just inflames everyone over a tangentially-related topic.

Originally posted by Robtard
You can't negate those types of people, they'll find something. I'm still waiting for Obama to declare marshall law in order to suspend the election and declare himself emperor of mankind.

But what exactly did you mean with "leeway", example(s)? Cos I'm pretty sure police and servicemen can't just go shooting around the street freely. it was in response to jaden's suggestion that permitted gun owners be allowed to fire in certain locations, otherwise are alerted to authorities, while police get carte Blanche.

Originally posted by jaden101
The "tyrannical government" excuse is easily the most retarded of them all. Either you believe your military with act against your civilian population of government orders in which case weapons available to civilians wouldn't have a hope against your military or, as is much more likely, your military wouldn't act on those orders and would be far more likely to remove that tyrannical government from power on behalf of the civilian population.

Either way makes a mockery of the "we need guns to protect us from our government" argument. read again what you posted, retard.

Our guns protect us from a tyrannical government. The us government is more scared of its own people because its a government by the people. We have guns to say "**** you" to whatever government.

lol

Lets just talk about the defence against a tyrannical government one moment.

Do you think the victims that BLM talk about who are defending against racist police should own guns? Isnt that precisely the defence against tyrannical government? Or do you need to try mental gymnastics?

The police and the government are different things. Individual police officers acting against civilians is very different from the elected government trying to dissolve democracy and put a dictatorship in its place, which is what 'defence against tyranny' implies.

The police follow the government and are funded by the government.

Defending against the police is defending against the government.

I repeat:
Originally posted by Scribble
Individual police officers acting against civilians is very different from the elected government trying to dissolve democracy and put a dictatorship in its place, which is what 'defence against tyranny' implies. The police are not attempting to stage a coup and enslave the populace. The situations are distinctly different.

Originally posted by Scribble
The police and the government are different things. Individual police officers acting against civilians is very different from the elected government trying to dissolve democracy and put a dictatorship in its place, which is what 'defence against tyranny' implies. basically this but i lumped police in because they could be considered a militia in this case.

So... I think we have a full-fledged conspiracy nut on our hands here.

You're not talking about me because the police force is the correct example of a militia during either a coup or a government takeover. There's no conspiracy here, just a lack of understanding of certain concepts.

So none of you believe in an agenda being forced on its citizens and it's all cool because police a not a militia. Okay then.

The police aren't a militia but they could be called upon to act in that manner.