|
dominator
Aug 23, 2002, 5:46 AM
Post #1 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
What do you think, are they a violation of our rights? Do they work? Do they make crime worse?
|
|
|
|
|
onbelay_osu
Aug 23, 2002, 5:53 AM
Post #2 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2002
Posts: 1087
|
this is an issue i have been torn over, i think that we need to begin to restrict the buying of weapons. i heard of this great idea that you MUST go through a course, and pass a national test, and become certified before you can buy amo. but my views are clouded by the fact that I HATE GUNS
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 23, 2002, 5:55 AM
Post #3 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Just curious...why do you hate guns? Dominator...heck of a subject to pick for your first post.
|
|
|
|
|
onbelay_osu
Aug 23, 2002, 6:03 AM
Post #4 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2002
Posts: 1087
|
mainly because they kill, i personally see no thrill in holding a piece of metal that soul purpose is to kill, i know that you can argue that people dont kill but rather shoot paper but non the less the orginal idea behind the gun was to kill!
[ This Message was edited by: onbelay_osu on 2002-08-25 23:57 ]
|
|
|
|
|
sagarmatha
Aug 23, 2002, 6:07 AM
Post #5 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 66
|
Personal view: I am against permissive gun laws. Too many guns/rifles = many dead. Many show ponies buy firearms to impress others and it ends in tragedy. Firearms should be left to those who need them in their work, eg. cops. If they abuse their possession of a firearm, they should be punished too. I always thought that if people buy a firearm they've got to be prepared to use it. Personally, I am uncomfortable (excluding exceptional circumstances eg. self-defence when threatened with death) with the idea of pulling the trigger on another human been. This said, I respect others' views on this issue.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
monkeyface1982
Aug 23, 2002, 6:13 AM
Post #6 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 34
|
well here in Austrlaia they had a program call the buy back scheem
any semi auto and auto wepon were asked to be given back to the goverentment for disposil and you were paid for it
i think guns arnt the best thing in the world
but ppl do need them farmers out in the bush use them to distroy pest such as rabbits foxes and kangaroos.
all hand guns are illegal in NSW
so i thin it was a good way of trying to get em back
and guns dont kill ppl
people kill people
i think if you get rid of all the guns were just going to take a backwards step and start useing sticks and stones
so i think there should be a greater contol on who gets there hands on em and what guns are avalibe
i hate the thought of blowing 100 rounds in 3 seconds that just silly
one shot, one kill
thats what i was tought when hunting the pests on the farm
dont tourture them, its not there fault be humain.
well thats my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
|
rendog
Aug 23, 2002, 7:18 AM
Post #7 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 2468
|
Up here we have a program that in order to be able to acquire a firearm, (legally that is, absolutley no control over illegal weapon sales) one must pass a certified "hunter safety course" that will then enable one to apply for a Firearm Acquisition Cirtificate (FAC). The government, along with CSIA, and local law enforcement will review your application and then decide if you qualify to receive said certificate and be able to purchase a weapon or even ammo for that matter.
Gun control is pretty hefty here. the Gov even wants you to register any weapons that you have in your possession. Even if it's grandpa's musket from who knows how long ago.
Register my rifle? HELL NO
That way if they feel that I don't deserve it, then they can come and take it away from me. I will only ever use my weapon for one reason only and that is to gather food so that I don't have to pay astronomical prices on steroid infested beef and enjoy the pure taste of wild game meat.
I don't hunt for the trophy, I hunt for myself, for the meat and I use every last piece of an animal that gives itself to me that I can.
"D"
[ This Message was edited by: rendog on 2002-08-23 00:21 ]
|
|
|
|
|
waxtadpole
Aug 23, 2002, 8:28 AM
Post #8 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 171
|
:quote:
i think if you get rid of all the guns were just going to take a backwards step and start useing sticks and stones
:endquote:
I say sticks and stones may break my bones but guns can hit me while im running like a little girl.
No guns for citizens, except farmers, and then only shot guns (less rounds if it falls into the wrong hands)
Guns dont kill people... Thats the lamest argument on the planet. Guns kill people. I went to school with a kid who accidently shot himself in the head when he was eight.
I hear "If it wasnt loaded..."
I say "If there was no gun!"
If you can give me a purpose for a gun other than to kill I'll vote to repeal Oz's gun control laws.
Edit:
As for gun safety courses:
How can that prevent someone going postal? I'm sure Martin Bryant knew the proper safe handeling procedures.
What about kids? It is such and easy thing to forget to lock a cabinet.
[ This Message was edited by: waxtadpole on 2002-08-23 01:32 ]
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 12:32 PM
Post #9 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
mainly because they kill,
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
Lets start making laws restricting moronic people from living.
A disarmerment of the people will render the population incapable of keeping the government under control. That's why the founding fathers had that in the happy papers they painstakingly wrote. If the Government and its military have nothing to fear (being shot dead) there is nothing to stop them from making us slaves. No, not slaves in the sense of chained up, but think long and hard about how things are going as of late, and you'll understand.
Take away the guns, and you're taking away the liberty.
|
|
|
|
|
spank_spank
Aug 23, 2002, 12:43 PM
Post #10 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 480
|
The constitution is outdated and needs to be revised. The laws of a hundred or 200 hundred years ago do not apply to todays world.
I believe in heavy gun control. But the evilness of the NRA and corporate gun makers will not let that happen. They lace the politician with money to keep their cause alive. Just like the cigarette and alcohol industry. Nothing will change until the politians change.
Even if we were able to control the guns in our nation, there would be a huge black market for them. Its a no-win situation.
WE ARE SCREWED
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 1:21 PM
Post #11 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
Nothing will change until the politians change.
Would you like to know how to change a politician?
Put a gun to his/her head.
Scenario:
A woman is walking to her car on a dark night, out from the bushes jumps a bad dude, assuming this woman is not carrying a gun, the bad dude will (a) run away from her wicked ninja skills, (b) cry because he's scared of being hit with a hand bag, or (c) rob the woman because she was violated by her government in NOT being able to carry the weapon that could save her.
Crime goes down when criminals are scared. Criminals are not scared though because many people do not carry guns, and therefor have no real way to defend themselves against a crowbar or other device. If more people carried weapons, criminals would be forced to second guess their next attack for fear of themselves being assaulted.
This whole gun control debate is bred from complete ignorance and a total lack of of the ideals the United States of America were founded upon. The people were tired of being opressed and misrepresented by their "representatives," A situation we all too often find ourselves in now. Why is it like this once again? Because the representatives have nothing to fear, just as they (thought) back 230 years ago. The American public has mistakingly turned a blind eye to freedoms being ripped out of their hands daily, and people supporting gun control laws are only helping to seal the gloomy fate of every freedom loving American.
You can take your gun control laws and shove them far up your ass. When the military comes knocking on your door because you spoke out against the government I'll be down the street laughing my ass off as I clean my 9mm and start capping some ass.
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Aug 23, 2002, 2:10 PM
Post #12 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." -Robert Heinlein
I refuse to give up my guns because of a bunch of irresponsible people or because YOU think it would be good for me. The argument that guns kill people is foolish - take the guns away and someone who wants to kill or take something will still do it. They can do it with a knife or stick, so lets take all the sticks away ... they can still strangle, so lets take all (into absurdity). Innocent people have died - true and tragic, but blame the stupidity and ignorance of owners. Punish the parent - quit making up little sob stories over it. People die.
And before you try to ask the question: yes, I have had people shot by guns - people very close to me. I have had someone pull a gun on me with malicious intent, and I've watched friends come out of buildings in bags from suicides and gun accidents. See aforementioned statement: people die.
Guns were meant to kill and thankfully they do their job and do it well. I've put dinner on my family's table more than once using my rifle and I will continue to do so. I fully support legislation making background checks and time delays prerequsites for the purchase of a gun, I fully support maximum punishment for people who misuse firearms (that includes people who shoot animals for pure joy of destruction) but as they say "you can take my guns away - from my cold, dead hands".
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
Aug 23, 2002, 2:10 PM
Post #13 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
Gun laws are over-rated.
You can't own any guns here aside from hunting rifles, which are very closly controlled....
I know I guy at school that I could get a hand gun from.
The people that would want to use a gun for killing people are the kind of people that sell the guns illegally. At least in Canada, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
blacksamba
Aug 23, 2002, 2:22 PM
Post #14 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 128
|
Guns, eh!
Well let me just say that control in Alaska is known as being able to hit the target!
Guns are absolutely essential for backcountry protection. What would you rather have a can of pepper spray or a .44magnum if an angry sow is charging you?
read this article
http://www.adn.com/front/story/1633810p-1751603c.html
Last I checked Alaska is still part of the US and it would be insane to outlaw the possesion of firearms here! And if you cant do it here what makes the rest of the US any different.
That said I dislike the concept of assult rifles, and weapons designed to harm people more then animals etc. In the same boat I support measures to limit the number of assult rifles on the market as they do not serve the self protection argument made above.
ben
|
|
|
|
|
blacksamba
Aug 23, 2002, 2:23 PM
Post #15 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 128
|
Guns, eh!
Well let me just say that control in Alaska is known as being able to hit the target!
Guns are absolutely essential for backcountry protection. What would you rather have a can of pepper spray or a .44magnum if an angry sow is charging you?
read this article
http://www.adn.com/front/story/1633810p-1751603c.html
Last I checked Alaska is still part of the US and it would be insane to outlaw the possesion of firearms here! And if you cant do it here what makes the rest of the US any different.
That said I dislike the concept of assult rifles, and weapons designed to harm people more then animals etc. In the same boat I support measures to limit the number of assult rifles on the market as they do not serve the self protection argument made above.
ben
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Aug 23, 2002, 2:34 PM
Post #16 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
I think it would be great if NO-ONE had a gun, including the bad guys . . . but since that ain't gonna happen, there's no way in the world I would give up my guns. I don't hunt and I don't own guns for the sheer pleasure of it . . I keep a gun around for the sole purpose of defending myself against any bad person foolish enough to try to attack me.
If guns were made illegal then only the bad guys would have them and how scary does THAT sound?
The argument that people accidentally kill themselves with guns is silly. People also screw up their knots and die . . should we ban climbing? What about all the people who wrap their cars around telephone poles? They kill not only themselves but others.
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Aug 23, 2002, 2:55 PM
Post #17 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
I think that the only people who should not be allowed to have guns are the ones who really, really want to have lots of guns.
All the personal protection stuff is crap. If you carry a gun for personal protection you are only more likely to get yourself or an innocent person shot.
Quote:
a gun in your hand makes a fool out of you, oh yeah
a gun in your hand makes a target out of me, oh no
freedom, you ain't no freedom, you want your freedom,
your freedom is killing you man, freedom
you can't handle your freedom, hey
and now you're dying for it
Rollins Band, Civilized
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 2:58 PM
Post #18 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
If you carry a gun for personal protection you are only more likely to get yourself or an innocent person shot.
Unedited original reply
Do you have statistics and/or research to back up that claim?
New Reply
Wait a second, that is one of those DUH! and worthless statements. It's like saying, "If you run around with scissors in your hands your more likely to be stabbed with scissors." Or perhaps, "If you ride in a car you're more likely to die in a car crash than someone who walks through a remote forest."
How about this one? "If you don't carry a gun around for protection, you're more likely to not be able to defend yourself against the thug stealing your schnizzle."
Second Edit
And of course, bands are the foremost authority on everything and their lyrics should be praised as pure genius without a second thought.
[ This Message was edited by: pianomahnn on 2002-08-23 08:04 ]
[ This Message was edited by: pianomahnn on 2002-08-23 08:05 ]
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Aug 23, 2002, 3:14 PM
Post #19 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
hear, hear, Piano.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 3:15 PM
Post #20 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Another inspiring Rollins Band lyric:
After we hang a little we're gonna have a little fun
Gonna go shoot and kill and go knife everyone
The bar looks like haven gonna have myself a drink
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Aug 23, 2002, 3:22 PM
Post #21 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
Well I see you edited your reply but I have a few tidbits of data for you.
Here are a some quotes that I found on THIS Site.
Quote:Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2000)
Quote:The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A sudy of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).
These are just a few items I found in about 5 minutes of searching. So feel free to rip them to pieces. Also look Here for more data.
*Edit had to fix a quote tag
[ This Message was edited by: wigglestick on 2002-08-23 08:23 ]
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 23, 2002, 3:26 PM
Post #22 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
In my humble opinion, it's not the laws that need to change, it's the mindset of a lot of people. Personally, I will never own a gun of any kind because if I would then there would be a slight chance that I would be tempted to use it on someone. I have nothing against hunting, but I do have something against the mindset that you absolutely need a gun for protection, and are not afraid to use it (on a thief, for example). I think having a gun usually can only make a situation worse. If someone was stealing from me, I would let him. No harm on either end, except maybe me losing money. But it's just money. It's not worth risking my life over, and it's not worth taking someone else's life over (yes, even a "worthless" criminal). I would even go to the extreme that if I caught a man raping or killing my wife, I would not want to kill him. Our justice system is not perfect, but taking it into one's own hands is not the way to handle crime. Just my opinion, and to each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 3:32 PM
Post #23 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
I still left my original reply in, because I liked it also.
Quote:
Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2000)
It would be nice to know the leading cause, so we can make another infringing law against that.
I'd like to bring up the Darwin Awards. Guns are a good way to weed out the stupid genetics. Stupid people end up killing other stupid people (gang violence) therefor decreasing the amount of the lame genetics in the gene pool. Yeah, okay, a poor argument, but it has a bit of truth to it.
If one follows the same logic of gun control lobbyists, then one should follow the same with vehicles. Many innocent pedestrians are killed each year because of crazy car driving people. But, it's not people who kill people, it's the car, so instead of just revoking someone's right to the car, we'll get rid of all cars.
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? It sounds just as stupid when one inserts the word "gun" in place of "car."
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 23, 2002, 3:35 PM
Post #24 of 197
(4201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I saw this thread last night and already there is too much to reply to. Pianomahnn is doing rather well defending my point of view.
Here are a few points, just for starters.
1.If it weren't for guns in the hands of citizens, there would be NO United States.
2.The first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired when the British soldiers tried to confiscate weapons from the citizens.
3.Without the 2nd Amendment, the other amendments wouldn't exist.
4.Misuse of automobiles causes thousands and thousands of deaths each year-ban cars?
5.Alcohol kills thousands of people each year-ban alcohol? We know what happend the last time that was tried!
6.Gun laws only make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The existing criminals don't give a rat's ass. Twenty-two gun laws were broken during the Columbine Massacre. Cops really were able to protect them weren't they? Think maybe a librarian with a gun in their desk might have been able to stop the rampage?
7.If you look at every mass murder such as Columbine and the other schools and businesses, there is a common denominator. ONLY THE BAD GUYS HAD GUNS!!!!
8.If every law-abiding citizen carried a gun, there would be a whole lot more polite behavior in society and the cops would have an easier job. Go ahead and call a cop to protect you as someone is breaking into your home. He'll get there in time to draw a chalk line around your body!
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 3:37 PM
Post #25 of 197
(4057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Education.
Families who are involved in hunting are well known for educating their children about guns.
Quote:
Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in this country and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing.
from the site wigglestick quoted
Awareness and education are key (most of the time, except for a few very random cases where the person is just insane).
Why punish people who do a good job educating their children/families about guns and gun safety? Punish the people who are stupid about it.
Gah, my head stopped functioning, and I'm drifting all over, I have to stop.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 3:39 PM
Post #26 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
1.If it weren't for guns in the hands of citizens, there would be NO United States.
That makes me all tingly inside.
VIVA LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS!!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 23, 2002, 3:46 PM
Post #27 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Quote:A sudy of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).
This is a misleading stat...they don't tell you about the 2 million+ timese every year that the mere presence of a gun thwarts crime without the gun even being fired. They also don't tell you that the criminal assaults or homicides were committed 99+% of the time by people already PROHIBITED from possessing firearms. Once again proving that bad guys will ALWAYS have guns.
Also, you can't blame the gun for the suicides. What do you think the people did...see a gun sitting there and decide "Hey, I think I'll pick that up and kill myself!"? No, the suicide victim had a tormented life and they were going to kill themselves no matter what. If the gun wasn't available they would find another way to do it.
Good debate! Thanks dominator, I'm just geting started!
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 23, 2002, 3:46 PM
Post #28 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
Yes, I agree with all of you. Teach children to shoot and kill at an early age. If kids were allowed to have guns in schools then those Columbine kids would have had their asses handed to them right off the bat. Teachers should have guns too so they can shoot kids if they look like they might be about to cause trouble. And vice versa, kids can shoot teachers if they don't treat the students fairly. I'm sure the Columbine kids had a god reason to do what they did.
We should also be allowed to have guns in case the police ever try to arrest us or the government gets out of hand. I mean, what would I do if the government tried to control me? What would I do if they tried to tax the hell out of me?
Charlton Heston is my president.
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Aug 23, 2002, 4:04 PM
Post #29 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
I think auto accidents are the leading cause of unnatural deaths for children.
Quote:This is a misleading stat...
Aren't they all?
Quote:
they don't tell you about the 2 million+ timese every year that the mere presence of a gun thwarts crime without the gun even being fired.
They also don't tell you how many times a baseball bat would accomplish the same thing. But nobody ever died while cleaning their baseball bat. And baseball bats don't richocet and kill children who are sitting at home watching cartoons.
The fact is that a majority of people do not have the education and mental maturity to handle the responsibility of owning a gun. I have no problem with responsible gun owners. I wish there were more of them.
Good one fiend.
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Aug 23, 2002, 4:05 PM
Post #30 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
In reply to: "The US Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey has shown for decades that resistance with a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a criminal,'' writes John Lott Jr., a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of ''More Guns, Less Crime.'' It is especially so for women. ''The probability of serious injury from a criminal confrontation is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than resisting with a gun.'' Lott analyzed 18 years of crime data from every US county. With each additional person carrying a handgun, he found, murder rates declined. But when that additional person is female, the drop in murder rates is 3 to 4 times greater than when it is a man." [END] That came from the Boston Globe. I think statistics can usually be twisted & presented any way you like. It's common sense that a burglar/rapist/murderer is going to think twice if it's possible that his potential victim might have a gun. Burglaries that occur while people are at home are less common in this country than in places like England for that reason.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 4:07 PM
Post #31 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
The fact is that a majority of people do not have the education and mental maturity to handle the responsibility of owning a gun.
I guess we should start banning pregnancy also. And guess how we ban pregnancy. You guessed it, ban sex.
NO SEX FOR YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 23, 2002, 4:11 PM
Post #32 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
The fact is that a majority of people do not have the education and mental maturity to handle the responsibility of owning a gun. I have no problem with responsible gun owners.
So who decides this...a tyrannical government?
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Aug 23, 2002, 4:13 PM
Post #33 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
Ah, Pianomahn. If we could dictate who could breed and who couldn't we would solve so many problems wouldn't we?
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Aug 23, 2002, 4:17 PM
Post #34 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
Well, if we let the government take away our guns, we wouldn't be able to shoot them when they start trying to forcibly sterilize us . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 23, 2002, 4:33 PM
Post #35 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
did you all know that 76% of all statistics are made up on the spot?? (or was it 74%)
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Aug 23, 2002, 4:42 PM
Post #36 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Good debate. I had no idea there were this many different opinions on this subject. I think I kind of lean towards no gun control laws as they don't seem to have worked so far.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 4:55 PM
Post #37 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Because they don't work (in what regards) you don't want them?
Hmmmm...
Laws against speeding don't work. Get rid of those.
Laws against murder don't work, get rid of those.
Laws against this or that don't work, get rid of those.
You should have more of a reason to have or not have laws than wether or not they work.
|
|
|
|
|
blacksamba
Aug 23, 2002, 4:57 PM
Post #38 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 128
|
Man I'm so glad I live in Alaska where they give a .22 to all kindergarteners!
|
|
|
|
|
punk
Aug 23, 2002, 5:09 PM
Post #39 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 1442
|
Ill say Get ALL THE FIRE POWER U CAN GET u never know when u need it to defend yourself
HUMMMM thinking of it U should eliminate, the Jews, Muslims, those oriental ppl and of curse blacks. Now, should shoot all handicap, mental illness and opinionated ppl too then u got to protect yourself from, carnivore animals, and someone else's that carry a gun then u will be safe to NOT USE YOUR GUN
but wait a minute u alone....
Anarchy RULE
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Aug 23, 2002, 5:09 PM
Post #40 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
yeah, I really hate it when those Jews and carnivore animals keep trying to carjack me . . . but the opiniated people are the worst, I think I'll hunt them all down next time it's too hot to climb
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 5:32 PM
Post #41 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Be sure to shoot yourself first.
|
|
|
|
|
punk
Aug 23, 2002, 5:38 PM
Post #42 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 1442
|
What's the difference
U alone anyway whether in the grave or above grave
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 23, 2002, 5:43 PM
Post #43 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
It amazes me how the "gun" is the blame. Gun control advocates never mention the number of violent crimes committed with other tools, such as the threat of force alone, hands, knives, pipes, etc.. They shift the blame to the tool. Why can't people hold people accountable for there actions. Not their tool of choice. Did you ever hear of a movement to ban Ginsu kitchen knives. After all I'm sure many victims of domestic violence would be alive had it not been for these henous instruments of violence.
|
|
|
|
|
punk
Aug 23, 2002, 5:56 PM
Post #44 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 1442
|
"Guns dont kill ppl, ppl kill ppl"
Its such a cliché
but when u think of it
what was the purpose that the gun was invented
to the best of my knowledge it wasn't for Hunting or human kind matter
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 23, 2002, 8:47 PM
Post #45 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
This is one of those topics that always draw out the most ardent supporters of each side that will provide statistics, studies, etc, all of which will never satisfy the other side. I find it interesting that this argument arises so much but rarely see the same vocalization over automobile accidents. Just a few stats; 1999 - 41,717 deaths in 3,236,000 accidents and of those deaths 15,976 were alcohol related. 2000 - 41,821 deaths in 3,189,000 accidents of which 16,653 deaths were accident related. Sounds more like alcohol and cars are doing all the killing. Gun control always becomes a hot topic with the politicians but little is done to enforce the laws we have and pass laws that make sense. If anyone can tell me why my neighbor needs and AK-47 that spews 600 rounds a minute to protect himself while my measly 38 special is sufficient in my home I would like to hear the answer. I see no logical reason that the public needs to be armed better than their own law enforcement agencies.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 23, 2002, 9:00 PM
Post #46 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
The law enforcement agencies are comparible to the bastard Red Coats.
No more 'splainin' neede.
|
|
|
|
|
robscate
Aug 23, 2002, 9:00 PM
Post #47 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2000
Posts: 348
|
Gun control laws only affected people who want to own a gun legally. These people are less likely to commit a crime with said gun. Ie they obeyed the gun law, why would they commit a crime with a registered gun under their name.
a couple of startling stories that the media loves to hype that can go both ways.
the guns used at colimbine where purchased illegally.
In la a number of years ago two bank robbers had police outgunned. The police had to raid local sporting good stores to purchased more fire power. The guns the robbers had where purchased illegally.
gun control is another form of overbearing government. Laisse Faire.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 23, 2002, 9:05 PM
Post #48 of 197
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
I think we should have very strict gun control laws.
One, no one needs an "assault weapon". I used to hunt (don't believe in killing things for no reason anymore, but I can't be hippocrytical). I used to collect guns. I enjoyed them, but I never saw the purpose of an assault weapon of any sort.
The NRA is so full of s--- they don't even recognize that they are neck deep in their own fecal debris. Our constitution states we have the "right to bare arms". I believe in this and our country would never take that right away, but the NRA likes to try to make gun owners that they would. NO the wouldn't. Personally, I have no problem with having to "register" guns. What is the big deal? If you own a gun and you are responsible, why is having to register them so bad? It isn't. I would happily register mine (if I still had them).
You get to hear this bullshit "its against our rights to have to register them!" F-you! No it isn't. Unless you are some mass murderer, what is the big deal?
Fact is, if you are repsonsible, own guns, and hunt (or not), a person shouldn't have any problem with that.
So I say rid the market of assault weapons. A single shot rifel or shotgun can kill someone just as easily as an assault rifel/weapon. Handguns are semi-automatic (not all, but many, I used to own four) and that is about as "assault" as the average person should go.
I say Americans should register there firearms. It isn't a big deal. Christ! You go through a background check when you buy one, which should be more extensive and thourough, but you still go through one.
If it helps keep just one gun out of the hands of some useless gangbanger, and one less person dies, it is worth it. At least, I put a good value on human life and I think one life would be worth the once a year inconvenience of a firearm owner filling out a form and mailing it!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
punk
Aug 23, 2002, 9:05 PM
Post #49 of 197
(3654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 1442
|
Coach,
If u like to put it this way
its the means not the end
Its more like should we allow an instrument made specifically for killing handled freely
Alternatively, should we eliminate the most popular way of transportation
hummmmmmm
As I said its the means not the end
Thats way u call a gun shot a murder and a drunk driver hit an accident
[ This Message was edited by: punk on 2002-08-23 14:06 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 23, 2002, 9:06 PM
Post #50 of 197
(3654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
piano,
That, my friend, was an idiotic comment.
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Aug 23, 2002, 9:10 PM
Post #51 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
No, Piano's comment relates to some stuff that went on earlier.
And a drunk driver hit is murder, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Aug 23, 2002, 9:11 PM
Post #52 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
Why does everybody need to equate automobiles to weapons? People dying in auto accidents is a consequence of the country operating. Cars are how we all get to work, how we visit grandma, how we go climbing, and how goods and services get transported throughout the country. Sure cars kill people but like it or not they do alot more good than harm. Guns on the other hand tend to do the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 23, 2002, 9:14 PM
Post #53 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
What's funny is that people seem to think they have god given rights to do things because it was written as such by some dead people.
Any law can be revised or revoked. The Government can do anything it wants to the people and they will not be able to resist. Aren't you also guaranteed freedom of speech? Go somewhere public and denounce your government, see how long they let you speak then. Your right to bear arms is nothing more than words on paper... meaningless.
Personally I think everyone should have a handgun, living in fear is cool.
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Aug 23, 2002, 9:19 PM
Post #54 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
See, in America, we WOULD be able to resist, because we have GUNS. And they KNOW we have guns . . .
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 23, 2002, 10:04 PM
Post #55 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Wildtrail...do you know how silly that sounds? You are saying that law-abiding people shouldn't resist registration, what do they have to worry about? We should be required to register them while knowing that criminals won't? By the way, do you know that the Supreme Court ruled that felons are exempt from gun registration laws because it would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? Below is a chart showing why innocent, law-abiding people should not register their guns-these schemes have resulted in the murders of 57 million people!
JPFO RESEARCH: GOVERNMENT GENOCIDE CAMPAIGNS AND THE "GUN CONTROL" LAWS THAT HELPED SLAUGHTER 56 MILLION PEOPLE
Ottoman Turkey-Between 1915-1917 1.5 million Armenians were killed, gun registration law was passed in 1886.
Soviet Union,Between 1929-1953, 20 million Anti-Communists and
Anti-Stalinists were killed, gun registartion law passed in 1929.
Nazi Germany**
& Occupied Europe, between 1933-1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis were killed, gun registration law passed in 1928
China*, in the years 1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976, 20 million Anti-Communists,
Rural Populations, and Pro-Reform Groups were killed, gun registration laws passed in 1935.
Guatemala, between the years of 1960-1981, 100,000 Maya Indians were killed after gun registartion laws were passed
Uganda, between 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals were killed, gun registartion law passed in 1955
Cambodia, between 1975-1979, 1 million Educated Persons were killed, gun registration law passed in 1956.
These registration laws enabled the government to confiscate weapons from the targeted class of people and then annhiliate them.
Yep, I am all for gun registration!
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-23 15:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 24, 2002, 1:04 AM
Post #56 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Felons can't LEGALLY own guns. In the above mentioned countries what would have happened to you if you publically denounced the government's policy?
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Aug 24, 2002, 1:15 AM
Post #57 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Jeffe, uh, I'm no expert on this subject but it looks like jmlangford pretty well documented what would happen to you if you denounced those country's governments.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 24, 2002, 1:26 AM
Post #58 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Do you think that is the purpose of gun registration in the United States? Is the US government that out of control?
[ This Message was edited by: jeffe on 2002-08-23 18:27 ]
|
|
|
|
|
spydermonkey
Aug 24, 2002, 1:26 AM
Post #59 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2002
Posts: 1151
|
I like the laws, and I love guns. I'm stuck between two evils.
spyder
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 24, 2002, 4:20 AM
Post #60 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
Is the US government that out of control?
Yes. And do I have to expound upon that? Are you that blind?
The United States government is no longer a representative government of the people, for the people. It's a tyrannical government of a few telling the many how to live their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Aug 24, 2002, 4:50 AM
Post #61 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
I thought it was an oil company.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 24, 2002, 5:32 AM
Post #62 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Just thought I'd show the anti-gunners how much fun guns can be!
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-23 22:34 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 24, 2002, 6:17 AM
Post #64 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
climbchick...you just made it to #1 on my list! Awesome pic!
I hope the anti-gunners come back to this thread, I am waiting for there arguments so I can shoot them down. (pun intended)
|
|
|
|
|
ponyryan
Aug 24, 2002, 6:31 AM
Post #65 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2002
Posts: 704
|
Guns, we could prolly live without them, but we all know they won't. Ya know?
|
|
|
|
|
chrisshaeffer
Aug 24, 2002, 7:30 AM
Post #66 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 86
|
Wow, I should have gotten in on this thread earlier...
I like to look at gun control as a safety issue. Most arguements and laws focus around takeing the guns out of the hands of dangerous/ignorant people.
Who is responsible for your safety?
In my opinion, YOU are. Gun control assumes that you are an ignorant a$$ that can't manage the basic skills of handling a weapon safely- a skill that every single generation of human (except those alive today) depended on since the beginning of time.
You can't make the world safe by locking all the sharp things away in a closet where no one can get to them.
I grew up around guns. I played with my Dad's pistols when I was a kid- and I knew EXACTLY how to check and see if they were loaded. My dad made sure of that. I'm not afraid of them any more than I'me afraid of my pocket knife- and I don't show either of them off.
A little knowledge goes a long way. Unfortunately, a little fear goes even further. Gun control laws, in my opinion, seem based in fear rather than knowledge. If we were to ban all things that might cause death we'd have no cars, no sharp knives, no rope...
and no rock climbing.
Take care,
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 24, 2002, 11:02 AM
Post #67 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
"We need the guns to fight the Goverment if it comes to that"-----How about comeing up with somthing original,insted of that same old propaganda I have been hearing from the NRA.?You think your guns could stop the most powerful military in the world?(if i thought that we could,i would start right now,i hate this Goverment we have)--Keep dreaming!!
"Cars don't kill people,people kill people"another lame ass anology!!Cars are for transpo,guns are for killing,knives are for cutting not killing,ropes are for climbing,guns were invented for killing people,not hunting!!!
I was brought up with a gun in my hands,got one for Christmas when i was 9 years old.Served in the Army,used to hunt all the time until i got old enough to understand what a lame ass power trip it is!
Deer hunting in Missouri makes me laugh!!HAHAHAHA!Most of the hunters think it is some MACHO,male bonding experience,like it's macho to hang a deer head from your wall.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Most deer hunters around here are a bunch of fat fu$%ing red necks,sitting with a high powered riffle waiting for bambi to come along.Where is the challenge in that?--I would be impressed,if they killed a deer with a plastic spoon,naked!!!!
You think a gun will protect you?HAHAHAHAHAH!If i was a robber i would sneak up behind you with my #5 cam.and smack you very,very,very hard in the back of the head many times.What good is your gun going to do you now John Wayne?How easy would it be for me to rob you if i used a gun, Clint Eastwood?----Gun owners that have children should keep the ammo. in a seperate place,you think a robber is going to give you time to load it?
Read some international newspapers,see how the rest of the world views America and our obbsesion with guns!!!
I would love to see a law passed that outlaws all guns!!!Just holding a gun in my hands,I can feel the negative vibe from the gun!!!
John Lennon used to be my president,but someone with a gun shot him!!!------"Give peace a chance"
[ This Message was edited by: justsendingits on 2002-08-24 05:02 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 24, 2002, 11:30 AM
Post #68 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
First off, I'm not a antigun advocate. Think about the way our government works and has worked since 1776. Now influence of special interest groups win the politicians votes. That's how Clinton's bill made it through. If people support a special interest group strengthening it, they get things done in government. Ranting and raving that the government wants to implant microchips in everyones body will not help you gain a sympathetic ear. A few people have mentioned the NRA. Do you know who set the standard for law enforcement firearms training. It was the NRA. Let me bring out another point. I've been one of those bastard red coats for twelve years. In that time I've seen murders, suicides and other violent crimes. I've been assaulted and have people attempt to assault me with knives, pipes, bats, a golf club, hands, feet, mouth, a waking cane and guns. Notice guns are only one of the tools mentioned. After all a gun is only a tool. The way the tool is used, is up to the person using it. That is the biggest opinion I've heard among my collegues. Even those that have been shot. I've can't think of any cops I know that support a ban on guns.
In a confrontation the gun does not win. The person that can use "all" available resources with skill wins.
Back to gun control laws. The majority of them are BS. Clinton's bill did not ban assault weapons. It put a ban on bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. How many times have you heard of a convenience store clerk being bayoneted during a robbery? Plus these guns can still be purchased without those items. If you want them you can buy them as aftermarket add ons at a high cost. Big victory for gun control. The high capacity magazine issue is a bunch of crap as well. It only takes one well placed shot. Besides many criminals have killed people with wheel guns. I do support gun registration. For the simple fact that guns, like all other property are lost and stolen. I've locked many people up for having stolen guns and returned guns to there LAWFULL owners. Many times this was done from the information provided by the registration dipository. I've sent many unregistered guns to be scrapped because the LAWFULL owner could not be traced.
If your going to put effort into maintaining the right to bear arms. Do so by supporting your legislators and organazation that will protect your right. Me thinks your wasting your time prepairing for urban warfare against the government. Because I can't see them coming door to door for your LAWFULLY owned gun. If your a criminal, that's another matter.
[ This Message was edited by: jeffe on 2002-08-24 04:45 ]
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 24, 2002, 11:42 AM
Post #69 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Jeffe,are you one of those cops that pulls people over like me,tearing up the car,searching for drugs,and collects revenue by giving out tickets all day?!!! I like the sound of revenue agent better.("protect and serve"hahahahaha!!)
We have a lot of DEA. and local cops here that love to use their guns on non violent people,(mostly blacks)Two people were shot last year while trying to flee an arrest on small amount of drugs.The passenger had 5 kids,and was not the focus of the bust.They said that they were(the cops)in fear of their life,most people think it's a lie.
How bout that guy that got shot up in NY. city--got shot like 42 times,did not even have a gun,sounds like the NRA standerds for firearm training for cops,needs to be revaluated.
Can you tell i don't like cops? I know they are not all bad cops,but let me quote from the movie cool hand luke "Callin it your job don't make it right boss"
[ This Message was edited by: justsendingits on 2002-08-24 04:54 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 24, 2002, 12:02 PM
Post #70 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
With out probabal cause, that would be against your Constitutional Rights. That set of laws is another issue.
|
|
|
|
|
clymber
Aug 24, 2002, 12:47 PM
Post #71 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2002
Posts: 1259
|
Gun control is being able to hit your target....
something im not able to do yet
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 24, 2002, 12:54 PM
Post #72 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
Read some international newspapers,see how the rest of the world views America and our obbsesion with guns!!!
Do you think I care what some bitch in a far off land thinks about my owning a gun? Hell no. I'm an American and I'm going to pack the heat if I damn well want to.
And for crying out loud, have you SEEN any news in the last few years? Instead of them having guns, they have bombs and suicidal high jackers. Oooo...yeah, Americans are so bad with their guns.
The pansy wankers can kiss my ass. I'm a free man with my free ideals and the freedom to carry a gun as I see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
climbracer
Aug 24, 2002, 1:42 PM
Post #73 of 197
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 226
|
In a free society the power resides in the ability of every citizen to protect themselves with whatever means are necessary against all forms of crime and tyranny. Owning firearms is an essential right to self defense and cannot be restricted by a legitimate government only tyrants and dictators want to take your guns away.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 24, 2002, 1:48 PM
Post #74 of 197
(3423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Quote:Do you think I care what some bitch in a far off land thinks about my owning a gun? Hell no. I'm an American and I'm going to pack the heat if I damn well want to.
I don't know... I don't consider Canada to be all that far off, and I don't really consider myself to be a "bitch." I don't carry a gun, and I don't need to. There really aren't drive by shootings in Canada, no road rage vigilante bastards. Yeah, we have our crime, and our problems, but we don't need guns to solve them. I think many Canadians would prefer more gun control.
Quote:And for crying out loud, have you SEEN any news in the last few years? Instead of them having guns, they have bombs and suicidal high jackers. Oooo...yeah, Americans are so bad with their guns.
What the hell are you talking about? Yeah, all those German, Dutch, Canadian, Swiss, Tibetan, Japanese, Swedish, Romanian, Portugese, Greek etc... suicide bombers.
Some countries have these problems, and perhaps USA is one of them with your Columbine's and uni-bombers, and anti-government malitias, and fanatical suicidal cults, and kids building bombs in their houses. "Suicidal high jackers"? Like 9/ 11? I don't know if you've noticed, but the organization that spawned them could probably stand a little gun control.
Quote:The pansy wankers can kiss my ass. I'm a free man with my free ideals and the freedom to carry a gun as I see fit.
First of all, freedom means without impediment. Nothing is without impediment (unless you believe in an omnipotent god, but that still doesn't make you free). Guns just add to your confinement. The more you arm yourself, the more others have to arm themselves against you, either physically, legally, or even emotionally. Yeah you're "free" to carry your gun, but what if that impedes my sense of security? Am I free to feel safe? I don't feel frightened by Americans and their guns personally, but I don't feel all warm and tingly inside when I'm confronted with some stupid moron, who in a drunken stupor threatens to "frag" me.
Yes guns are fun... but they should be treated as toys (like cars are treated as toys... not carelessly or while intoxicated) and not like the last line of defense, or that upon which all "freedom" is based.
You don't like gun control? Well, you're "free", with your "free ideals": ignore it.
[ This Message was edited by: kriso9tails on 2002-08-24 08:38 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 24, 2002, 1:51 PM
Post #75 of 197
(3423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
The real issue lies with the anti-gun movement. Not the entire government. Think of the legislators that have so far preserved our right and are continuing to fight for our right to own guns. They need our support.
|
|
|
|
|
kagunkie
Aug 24, 2002, 2:05 PM
Post #76 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 731
|
I think we should get all those gun controll bastards together and SHOOT EM!
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 24, 2002, 3:30 PM
Post #77 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
YEAH!!!
KILL THE HIPPIES!
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 24, 2002, 3:40 PM
Post #78 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Are you gong to mount them on your walls? Not exactly trophies to be bragging about though.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 24, 2002, 4:25 PM
Post #79 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Kriso...You have got to be kidding me. You think gun-control would work on the terrorists. You are kidding, right?
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 24, 2002, 4:40 PM
Post #80 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Here are the facts:
I will just address England, where people basically can't own guns.
On June 26, 2000, The Mirror, a London daily announced that England showed a 19% increase in violent crime for that year while London shoed a 38% increase. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is 60% higher than in the United States. The year after England passed a law banning handgun ownership-viloent crime rose 40%.
I will stop there, more to come!
|
|
|
|
|
ponyryan
Aug 24, 2002, 4:52 PM
Post #81 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2002
Posts: 704
|
Anybody read or heard about the californian government taking away Charlton Heston's guns??? Crazy stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 24, 2002, 5:36 PM
Post #82 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
It has been statistically proven that dihydrogen monoxide causes car crashes. 98% of all car crash victims consumed dihydrogen monoxide within hours of the accident.
Statistics can be skewed to prove anything.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 24, 2002, 5:55 PM
Post #83 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Quote:Kriso...You have got to be kidding me. You think gun-control would work on the terrorists. You are kidding, right? [lol]
Glad to see my facetiousness wasn't lost on you (?).
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 24, 2002, 6:01 PM
Post #84 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Fiend, your statistic is baffling. What is this mysterious substance which kills?
We must ban it!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 24, 2002, 8:40 PM
Post #85 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody
No offense, but you sound like one of those, not even right or left wing, but extreme wing persons the NRA has in office. Not great examples of gun registration laws at all. None of what I said sounds silly, only to those that worry about filling out an annual piece of paper.
Poor examples, at best, by countries that DO NOT have the law and order, government regulations, not to mention living standards, of the United States of America.
Speculatory, at best, and only that Jody.
This isn't Uganda and gun regulations, rather asking those that own them to keep them registered, won't start a war. It is a step in the right direction in attempts keep guns out of the wrong hands. One thing changes at a time and those that do nothing wrong are the ones that always jump down the governments throat.
This will never be a perfect world, or country. It is up to us to make responsible decision in hopes that the quality of life gets a little better.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 24, 2002, 8:55 PM
Post #86 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
I would still like to see someone kill a deer with a plastic spoon,naked!!!that would be like 5.14
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 24, 2002, 8:56 PM
Post #87 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody,
I just saw that thing about England. Another bad example. While their "violent" crimes my be higher than ours, the have far less of the following:
Gangs
Shootings
Homicide
All these examples will not happen here. Jody, you are a good guy and very smart and we have agreed on a lot in the past, but you need to get off the NRA's bullshit. The US is NOT going to take the right to bare arms away. Its biggest goal is to get Americans, gun owners, to register via a tiny little form (which I have seen) so they know where the legal guns are. This insures that they are not on the street. They can track them this way. It isn't a flawless system, nothing is, but it is a good start.
I don't see why anyone would see this as a big deal. Remember, I used to be a gun owner. Mosseberg, Remington, Winchester shotguns and rifles, Glock 9mm, Beretta 9mm, Remington .22 pistol, Desert Eagle .357 (don't ask why), Colt 40 cal, and a Sig 9mm.
Its completely a conspiracy theory, designed by the NRA, to make people think that this is the government's first step in "taking them away". Bullshit.
I would have no problem with banning the sales of assault weapons, but the government will never take away you shotgun or deer rifle or Desert Eagle for that matter.
Well, I'm done on this thread as I know these responses will only see more propaganda and conspiracy theory. I don't want to argue with you fine gun owners, I've seen how immature some of you were and I don't want be "shot" by someone (I didn't say it, there were several people talking about shooting other people---stupid). Great represtentation of the right to bare arms. "I'll shoot someone!" Stupid. At least I'm not one of those wackos that say take them away, but I don't want to get shot either.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 25, 2002, 5:05 AM
Post #88 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"Not great examples of gun registration laws at all...Poor examples, at best, by countries that DO NOT have the law and order, government regulations, not to mention living standards, of the United States of America."
Why are they not great examples? The point is that the government of those countries passed registration laws so they would know where the guns were, then confiscated the guns, then killed the people they didn't want. Tell the Jews that their extermination wasn't a great example of gun registration.
"...It is a step in the right direction in attempts keep guns out of the wrong hands."
This sounds all warm and fuzzy and is the most used cliche by the pro-gun control crowd but I have yet to hear anyone explain how this actually keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
"...This insures that they are not on the street..."
And exactly how does it insure that? Another nice sound bite that has nothing to back it up. Name one single registration law that has prevented a crime.
"...but the government will never take away your shotgun or deer rifle or Desert Eagle for that matter."
Which is exactly what the poor people in the countries I listed above were told. I don't want to give them that opportunity.
BTW Steve, I don't want to shoot anybody, I just want to change their mind.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 25, 2002, 5:36 AM
Post #89 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Yes, Jody. You still are using bad examples. This country is far more organized and sophisticated that third world countries and the fact still remains the same about England. Far less shootings, homicides, etc.
The US won't do that.
Also, you didn't quite quote me on the "keeping them off the street". I never said it would, but that is the idea.
Everything always sounds warm and fuzzy and calling it that doesn't change the fact that it is a step in the right direction and only time will tell the proper story.
Don't tell me that you are afraid to fill out a form that says that yes, I own a Remington 12ga and this is the make and number?
Fact remains the same (and so does the song~~love Lepplin) that it is a step in the right direction and I am ashamed that any law-abiding citizen that wouldn't be willing to step forth and try and help it work. Aren't your children's future worth it? I know mine are, and if it is even just a small step, I'm willing to take it. Like I said, time will tell and if it didn't work, then we try something else.
Guns aren't that important compared to so many other things, however, I would never want yours taken away. Or, any other person for that matter.
As far as the "shooting" comment, you didn't say that. Others did and it just shows low class and stupidity. Just like that moronic white trash crap like "Sure, you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers." Stupid.
In lieu of those comments, I'm sure those that said it were only joking, but I actually know assholes that actually feel that way. WOW! Since when is a possession really that important? Whatever......
I know what you mean Jody, but using third rate countries as an example really don't justify the means. England is about the only country you mentioned that isn't completely demoralized and unorganized, both judicially and morally.
Okay, I lied. I said I was leaving this thread. I am now. If you would like to discuss a little more, PM me, okay?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 25, 2002, 8:36 AM
Post #90 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
I'd have to agree that the gun registration=genocide and/ or crime wave stats are hardly useful.
The England stat is totally useless.
Quote:On June 26, 2000, The Mirror, a London daily announced that England showed a 19% increase in violent crime for that year while London shoed a 38% increase.
So let's see: Violent crimes increase the year before. But how is this possible... I mean there was no handgun ban yet [note: sarcasm]?
Quote:The year after England passed a law banning handgun ownership-viloent crime rose 40%.
OMG the pattern continued into the next year! Has that ever happened before [more]? Obviously there are other causes to the "violent crime increase" that began before banning handgun ownership, so let's quit the witch hunt. I mean I'm sure that some guy started eating muffins right about the time marking the 38% increase period in London. He must be responsible because the stats PROVE it. x% increase in violent crime in London the year before, and then BAM! this guy starts eating muffins and there's a 38% increase! Also understand that an increase in crime also means in part that more crimes are being reported, and not just being committed.
As was also mentioned, we don't know what the crimes were. Could have been spousal abuse, or fisticuffs at the bar. There are many factors that contribute to fluxes in crime rates, so without a good explination as to why a handgun ban caused this crime wave, what do the stats show? They banned handgun ownership... there was an increase in violent crime... and I was eating ice cream [I know the stats don't show me eating ice cream, but I thought I'd volunteer it just in case I was to balme].
What this England story is indicative of, is that guns are not the root of all violent crime as some anti-gunners would have you believe.
In Canada you need to register your gun and apply for a gun ownership license, and that doesn't even give you the "right" to shoot it to the best of my knowledge... oh wait, no genocide yet. Nope, no crime wave yet.
This may alarm you, but the countries that you listed (e.g. Communtist Russia, Nazi Germany), were going to kill those people with or without gun registration. Yes there is some validity in the claim that it facilitated the task, but don't worry; though not the best trained by any measure, the US military is arguably the best equipped military in the world. Go ahead and keep your guns, but if the government wanted to wipe you out in a genocidal wave, they won't make you feel a damn bit better when your dead.
Again, gun registration/ confiscation may have been used in genocidal schemes, but it wasn't the cause, and not having it wouldn't have changed much. Or are you willing to explain such a correlation?
-Surely ideas are far more powerful than guns. If we do not allow our ememies to have guns, then why should we allow them to have ideas- paraphrased from Stalin.
Yeah... gun control was the least of Stalinist Russia's concerns. (Yes that statement argues in favor of both sides.)
[ This Message was edited by: kriso9tails on 2002-08-25 01:43 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 25, 2002, 10:35 AM
Post #91 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Jody,
You asked to name one registration law that has helped prevent a crime. Registration in itself allows for the tracking of firearms. This spring I arrested a truck driver that was carrying a 9mm handgun that was stolen from a man's residence in Oklahoma. I would think that qualified the man as a criminal. In the area I reside most people have guns. I take many stolen property reports in wich guns are the property that is stolen. Most often the victim has no idea of the serial number. I usually find the serial numbers by checking the gun registry for that person. Without this information these firearms can not be tracked as stolen. Tacking receiving stolen property, when the stolen property is a instrument of a crime, puts a bigger sentance onto the criminal. Many guns are recovered throughout the year. Many that are not registered cannot be traced to their lawfull owner and are destroyed. I've yet to use the gun registry as a source to locate people to kill. As I said before, most people I know in law enforcement are pro-gun, anti-criminal. Guns don't = crime, they are just a tool.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 25, 2002, 3:03 PM
Post #92 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"So let's see: Violent crimes increase the year before. But how is this possible... I mean there was no handgun ban yet [note: sarcasm]?"
Uh, in 1997 a ban on handguns went into effect in England. In 1998, GUN crime went UP 10%. The ban had been in effect for 3 years. (Sunday Times Online Edition)
"In Canada you need to register your gun and apply for a gun ownership license, and that doesn't even give you the "right" to shoot it to the best of my knowledge... oh wait, no genocide yet. Nope, no crime wave yet."
Key word...YET.
"This may alarm you, but the countries that you listed (e.g. Communtist Russia, Nazi Germany), were going to kill those people with or without gun registration...Again, gun registration/ confiscation may have been used in genocidal schemes, but it wasn't the cause, and not having it wouldn't have changed much."
No, I never said it was the cause...anti-gunners say that guns are the cause, I don't use that argument. Bad people are the cause, which is exactly my point. At least if their guns hadn't been confiscated, some of them might have had a fighting chance. Instead they were herded into gas chambers.
"Surely ideas are far more powerful than guns..."
Negative, it takes guns to defend ideas. Without the means to defend them, ideas are worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 25, 2002, 3:09 PM
Post #93 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"... Most often the victim has no idea of the serial number..."
This shows that most laws are made because of stupid people. It is the victims fault for not knowing his serial numbers and for allowing his gun to be stolen.
|
|
|
|
|
rock_climbin_06
Aug 25, 2002, 3:40 PM
Post #94 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 190
|
I feel that pianomahn is right. I agree with you almost completely. Fiend what is that substance you are talking about? I like guns and the first thing that I learned before I even got close to pulling a trigger was all about the safety issues. Guns can be safe it mainly depends on the person...Just my thoughts....
-Adam
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 25, 2002, 4:25 PM
Post #95 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
Fiend what is that substance you are talking about?
Dihydrogen monoxide. Two hydrogens atoms, one oxygen atom.
[ This Message was edited by: pianomahnn on 2002-08-25 09:35 ]
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 25, 2002, 4:36 PM
Post #96 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
Scary stuff, huh piano?
I wouldn't put that shite in my body
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 27, 2002, 4:00 AM
Post #97 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay, I am going to stay with facts here. As much as I would like to flame like some of you on both sides have, I will just bore you with facts. Since England seems to be a favorite example of some anti-gunners, I will refute their claims here about the effectiveness of gun bans.
ENGLAND
In 1997, a handgun ban was implemented. In 1998, gun crime rose 10%.
From April of 1999 through March of 2000, violent crime rose 16%, including robberies rising 26% and robberies in London rising 40%! For the first time, in October of 2000, the English Police armed themselves to combat gun crime. This despite the fact that there were more stringent controls on weapons ownership then at any time in England's history.
Between 1989 and 1996, armed crime increased 500% while firearms ownership decreased 20% due to licensing restrictions.
U.S. violent crime hit a 30 year low in 1999 while the English crime rate continued to skyrocket.
That will do for now. I close with this quote from Richard Henry Lee during constitutional debate in the late 1700's: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
|
|
|
|
|
amsam
Aug 27, 2002, 4:38 AM
Post #98 of 197
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 372
|
I just can't understand why it's such a bad thing to have to register your gun. You just fill out a form, they aren't trying to take your guns away or prevent you from using them, they just want to try to keep track of where the guns are. Even if it's ineffective, so what? What harm would it have done you to register you're gun?
Oh and as a person whose Jewish relatives where killed by both Stalin and Hitler, I can say that I fully support gun registration, and I'm sure that it is not the reason that so many innocent people were slaughtered, that was inevitable, with or without gun registration.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 27, 2002, 5:00 AM
Post #99 of 197
(3553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"...You just fill out a form, they aren't trying to take your guns away or prevent you from using them, they just want to try to keep track of where the guns are..."
My point exactly! Why do they need to keep track of guns that are in law-abiding citizens hands? What purpose does it serve other than to have the ability to confiscate at a later date? How can a piece of paper save your life? It can't. But it could cost you your life if your gun was ever taken away, leaving you defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 27, 2002, 7:09 AM
Post #100 of 197
(3553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
You're always defenseless. With or without a gun. Still conspiracy theory going here Jody. You're bigger than that.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 27, 2002, 10:04 AM
Post #101 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
It takes a huge effort to deprogram yourself,from the midwestern propaganda you have heard all your life!!--I should know!!
|
|
|
|
|
daggerx
Aug 28, 2002, 2:42 AM
Post #102 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2001
Posts: 761
|
If you want my guns you are going to have pry them out of my cold dead hands!!!
DaggerX
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 2:51 AM
Post #103 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Dave,
That's just silly now and a really dumb comment!
Yeah! You think you're a big man with that gun? Well looky here buddy, you'll have to pry my "member" from my warm, lubricated hands!
Just had to be nasty!
Rich,
Tell me about it! I'm from Wisconsin! You don't get more bombardment of BS propaganda from the BS NRA than in the deer hunting capital of the Midwest. Believe me. I actually used to believe some of their crap, until I woke up and realized I had a brain. Which, if you knew me, you would understand why that took so long!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 28, 2002, 7:56 PM
Post #104 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Right on Jody!
The fact that the founding fathers of this country were able to revolt from an oppressive government (England) was due to the fact that they own weapons. Their revolt would have been very short if they had fallen out armed with cricket paddles!
I will not register my firearms because I may trust this government but who is to say what it will be like in 5 or 10 years. My firearm is for my home protection and I have trained my wife and children how to use it. I would hate to imagine them at home if someone tried to break in without any protection. Registration will not stop crimes of passion which will always continue to happen and I am sure that the basic criminal lowlife is not going to line up to register his firearms. Once weapons are registered it would be a simple matter for a criminal to obtain access to the information (public record) and then know which homes are armed and which are not and then target those unarmed.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 8:09 PM
Post #105 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
More conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Aug 28, 2002, 8:18 PM
Post #106 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
wildtrail, I may not be as into the arguments as the other guys but why do you always answer with 'conspiracy theories' instead of coming up with facts to refute them?
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 28, 2002, 8:35 PM
Post #107 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Wildtrail,
No conspiracy here, if I were a criminal and all weapons were required to be registered I could simply go to the courthouse and under the Freedon of Information Act request those records. I would simply eliminate those homes I knew were armed from my shopping list. Not conspiracy, just common sense!
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 9:10 PM
Post #108 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Because it would be redundant. Why repeat it? Read what others are posting.
However, coach has a point. A small one, but it is a point. Not too many criminals go to the court house on purpose.
However, it is possible and I'm still for registering guns. People never have a good reason not to. Most is conspiracy (i.e. the govt planning to take them away and "registration" is just the first step). There, that is one example of conspiracy theory.
It was a poor choice in words in reference to coach, but most people on here are too into that NRA bullshit conspiracy theory crap.
NRA=FOS
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
catga86
Aug 28, 2002, 9:14 PM
Post #109 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 372
|
Gun control laws is a very touchy subject. I personally believe this world would be a better place with no guns. (Yeah, I know I am one of those pot smokin hippies) It is so hard to restrict people, but if there are some laws, some people with follow, and that is all you can ask for.
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 28, 2002, 9:59 PM
Post #110 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Wildtrail,
I would also ask you to give me one good reason to register my gun. It won't stop me from shooting someone if I ever got stupid enough to want to do that and it won't stop someone from having an accident with it if they found it (like a small child). Only I can ensure that by having it secured so that an accident can't happen. Once again, registration won't do that. So please explain to me how letting the government know that I have a gun will change things positively because somewhere in all of this I must have missed it. More laws won't make all the senseless killings stop, only intelligent use and care of guns by there owners will do that. I do believe that I have a right to own a firearm, guaranteed by the Constitution and I will continue to exercise that right.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 28, 2002, 10:14 PM
Post #111 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
i think everyone needs to quit blaming inanimate objects for acts of violence. guns have never pulled the pin back by itself and let go. they have never, by thier own will, squeezed the trigger to go off with malicious intent, or any intent for that matter. when a murder happens, we don't send the knife or gun to prison. we don't punish the inanimate object, it's the person who takes the responsibility for the action.
start focusing on educating people about the value of human life and we wouldn't have this problem. oh wait... we are all evolved and created by chance(allegedly), therefore there is no value to life. it was all an accident. maybe now people can understand why having an absolute standard is important. (obviously the government isn't that absolute standard.) without an absolute standard, there is no right or wrong. subjective and interpretational ethics rule and we end up with the "nobody is wrong attitude" which cannot claim that the nazi regimes, cambodia killing fields, etc. were wrong. people need to either accept the absolute, or conform to some form of utilitarian way of thinking. (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) i won't go into why utilitarianism ultimately fails.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 28, 2002, 10:18 PM
Post #112 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Wildtrail...In California a few years back there were a few "ugly" guns that were required to be registered and not everyone registered them by the deadline. The then Attorney General said that there would be an 'amnesty period' if people still wanted to come in after the deadline and register them. About 1500 people did. A couple of years later, new AG, and those owners rec'd a letter. The letter stated that the amnesty period in which they registered their guns was illegal(although they had been allowed to do it by the previous AG). They had 30 days to turn their gun in, render them inoperable, or get them out of the state or be guilty of a felony and they would be charged.. A fine example of getting screwed
by the government. First they get tricked into registering them, then they get screwed by the guns basically being confiscated. Yeh, I trust my government! NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 28, 2002, 10:30 PM
Post #113 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Jody,
Right on! I was not aware of that incident but that is exactly what I was talking about earlier. I may trust the folks in power today but what about the next group to come along?
I spent 25 years of my life fulfilling an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". I expect to be able to realize the freedoms that it provides and owning my firearm is one of them!
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 28, 2002, 11:32 PM
Post #114 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Steve, I completely agree:
NRA = FOS
Stop being so proud of having guns and "defending the constitution" and all that crap. Guns are designed to kill. If you own one, then there must be a possibility you'll use it...to kill. Killing is wrong, no matter if it's in defending your family or it's a criminal who you think deserves it or it's an enemy in a war. It's still wrong. Stop the violence, stop being paranoid with the government, stop loving your guns so much.
Okay I've said my piece.
Peace out.
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-08-28 16:32 ]
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-08-28 16:33 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 11:34 PM
Post #115 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
#1 I never blamed a gun for killing. A person kills, a gun is only a tool.
#2 Coach, I'd like you to give me one good reason to not register them.
#3 Jody, one example and a bad one. If those that had a specific (key word is that it was a specific type of assault weapon) didn't follow the regulations, then they are stupid. Plain and simple. Those who did register them, still have them. Stupid is as stupid does. Not a good example Jody. I remember that and those that did register their weapons, still have them. You just proved a point in my favor, I think.
Coach,
I guess I don't buy all that stuff that the NRA tells gun owners. I always thought they were full of it (and they are). I would happily register my gun. The real point is, what's the big deal? So you fill out a form.
You want a good reason? A registered gun can be tracked if, like you said you got stupid, and did something wrong. People do that, you know. Also, it helps Law Enforcement (I talked to a few friends that work in law, two of them detectives) help get a "bead" on where the unregistered and illegal guns may be. It gives them a better idea of how many are out there.
There, there are two good reasons. My good friend (one of the detectives) said that law enforcement dealing with illegal guns and violent crimes involving guns would be much easier to solve and there would be far less work involved and that finding illegal guns would be easier to single out if firearms are registered. This isn't me saying this. I asked, and he gave me a lot of info. I'm just giving you the "gist" of long conversation.
I don't care what some of you think. The government is NOT trying to take them away.
Whatever you want to believe.....
Cheers!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 11:40 PM
Post #116 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Thanks, Joel. However, I don't think that all gun owners will kill. You have the possibility, as a gun makes killing the easiest, but I would never think that of the people on here. Then again, you never really know, do you?
Unless, of course, hunting. Hunting is still killing, but I can't be hippocrytical as I used to hunt, but I also never killed much. Still, I don't believe in hunting, but I can't say its bad, either. Totally different subject.
Yeah, the whole gun image and constitutional rights relating to guns are in rather poor quality and taste. It is old thinking, but I don't think everybody here is taking that stance. It is more of a regulation or law debate, still you can see that "pry it from me cold dead fingers" crap leak out from time to time. Everybody is bigger than that here. At least, I think so.
Thanks, Joel.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 28, 2002, 11:49 PM
Post #117 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Jody,
Does California consider all guns to be firearms or guns with short barrels, such as modified short barrel rifles , shotguns and handguns?
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 12:44 AM
Post #118 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
joel...I have never called anyone a moron on this site but darnit! You are just about to make me do it. If someone came along and was raping and torturing your wife, you would sit there and let them do it because killing is wrong? You would not kill an intruder, even if the intruder was intent on killing you and your family? I don't know why I am responding to that statement, that was absolutely assinine!
Steve, why is that a bad example? That was a perfect example of the government taking guns away from otherwise law-abiding citizens. So, in your book, the government can suddenly make something illegal ex post facto, and the only people it affects is law-abiding citizens? Come on Steve, you're smarter than that! Also, how is registering a legal gun going to help law enforcement know where the illegal ones are? I still don't know what you have to fear from a law-abiding citizen.
Jeffe..in CA, all guns are considered firearms. There is a distinction made for "firearms capable of being concealed", i.e. handguns, etc.
I have been a road patrol officer for 13 years. I am a firearms instructor and inspector for the largest agency in the state. Trust me, I know what I am talking about on this subject.
BTW, I do agree with you on one thing, the NRA sucks. They are not nearly strong enough in their stand against gun-control, they compromise too much with the politicians, and they beg for money too much. I prefer the Gun Owners of America, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, (check LEAA out if you really want to know how law enforcement feels about gun-control), and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Sorry we're on opposite sides on this one Steve, I still like you though.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 29, 2002, 2:11 AM
Post #119 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody,
First off, glad you agree about the NRA. As for your end statement, ditto!
If they were law abiding citizens, then they would have followed the LAW in the first place. I remeber what you are talking about and they weren't ordinary guns. The Government gave them time to register, and those that didn't lost them. Those that did register these weapons, still have them. Case in point. You proved me right and it wasn't a good example for your case as you think the "government" is going to take away all the guns and they won't do that. The few that had these certain weapons in CA were asked to register them as they weren't your typical rifel, shotgun, or handgun, but of very assault nature. They were given permission by the government to own these weapons, but there were two stipulations. One, you had to have a permit. Two, you had to register. These people knew that before hand, yet didn't follow the rules. Therefore, they were NOT law abiding citizens. They knew what the process was to own them, yet failed to follow. Of the many onwners of these particular weapons, the ones that didn't follow the law's regulations lost them. I say they deserve it. You want law abiding? Then you should have to obey it.
That is why it was a bad example. One, that said "victims" didn't obey the law and lost their assault firearms. Two, the government did NOT take all said weapons away from all owners. Just those that failed to follow the law.
I know several people that have weapons of an assault nature. Especially the ones that work in law enforcement. Even they aren't above the law and have to meet the same requirements to own weapons of that nature.
Steve
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-08-28 19:12 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 3:22 AM
Post #120 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"...They were given permission by the government to own these weapons, but there were two stipulations..."
How can the government give us permission to possess something that is a right guaranteed us by the Constitution? Obviously the Constitution means nothing to the government. these citizens were doing nothing to violate the Constitution...that is why, in my book, they are still "law-abiding" even while not registering those guns.
So, why were those guns so bad? You keep using the word "assault weapon". What is an "assault weapon"? I'm curious.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 3:34 AM
Post #121 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Steve, without waiting for your answer on my last question, let me show you this:
What is the difference between this gun
and this gun?
Nothing! Except how they look! The top one is banned, the bottom one isn't. Just because the top one looks 'mean', the 'wise' politicians banned it. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 29, 2002, 7:52 AM
Post #122 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Well, the government has always decided what we can and can't own. That is why.
The difference between those to weapons is this:
One is auto (unless, of course, it is the AR-15, which I used to own). However, I bought it for the "fun" aspect, and it was totally and completely useless. The other, the non-M-16 or AR-15 has a higher caliber, however, the M-16 and AR-15 version offer a lighter weight and more "tactical" round and versatility, which is completely "assault". Now, given, a responsible person will not use said weapon for wrong doing. Then again, even the "responsible" person does not NEED that weapon. It is completely useless. It's caliber is too low for hunting "big game" in most states, and too powerful for hunting small game, period.
I understand your concerns. It may not seem like it, but I really do. As I had said before, I used to be a gun owner, so it isn't that I am standing on one side of the fence without knowing what the other wishes, stands for, or means.
The fact is this, having talked to politicians (sadly to say there are some in my family), law enforcement personnel, etc, the fact remains the same. The only real reason the govt wants the citizen to register his/her firearms is to track them. If you read my previous post, you know why. Basically, it is a good idea and the govt has no intentions on taking them away. NONE AT ALL.
Knowing that this person owns this or that, only helps them target necessary areas in relation to "illegal" weapons. I don't care what you say, it is a GOOD idea. If the registration of firearms will lead to better law enforcement (remember, it is a plan that needs to be implicated, not a proven process) to target specific areas, to learn and confescate illegal weapons, I'm all for it. Why would you not be? The WON'T take yours from you. All they ask is that you fill out a for annually to show that you have said weapons, or who you sold them to. Not a big deal.
I understand concerns. I know the govt isn't always honest. The fact is they don't want to take them from you. It is a plan in the grand design, and all it will take is an annual form. I don't see the problem.
Conspiracy theory could be a problem. Either way, the intention is to let Americans own what they own and to know what they have. People assume this means they are being "watched". This isn't true. The goal is to know what is out there....(refer to my last post about law enforcement). I think you understand. Your firearms being registered is not a, "we know who has what so we can take them away", rather a "we know who has what, so where is the problem". I say give them a helping hand.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 29, 2002, 11:08 AM
Post #123 of 197
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Under the assualt weapon ban passed by the Clinton administration the three items making the AR 15(rifle on top) a assault rifle are 1)the bayonet lug, 2)thirty round magazine 3)the flash suppressor. These items are what qualified the AR 15 as evil. The legislation banned the MANUFACTURING and IMPORTATION of weapons equipped with these items. You can still LEGALLY purchase a AR 15 stripped of these items. You can still LEGALLY purchase a newly manufactured flash suppressor and bayonet lug. Then LEGALLY add them to your rifle.
The Mini 14 or 30(rifle on the bottom) has never been marketed from the manufacture with a flash suppressor or bayonet lug. These items can be simply added.
So what did the assault weapon ban do to make our country safe?
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 29, 2002, 11:10 AM
Post #124 of 197
(3596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
BAN GUNS!! BE A SLAVE!!
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 29, 2002, 11:26 AM
Post #125 of 197
(3596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
I do support registration. Over the course of a year I see many guns stolen in burglaries. Most often the gun owner is not careless in any manner, simply a victim of crime. Many people do not have the serial numbers of their guns recorded. When they are stolen, firearms registry is often the only way to obtain this information.
In PA the firearms registry is maintained by the PA State Police. No records are kept on the county level. I cannot quote statute, however there are privacy laws limiting the disclosure of this information to lawenforcement and the registrant. Like anything else a motivated criminal may find the way to obtain this information.
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 29, 2002, 1:19 PM
Post #126 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Alright JM, maybe you think I'm totally retarded, but let me clarify. If someone was raping my wife or trying to kill my family, I would definitely try to stop him. I would try to put myself in harm's way in place of a loved one, and maybe use force (to restrain an assailant) if necessary. I simply would not ever want to kill him. I don't think anyone deserves to have his life taken, and I will not repay evil with a greater evil. That's all I'm saying.
By the way I have nothing against hunting, as I do eat meat. I just think people fight too hard to keep their handguns, when they really don't need them as much as they think. And if you'll never use it to kill, then why own it. As long as you have it you might feel forced to use it someday. And yes, guns don't kill, they are only a tool. A tool designed to kill.
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-08-29 06:20 ]
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-08-29 06:21 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 29, 2002, 2:22 PM
Post #127 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Not all violent felons give up by being restrained. Sometimes the threat or use of deadly is needed stop the action. I've had many windows kicked out of police cars by handcuffed prisoners. Do you possess the skills to restrain a motivated assailant?
Remember the news clips from the Los Angelas riot that occurred after the Rodney King verdict. I remember seeing news footage of Korean business owners that protected their businesses from being burned and looted by guarding their property with firearms. Another story I recall came from a affluent neighborhood where neighbors came together blocked access to their community and guarded it with their guns. Thus protecting their families and property. Think of the truck driver that was severly beaten on national telivision. Would he have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself?
Could this type of civil unrest occur again? Do you think a large crowd of rioters would be intimidated by a small group of people waving their fists in the air?
[ This Message was edited by: jeffe on 2002-08-29 07:34 ]
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 29, 2002, 3:00 PM
Post #128 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
You make some good points there, jeffe. I just hold a personal belief against using deadly force for any reason. I will let someone beat me up if he must. If there is crime, I will call the police. They are not perfect, but it is how our society should function. I may not be as safe, but I will not have anyone's blood on my hands either. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 3:44 PM
Post #129 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
"Could this type of civil unrest occur again?"--I hope so,but this time instead of destroying private property,hopefuly it will be Goverment property!!!---I have kicked out a "OINKER" window myself,back in the day!!!HAHAHAHA!!
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 29, 2002, 3:49 PM
Post #130 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Joel,
Just remember that it has been folks like me and many others on this site that have "defended the Constitution" for over 200 years that gives you the right to speak your mind freely about this subject (or any other) without fear of retribution. Thank God that there will always be people that will always step up to continue the defense of what you refer to as "crap". By the way, I was proud to defend your right to refer to it as "crap", that is what makes this country great.
Steve,
Your argument that registration will help keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people won't stand up to scrutiny. My father had his home broken into 8 years ago and lost a lifetime collection of firearms (all registered). All the information was passed to police and to date not one weapon has ever been recovered. It may sound great to say it is a step but toward what? Once again you have failed to explain how registering my firearm will help.
Climb On
* I also don't buy all that the NRA spouts but my right to own my firearm is not something the NRA gave me.
[ This Message was edited by: coach on 2002-08-29 09:13 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 4:20 PM
Post #131 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"One is auto (unless, of course, it is the AR-15, which I used to own)..."
In this case, they are both semi-automatic-only able to fire one round per trigger pull.
"The other, the non-M-16 or AR-15 has a higher caliber..."
Nope, both shoot .223 caliber rounds.
"Well, the government has always decided what we can and can't own..."
That doesn't make it right or constitutional!
"M-16 and AR-15 version offer a lighter weight and more "tactical" round and versatility, which is completely "assault"..."
A lighter weight? Why would that be more dangerous. Sounds like you are buying the media bull about all guns being classified as "assault weapons". Why the fixation on assault? Heck, a knife can be used as an assault weapon. How can the configuration of a weapon make it more dangerous? The operational aspects of those two guns remain the same-one round fired for each trigger pull. Yet you say changing a few things on how the gun looks makes it "assault"? You're not making any sense there! How about studying the facts instead of just regurgitating the bullcrap that you hear from Tom Brokaw?
"Now, given, a responsible person will not use said weapon for wrong doing..."
Thank you for making my point for me.
"Then again, even the "responsible" person does not NEED that weapon. It is completely useless. It's caliber is too low for hunting "big game" in most states, and too powerful for hunting small game, period."
So you are appointed to decide what a "responsible" person needs? That's nice, I don't even have to think for myself now. The caliber we are talking about can be safely used for deer and wild pigs and also varmints. It is a VERY useful round for hunting. The most important thing is that it is extremely effective against "bad guys". That is another point you are missing, hunting is the least important reason to own guns. Self defense and to guard against a tyrannical government are the most important reasons. The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting!
"Knowing that this person owns this or that, only helps them target necessary areas in relation to "illegal" weapons. I don't care what you say, it is a GOOD idea. If the registration of firearms will lead to better law enforcement (remember, it is a plan that needs to be implicated, not a proven process) to target specific areas, to learn and confescate illegal weapons, I'm all for it. Why would you not be? The WON'T take yours from you. All they ask is that you fill out a for annually to show that you have said weapons, or who you sold them to. Not a big deal."
I feel sorry for you, blindly going along in life figuring the government knows best and won't EVER do anything to hurt us. I still don't see how registering guns will tell them where the illegal guns are. Unless you are allowed to register them while they are legal and then they are made illegal later. Then what? Well they will come knocking at your door, that's what! Oh, I forgot, the government will NEVER take guns away. Seems to me that is the ONLY thing registration is good for.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-29 09:37 ]
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 29, 2002, 4:24 PM
Post #132 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Thanks coach, for reminding me that free speech is a privilege. I am very thankful that I have it and can speak my mind without retribution. However, I find flaws in the fact that you have so much pride in yourself and the people who defend this country. Nothing personal, but how does the fact that you went overseas and killed some communists protect my right of free speech? It's all government/military propaganda and I'm not into it. Sorry for getting off subject, and please don't take offense to this. This is just the way I feel about things.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 29, 2002, 4:59 PM
Post #133 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Joel, if your are the victim of a crime and call the police. Is the blood really off your hands, if I show up and get in a deadly confrontation the actor?
Think about how great it is to express your right of free speech here on RC.com. If communism got a stronger hold around the world, gaining the resources to overtake America, you may not have the freedom you are expressing now.
[ This Message was edited by: jeffe on 2002-08-29 14:49 ]
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 5:14 PM
Post #134 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Jeffe-bla,bla,bla,---What do u know about Communism?--Go to Hanoi where i here that the wives of veterans can walk the streets at night without fear of crime.Can u do that in this country oinker boy?
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 29, 2002, 5:19 PM
Post #135 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Jeffe, that's completely speculative and impossible to answer. How would I know that he would kill you? Ridiculous. I don't think it's right to take justice into my own hands. I'm not trying to change your mind, just open it to a new idea. It's called nonviolence. It's nothing new, just sometimes forgotten. Thanks for listening.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 5:45 PM
Post #136 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
justsendingitis...move to freakin Hanoi then if it is so darn good there! I thought you might be a snot-nosed little teenager(there are plenty on this site) but I looked at your profile and you claim you are 39. Is that your age or your IQ? How about growing up a little bit.Your posts are so moronic I don't take you seriously and will ignore you now. Unlike joel_gibbons, I think his ideas are totally screwy, however, at least he presents them in a mature way so I tend to listen to them.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 5:49 PM
Post #137 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Jmangl--na,na,na,na,naaaa,na!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 6:04 PM
Post #138 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Jmangl--(aka.oinker boy)Maybe I can learn from you how to make a mature post,like um,on page 5 of this thread,the animation you posted was very intellectual!!
Also Gun registration was responsable for 57 million murders?? whatever!!!
I think you are trying to make up for the small size of your penis with all those guns!!! OINK,OINK!!!!!
[ This Message was edited by: justsendingits on 2002-08-29 11:15 ]
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 29, 2002, 6:21 PM
Post #139 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
It's obvious when the attacks become personal that they have nothing else to contribute to the debate.
Personal attacks can get the hell out of this thead; they're unnecessary and worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 29, 2002, 6:42 PM
Post #140 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
Jeffe wrote:
"Joel, if your are the victim of a crime and call the police. Is the blood of really of your hands, if I show up and get in a deadly confrontation the actor?"
what the...
please elaborate
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 29, 2002, 6:59 PM
Post #141 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
Well put, piano. Most have made good arguments here without flaming eachother, but Justsend-blah-blah (doosh?) turns and acts like a middle school weiner. He has said in other threads here what he thinks of America after serving it (supposidly) in the military - he can't stand our country, and (from what it appears here) anyone in it. He talks on and on about how great other countries are compared to ours, and even went so far in another thread to say he was GLAD that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane (thus killing many innocent people who worked 3 minutes from where I do). I take offense to much of what he says, being the fiancee of a US Marine who works here in our nations capital (often in the Pentagon). Oh, and Joel, just because the bible says thou shalt not kill, it doesn't mean you shouldn't protect you and yours from those who will. You find flaws in the fact that those who have served (like coach) have so much pride? I really don't think you're in a place to say such things to someone (Coach) who stepped up and defended our way of life and could have died for the freedoms you have today. You're lucky that people like him exist since spineless people like you don't have the courage to stand up and fight for a cause like our freedom and democracy. You have no idea of what someone like Coach went through serving in a war - your comment is an insult to all those who have done what you won't dare to. I'm sorry I take some of what has been said here personally. We have a gun in our house because we live in an area that is not safe - there are lots of break-ins, rapes, murders, and the like in these parts. I'd love to move to the country, but my job is here right now. That doesn't mean someone has the right to take MY life. As a gun owner because it is my right to protect myself and those I love, I applaud Coach, JM and others here who have been able to make good points without getting too hot in the collar.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 7:00 PM
Post #142 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
"Do you think I care what some bitch in a far off land thinks about my owning a gun"
"The law enforcement agencies are comparible to the bastard Red Coats."
Hey um pianoman,practice what u preach,these are quotes from you.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 7:11 PM
Post #143 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Howitzer---Your boyfriend is a jarhead!!!sorry to hear that.And yeah,I did serve in the military way back when I was brainwashed,read some Howard Zinn,or Noam Chompsky.You might learn something.This country has done some evil sh!t,and will continue to do so!!
Ok,so sometimes I troll for reactions,I would tell you the standard response of the right wingers,(Love it or leave it)but instead I will leave you with,"
[ This Message was edited by: justsendingits on 2002-08-29 14:01 ]
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 29, 2002, 7:41 PM
Post #144 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Abi,
Thanks for the kind words ubt whatever I did in service was not done for praise or glory. The same goes for all the others here that served. I fully support Joels right to disagree with me and engage in heated debate without degenerating into name calling. I actually enjoyed the debating with him although we strongly disagree. As far as justsendingits comments about what the military is full of he said in another post he served 3 years in Germany and I would venture that was probably sometime in the 1980's based on his age. Therefore he has no idea what the military is full of but I think we all know what he is full of!
Climb On
* Continue to agree to disagree. If we all thought the same way what a boring place it would be.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 7:52 PM
Post #145 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
It was 18 months in Germany,and in the 80's(1981-82).No wonder the Germans hated us,all we did is get drunk and fight!!(not everybody)
Good thing we saved Europe from those commie baste%ds.(like what would they have gained by invading Europe? It would have never happend)I lived with those guy's in the military,some of the worst days of my life!!!There were a few cool ones but most of them were sorry ass losers.(including me at the time)
I don't imagine the military has changed much!!!
[ This Message was edited by: justsendingits on 2002-08-29 13:59 ]
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 29, 2002, 7:53 PM
Post #146 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
Just... troll for reactions? More like try to offend if you ask me. Sure my man is a jarhead, and I'm damn proud of him. He would never rape a woman or kill a baby, either (and neither would my friend here, Coach)- so find a new saying. Or do you say that because it's what you did? You are bitter about something that I obviously am unaware of and I'm sorry for your anger. Neither me nor my fiancee are brainwashed into thinking america is something it's not, but it's our home and we RESPECT that. I'm aware of the many atrocities on behalf of our country and it's government, and I'm not saying it's right or that I'm proud of what our gov't has done - but it's in the past and we can't change that. What we can change is the future and that's what needs to be done in our gov't. Rather than sit on my ass and ridicule my country and it's history, I work for it's future. I'm an american, and nothing can change that. So are you. You can accept it or live your life upset about it. Seems you choose to do the latter. I used to feel the same way - I hated America and everything it stood for. Then I traveled the world, lived in two foreign countries and woke up to how lucky I am to live where I do. Keep trolling
Edit: And coach, just doing my part to support you guys, you know you have always impressed me with your humbleness. Definately agree to disagree! Game on....
[ This Message was edited by: howitzer on 2002-08-29 13:02 ]
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 8:02 PM
Post #147 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Free speach coach??--tell that 2 the people on the website of Rage against the machine.It got shut down shortly after 9-11 --guess the Goverment did not like what was being said!!
Power to the people!!!
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 29, 2002, 8:02 PM
Post #148 of 197
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Howitzer and coach, thank you for leading a respectful discussion. I rather enjoy being challenged. Just to clarify, I am not condemning anyone who is in the military. It's more like I feel syorry for them, because they have been led to believe that war is actually a solution to problems and that foreign wars actually protect our freedoms. I condemn war. I am for peace. It goes beyond simply following the commandment "thou shalt not kill", it is truly the only way to try to end violence and hatred in the world. Lay down our guns, completely get rid of our weapons of mass destruction, and stop brainwashing young men into thinking that the military is a great way to serve others. To me, it is a great way to kill others while only serving America. I am American, but I like to think that every life in the world is just as valuable as any other. That is why I will never serve in the military or even own a gun.
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-08-29 13:14 ]
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 29, 2002, 8:13 PM
Post #149 of 197
(3663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
Joel - well said, and I understand because I feel the same way about war. War is not something that I condone and wish it was not a part of our life. I'll be the first to admit there are some low-life's in the Military, too, justsendingits! I was a bartender at a bar 5 minutes from the Barracks. You can imagine the things I saw! But rather than feel sorry, I have respect for those who have gone before and in many instances HAD to fight whether they wanted to or not. My fiancee does not kill people. He does firing parties for veterans at Arlington Cemetary, as well as ceremonies for foreign dignitaries. He does not think that war is good, as a matter of fact he is against what is going on in Afghanistan right now. Thanks to you too, Joel, for saying what you want very calmly and cordially. -Abi
OK so back to the topic at hand - Gun Control! Let the games begin. I've said my peace.
[ This Message was edited by: howitzer on 2002-08-29 13:16 ]
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 29, 2002, 8:17 PM
Post #150 of 197
(3663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Well said, Abi. I guess we're not so different after all. Good debate, we should do it again sometime.
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 29, 2002, 8:17 PM
Post #151 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
just,
To clarify things a little, in the 1980's the military would just about take anyone that was breathing and add to that the fact that we were still trying to get over McNamara's 500,000 (if you know what they were). Today recruiters won't even talk to a person that isn't a high school graduate and category 4 mental groups are not taken at all. Today's equipment and procedures require a higher degree of mental capabilities than was needed even when I joined. Drugs is a quick ticket back to the civilian world (after some brig time) which was not the case when I first went into the service. Promotions to staff nco ranks require clean (squeeky clean!) records so that the riff raff are cleaned out. All of this has lead to a smarter force commanded by officers and staff ncos that are better today than ever before. It tough to get in and harder to stay but there is always a long line waiting to try.
I served 4 years in Naples, Italy in the 1980's (85-89), one year in London (92-93) and two years in Stuttgart, GE (93-95). I never saw the hatred of the local population you speak of. There were incidents that brought discredit upon our forces and they were dealt with harshly. If hatred did exist as you said then it was overcome somewhere along the way by kind acts of those that followed you.
We are not baby killers or rapists. I am not saying that those things don't happen sometime, they do. When they do, punishment of the offender should be the response and is. If you had that in your unit it was not the military that made them that way, they are nothing more than a reflection of the society they came from.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 8:58 PM
Post #152 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Ok,my apologies for the troll comments(baby kill,rape)I know all are not like that,but I think if you put a good person in the right situation,he is capable of doing things he would not even dreamed of! And a stray bullet can kill a baby as can a bomb droped from 30,000 feet!!
The unit I served in back in the day had one of the highest rates of discharge due to drugs.If you guys knew what I had to live through when I served,maybe you would understand why I am sooo jaded towards the military,trust me,it was horrific.Its a big part of the reason I hate fighting and guns!!!
Maybe the military has changed some,but I still don't believe it has changed drasticly.
And I still belive that(some) innocent soldiers are compromised by our Goverment,who do not have their(or ours)best intrest at heart.
The poor fight the rich mans wars!!
Check out the movie Reds!!!
|
|
|
|
|
iridesantacruz
Aug 29, 2002, 9:03 PM
Post #153 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 594
|
theres always some way to get around everything. Yes it will let less kids use gun, but for me thats bad. Though what happens, happens. Better me not shoot than people get killed.
chris
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 29, 2002, 9:35 PM
Post #154 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
just,
You will get no argument from me about how our government uses the military today. To most of our politicians we are just a political tool to use for their wishes. They don't see the military as the "defenders" of America anymore but rather as a way to impose their will. That is wrong. When President Clinton wanted to send US troops to Bosnia Gen Colin Powell advised him not to do it. We could not win and would get mired into another conflict. Clinton promised to get the boys home by Christmas and that was in 1993. They are still there! Military personnel do not make policy, they follow what their civilian leadership tells them to do. If the military ever started to make up their own minds we would end up with a dictatorship. Watch the old movie "Seven Days in May". I may not have agreed with what the politicians decided to tell me to do but always had the option that if it ever compromised my values I could resign. I respect your views about not liking the military, it is not a life for everyone and I have no problems with those that don't like it. Just please don't brand us all. I can sympathise with what you went through in the early 1980's, I went through a lot of the problems in the early 1970's and it took a long time to clean it up. Keep up the dialogue, it helps to understand others point of view.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 29, 2002, 10:18 PM
Post #155 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Joel, let me try to make my point out again. If you were a victim of a violent crime and able to call for the police. If when the officer arrived, the actor's conduct required the officer to use deadly force to protect you. Have you used the officer as a tool to protect yourself? Do you have the right to defend yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 29, 2002, 10:44 PM
Post #156 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Coach,I imagine that we agree on these issues more than we disagree!!Once again I appoligize to all for my brash statements(not all cops are A holes,we need cops,and thank god they are there when we really need them!!!)!!Sorry Jmlangford,I owe you an apopolgy!
Im glad that someone can relate to what i went through,I got my ass kicked on a regular basis when i served.I was 17 years old when i went in,i am not proud of the way i was back then.I was a sheep and followed the way my elders acted when i got over there in Germany.Drinking,(which i don't anymore)raising hell,not taking advantage of travell,and experiencing the culture.
I do feel sorry for the young man who enters the military with lofty ideals,(see the movie born on the 4th of July)and then is used as a pawn for profit for corperations.
i used to be very,very patriotic,then I started reading and paying attention.
Love your country,fear your goverment!!
[ This Message was edited by: justsendingits on 2002-08-29 18:41 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 30, 2002, 4:34 AM
Post #157 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
You anti-gunners should read this book. It might open your eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 30, 2002, 2:13 PM
Post #158 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Jeffe, it is a policeman's job to defend the public and enforce criminal justice. I am in favor of criminal justice, but I won't take it into my own hands. One of the greatest rights we have in this country is a fair trial by jury. Who am I to decide if a criminal deserves to die just for committing a violent crime against me? I don't think anyone deserves to die for any crime. If a cop has to kill him, then so be it. I seek justice, not revenge.
And by the way, Ted Nugent is the devil. God, guns, and patriotism do not mix in my book (or God's book for that matter). I haven't read the book, but I'm sure it would really piss me off if I read it.
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 30, 2002, 2:25 PM
Post #159 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
Joel, good explanation of the way you feel. I think where it gets mis-understood is what justice means to some folks. Some feel that if they found a man breaking into their house, and has killed their family - than their death is justice no matter who does the killing. I think that's where the difference is - Justice to you is different from what it is to others (many could argue that a 'fair' trial is an oxymoron and doesn't exist in these times). But I see your point.
JUSTSENDINITS - I want to thank you for your apology and explanation of your feelings and statements that have been made. I completely understand why you feel the way you do, and am much happier now knowing why it is that you have a somewhat 'skewed' view - I can only imagine what it must have been like for you. My fiancee feels much the same way about the USMC right now. He was dicked around here and brought up for corporal, then they cancelled it because of a PT score that was incorrect. Now they are transferring him to CA (3000 miles from me) after telling him all summer that he was going to stay here for the next 2 years... The gov't and higher ups control the grunts with empty promises and money. It's unreal. Fear your government is right! As is love your country. Glad to hear your story bro.
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 30, 2002, 3:09 PM
Post #160 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Joel, just and Abi,
Great dialogue! I think we found that if we continue to talk and not just rant that we can really find out why folks feel the way that do and understand them better. I respect all of you for having your opinions and by talking them out we may not agree but understand. I have so much more respect for each of you now than when this whole thread began. Keep it up! If any of you ever get down Texas way give me a shout and if I am ever in your neighborhood I will certainly let you know.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 30, 2002, 4:15 PM
Post #161 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Joel, I was talking the use of deadly force in self defense not vengance. My idea was to point out that a gun is simply one tool.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 31, 2002, 12:38 AM
Post #162 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
" Jeffe, it is a policeman's job to defend the public..."
Sorry Joel, you are wrong on that one. For your state of Pennsylvania-"Police have NO duty to provide protection to specific individuals." Johnson v. City of Philadelphia, 657 A.2d 87, 89 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995).
An exception to this law is made when an officer makes a promise to protect a specific person. However, the above court ruling also immunized that officer from liability if he fails to carry out his promise.
Here is a true story from Philadelphia:
A fight between two groups started on 9/10/87 behind the home of Mae yates and her daughters Sylvia and Cynthia. The police came, talked to the two groups, and left. shortly the fighting resumed, and Mrs. Yates heard someone shout, "He's got a gun." Mrs. Yates called the police and was told a police unit would be sent out. Again, about 30 minutes later, Mrs. Yates heard someone shout, "He's got a gun." The police had not yet responded, so she called them back. Two police cars arrived on the scene, but the officers did not even get out of their cars or disperse the crowd. The police then left. When the police were gone, a shot was fired somewhere behind the Yates home where the fighting was. The bullet entered the home and killed young Sylvia. The court ruled that the Yates family could not sue the City of Philadelphia, "The general rule of law is that municipalities have no duty to protect a specific individual from the criminal act of third parties." Yates v. City of Philadelphia, 578 A.2d 609 (Pa. Commw. 1990).
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-30 17:58 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Aug 31, 2002, 2:58 AM
Post #163 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Wow! A lot of good debate here and good info. Do I get some sort of award for longest running thread?LOL
|
|
|
|
|
eowyn1025
Aug 31, 2002, 6:31 PM
Post #164 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 267
|
nope! i think our religious debate ran longer than this...correct me if i'm wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 1, 2002, 3:50 AM
Post #165 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
What did I do? Did I chase everyone off this thread by stating facts? Who would have thunk it? I'm still waiting for an answer from Joel.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 2, 2002, 2:30 AM
Post #166 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
joel...On the subject of "thou shalt not kill"...the proper Hebrew and Greek translation is "thou shalt not murder". How come God helped David slay the giant Goliath? I think you are misguided on this one. It is immoral not to protect your family from harm. I am a Christian also, and I would have no trouble killing in self-defense. Please study what the scripture really means here.
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Sep 3, 2002, 1:26 PM
Post #167 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Jody,
I understand the ten commandments, thank you. But kill or murder, there is often a fine line there depending on who you're asking. My question for you is, do you understand the new testament scriptures? Are the Old Testament scriptures not just that - OLD law? How about everything Jesus said in Matthew 5 about turning the other cheek, not resisting an evildoer, and loving your enemies. Do you understand this scripture, and is it not more important than the old law? Or maybe it's too radical for you that you think it doesn't really apply. Sadly, for far too many Christians it is. Not trying to make this a religious discussion, just my rebuttle. Thanks for listening.
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-09-03 10:46 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 3, 2002, 7:10 PM
Post #168 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
joel...If you look at the context of Matthew 5, it is The Beatitudes. The "turn the other cheek" scripture refers to if you are persecuted for Christ's sake. For instance, someone asks you if you believe in Christ and you say yes, they slap you upside the head, you are not to resist that. It ONLY refers to persecution for Christ's sake. Look at the scriptures at the beginning of Matthew 5. Verses 10,11-Blessed are those who are persecuted because of their righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Sep 3, 2002, 7:24 PM
Post #169 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Looks like you have your own interpretation, loose as it may be. I believe that Jesus meant what he said, and it wasn't just about persecution for acknowledging Christ. These are rules to live by, and they emcompass everything, including violence in general. Besides, what is righteousness? It is doing what is right. Be careful with bending scriptures to make them satisfactory to you. Take Jesus' word and follow it. Try reading Matthew 5 (all of it not just the beattitudes) again with an open mind. Watch yourself, and don't ever belittle Jesus' words.
Blessed are the peacemakers (No if ands or buts, just always be a peacemaker and not a violent warmaker. Or do you have a different interpretation?)
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-09-03 12:26 ]
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-09-03 12:29 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 3, 2002, 8:08 PM
Post #170 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"Sorry, but I'm right and you're wrong. Watch yourself, and don't ever belittle Jesus' words..."
Joel, that doesn't sound like a statement made out of love and for sure wouldn't have come from Jesus' mouth!
You brought up the Old/New Law yourself. Not everything is as it seems on face value. You have to read it in the proper context. Matthew 5 was referring to personal insults, not physical attacks by someone assaulting you! No, it is not my personal interpretation. Just read the Greek text. Matthew 5 was an effort to keep someone from taking the law into their own hands-it was also intructions to the judges of the day to make the punishment fit the crime.
Why did Jesus tell his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword in Luke 22:36? He knew they would be attacked and he wanted them to defend themselves.
By the way, if an attacker comes at me and is intent on killing my family, what is more peaceful, me killing him so there is ONE person dead or just letting him kill over and over again? That is absoulutely ridiculous to say that you are making peace by allowing someone to kill repeatedly! You are ABSOLUTELY being a peacemaker by NOT allowing him to kill anymore!
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Sep 3, 2002, 8:19 PM
Post #171 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
I don't care what you say. I say we should never kill. It is wrong, plain and simple. If someone is intent on killing my family, I will put myself between him and my family, but not kill him. LOVE YOUR ENEMIES. You can put it in whatever context you want, but I'll take it literally, thank you very much. It sounds radical and it is. It is the word of the Lord.
Put your sword back in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword - Jesus
By the way, you just proved my point - we shoudln't take the law into our own hands. Like by killing criminals with our guns. Thank you.
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-09-03 13:21 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 3, 2002, 8:21 PM
Post #172 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I'd rather die holding my sword than sucking my thumb!
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Sep 3, 2002, 8:25 PM
Post #173 of 197
(3577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Good one. I'll suck my thumb.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 3, 2002, 8:33 PM
Post #174 of 197
(3549 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
" I don't care what you say. I say we should never kill."
Hmmmm...notice the I? Sounds like personal opinion not based on Scripture.
Also, I did not prove your point. The scriptures were plainly talking about revenge after the fact. Let the courts take care of them. It clearly was not talking about the immediate threat of a criminal!
BTW, by putting yourself between a criminal and your family, aren't you provoking him to attack you? How is that being a "peacemaker".
I am not saying you HAVE to own guns, just don't impose that belief on those of us that feel OBLIGATED to own them to defend our families.
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Sep 3, 2002, 8:45 PM
Post #175 of 197
(3549 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
It is my opinion, but I arrived at it from reading scripture. I just firmly believe that having a gun cannot make any situation better. If I have to die to defend my family, then so be it. I will not kill on speculation that someone might try to kill them. That is sinking to his level, becoming a killer myself. I hope and pray that you never have to use your gun on anyone. And if you ever do kill someone, may God have mercy on your soul. Let's stop arguing now. Peace brother.
|
|
|
|
|
spank_spank
Sep 3, 2002, 8:50 PM
Post #176 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 480
|
You kill animals, what the difference of killing an animal or a human being, were all God's creatures.
If someone is hurting my wife (life treatneing), I guaran-f***ing-tee you, I would kill that person in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 4, 2002, 10:11 PM
Post #177 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Sorry, been on vacation.
Jody,
Ted Nugget is a freakin' idiot. The guy has the IQ of a turnip. I wouldn't use that bonehead to represent a diaper.
Give me a couple of days. I'll read from where I left off and add something a little more quality oriented.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Sep 5, 2002, 9:32 AM
Post #178 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Spank,spank,I cna't even believe you asked that question!
Good to hear from you Wildtrail,I need all the help i can get with these guys!!We are out numbered,and they have WAY more passion on this subject than we do!!
Oh,by the way,I stuck up for the hunters in the "climbers,verse hunter thread.
|
|
|
|
|
spank_spank
Sep 5, 2002, 12:31 PM
Post #179 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 480
|
Its a valid question.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 5, 2002, 2:54 PM
Post #180 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Ah, Rich. No one is out numbered here. Besides, if you read most pro-gun (I should say anti-regulation, as I am pro-gun) arguements, they are based on speculation and conspiracy only. So, I wouldn't worry about it. There are constant references to countries that have problems that aren't regulated or governed the same as the United States and don't have the laws and constitutional rights that we enjoy in this country. So, really, they are pointless examples because they don't relate. Then there is the constant mention that our government will take all guns and it starts with taking one gun, which is completely inane as that goes right back to our rights. The government wants to take assault weapons off the market. They do not want to take your Winchester you use for hunting or your .357 you use for target practice (or hunting).
However, you have to accept that everyone worries about something. Thought the government will never take the right to bare arms away from us, there are those that worry.
Either way, this arguement (or debate, whatever) is moot and I never thought it would get this far. Hell, I think it is beating that stupid religious debate.
Anyway, I'll lay it out.
You gun owners will always have your guns and be able to purchase firearms for the purpose of sport. However, you may (in the future) be required to fill out more paper work (when purchasing) and be required to "register" them. Not a big deal. Don't want to do that? Then you won't be getting a new firearm. Also, it is possible that "assault" style weapons may be banned and the government has already said that all persons owning said weapons prior to the passing of this possible law will get to keep them, but will be required to register them within one year of the passing of the proposed law. After the proposed law is passed, assault weapons will not be available on the market for sale or purchase.
This is the "gist" of it and I don't want to see any conspiracy added to it by others. I've talked with those in my family that are in law enforcement and to the governor of Milwaukee (Norquist), who is a friend of my mother's. He supports the proposed law and you should see his gun collection! (No, he won't be "immune" to the law. He will have to register as well)
Blah, blah, blah...
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 5, 2002, 3:02 PM
Post #181 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Rich,
I also agree with Spank. It is, kind of, the same thing. We are all animals (I don't say God's creature as I don't necessarily believe in him). However, Rich is right. There are morals and beliefs attached to human beings that makes killing wrong. The only reason we have that is because we have a higher intellegence and have attached said beliefs. Its our big heads that do that and our egos that make us believe we are the "supreme" race. Perhaps, the supreme intellegent race, but we aren't "supreme".
Anyway, there really is not difference if you look at it correctly. Killing a human is just killing an animal. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't kill any animal.
However, Spank is right. If someone was trying to hurt me or a loved one (mortally), I would kill that person. However, me killing someone in self defence would be far more brutal that you guys with guns as I don't own a gun anymore. It would be with one of three things: My sword (yes I have one and know how to use it), some sort of knife, or my bare hands.
So, honestly, people shouldn't argue the brutality of guns or that guns kill. I have no gun and for me to kill someone would be far more brutal than shooting them in the head or chest. Besides, people kill. Guns are only a tool.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 6:37 AM
Post #182 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Steve, you keep saying they will not take my target gun away or my hunting gun. You are stubborn! I have told you many times that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES US THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH HUNTING! You also can not guarantee me that the government WILL NOT take my guns away. There is no logical reason for guns to be registered. You guys have done a poor job in this debate...just throwing unproven facts, cliches, and innuendos around like they mean something. Also, you STILL havenšt explained to me what an ASSAULT WEAPON is and how it is different from many semi auto hunting rifles. I swear, it is like beating my head against a wall trying to get you guys to use a little logic and common sense here! I still like you though!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 6:53 AM
Post #183 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody,
You've done a far worse job. At least I talked to law makers (Mayor of Milwaukee) and many, many law enforcement personnel from cop to detective.
No they are not going to take them away. You have far less reasons for not registering them than I do for you to register them.
Besides, you were the one "throwing" cliches and innuendos about. Not us. Just you and the other "conspiracy theorists".
Assault Weapon:
"any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for military use with large capacity magazines" (taken from an online dictionary)
Specifically, any weapon using a high range (or caliber) round that is light weight, either steel jacketed or steel pinned (metal pin in the center of the lead round designed to "rattle" through the body after impact) and capable of piercing a protective vest. Designed for military use (specifically). Anything higher caliber weapon with a magazine capacity of 10 or more (not a .22, obviously). Weapons designed for the military, and often converted to semi-automatic firearms and sold to the general public.
THESE ARE "ASSAULT WEAPONS".
Good enough?
They are stupid weapons and totally useless. You can use a 30-30 lever action Winchester to drop a deer. No jackass needs an M-1 or SKS (AK-47 replica) to do it.
I'd like to see when you are actually going to come up with a good example, outside of using bad examples about differently (and poorly) governed countries. The bill on the tabel, the one that congress would like to see go through, specifically states that Americans would not be denied their right to bare arms. The government wants to eliminate "assault weapons" from public sale and ask those that have them to register them. THE END.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:09 AM
Post #184 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Good definition of assault weapons...except for the semiautomatic part. Automatic weapons have been banned since the 30s. You are STILL missing the point however. I cant seem to get you to address the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I still ask you what do you have to fear from an honest citizen? And if that citizen is honest, why register his gun? Unless you might want to take it away at a later date! Geeezzzzzzzzz! You frustrate me!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:16 AM
Post #185 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
BTW, Steve, You are advocating a change from the status quo, yet you have no compelling reason why we should do so. Should it be acceptable for me to decide that some major change take place in society, and just because it makes people feel good, I should be able to implement it? I would not have to present reasons why it would reduce crime, etc.? You guys are all over my ass for not accepting it, yet you have not given one solitary shred of proof or examples why your registration idea would reduce crime or make us safer. Go ahead, go research all the registration laws, our country and others, and prove to me that it makes us safer. You will not be able to do it!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:19 AM
Post #186 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
That is not the purpose of the bill on the table.
NO citizen is trully honest. It is still a conspiracy theory to think that. They aren't going to ask you to register and then take them away in the future. Get over it Jody. I have. As a matter of fact. I am buying two guns next month and I will be happy to register them voluntarily as I am not paranoid about them being taken away from me.
Getting a S & W .40 Tactical and a 9mm in the same model.
If that citizen is trully honest, he/she wouldn't find registering them a big deal. I'm registering mine.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:25 AM
Post #187 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Quote...If that citizen is trully honest, he/she wouldn't find registering them a big deal. I'm registering mine.
Okay Steve, I think everyone should be tested for drug use...If you are truly honest, you will not mind the little invasion of privacy that comes with submitting to a blood test.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:25 AM
Post #188 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
This "proposed" bill isn't a major change in society.
Projected outcomes of it prove favorable, but until implemented (which doesn't look to be the case), proof is in the practice.
No one said you had to accept anything. Just as the proposal of this bill, your "evidence" proves nothing as well. However, doing nothing (as you would prefer to do--or as it seems) improves nothing. At least it would be a step in the right direction as doing something is better than doing nothing.
I never wanted you to accept anything, Jody. I just wanted you to drop the whole "the government is going to take my shit" thing. That's all. Either way, the majority of Americans are in favor for better gun control so you are in the "losing" corner (so to speak). Eventually, something will be passed. Eventually, you and I won't be able to do much about it.
If they say register, I'm registering. Period.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:26 AM
Post #189 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
No I wouldn't. I am on plenty of drugs and they all have a doctor's "okay".
Here's my blood...
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:31 AM
Post #190 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Okay. I think that is about as far as my arguement can go. I think I am done with this thread. Its getting a little boring and repetitive.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:36 AM
Post #191 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
That is what they all do when they lose an argument...they just leave! You are a cowardly chicken Steve!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:43 AM
Post #192 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Rather be a coward than an inept bonehead freaking out that the government is going to "take things away".
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:50 AM
Post #193 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I am really disappointed that you would get so mad Steve. I always considered you a friend...It seems like this has been lost in this argument. I will carry this argument on with others, but I will not lose a friend over this, as important as it is! I love you man!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:54 AM
Post #194 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
You're right, Jody. It seems that we both agree on that. We have definitely lost the importance of "keeping it real" and I too, will not lose a friend over this. In my overzealousness to "win" a fight, or debate, that can't be one I've forgotten the most important thing. Friendship.
I give, send, and express my most sincere of apologies. Sending the love right back at ya!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Sep 6, 2002, 8:43 PM
Post #195 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
You guys are making me cry.
Wildtrail, I don't know the exact numbers from the Uniform Crime Reports(UCR), however assault weapons are used in a small percentage of crimes. From my experience many more crimes are committed with handguns. However, whenever a ASSAULT weapon is used, the case normally draws great attention. Just to note suicide is not a crime and is not shown on UCRs.
Jody don't you think the ability to trace a recovered firearm with a simple querry would be a valuable tool to a investigator? Prior to registration, the querry was time consuming and many times failed.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 10:02 PM
Post #196 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"Jody don't you think the ability to trace a recovered firearm with a simple querry would be a valuable tool to a investigator?
No. Not at the cost of our liberties and freedoms. Regardless of what has been said, I firmly believe that ultimately, the use of a registration system will be to track down MORE weapons that some politicians decided were now illegal and confiscate them. It has already happened. If a few stolen guns get away, I feel that is a small price to pay to maintain our free society.
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Sep 13, 2002, 12:16 AM
Post #197 of 197
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Little did I know that this thread would be so long. I have to say, coach and jmlangford have pretty well conviced me that gun-control reducing crime is a falacy. The main thing was that no one had any facts to show how gun-control actually reduced crime. Wildtrail and justsendingits had some passionate arguments but I didn't see any facts presented to back them up. Maybe they will dig up some facts and post them here for all to see. Maybe they can still convince me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
