For you anti-gun folk

[lord_casek]

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/playlist/8178/1061476

[lord_casek]

Obama: 'Honored and humbled' to speak before Valley vets

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html


CNN trying to make armed citizen out as terrorist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3L2mxTmTe8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F 08%2F17%2Fman-carrying-semi-automat_n_261279.html&feature=player_embedded

[the radiologist]

I wish I had speakers for my computer.

[lord_casek]

I wish I had speakers for my computer.


Headphones?

[Decyferon]

I can understand why people may want a gun, i understand that, I just think it is fucking stupid to legally be able to own guns such as AK47s and those kind of weapons, if you want to hunt have a rifle, if you want a gun at home to defend yourself have a handgun

I am very glad I live in a country where not every nutjob/junkie is able to arm themseves to the teeth

[lord_casek]

I can understand why people may want a gun, i understand that, I just think it is fucking stupid to legally be able to own guns such as AK47s and those kind of weapons, if you want to hunt have a rifle, if you want a gun at home to defend yourself have a handgun

I am very glad I live in a country where not every nutjob/junkie is able to arm themseves to the teeth


Legal gun owners aren't nutjobs. They are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet.
They don't stay in a basement hoarding foodstuffs and ammo, they don't worship satan,
they aren't racists or part of racist groups. They are just people who want to defend a god given right to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones.

Guns aren't as big of a deal as anti-gun rights people try to make out.

A guy walking around with an AR-15 doesn't scare me. Not a bit. I'm glad people like him are around in case I'm not armed and need some help.

[Decyferon]

but on the flipside not every legal gun owner is a safe and secure person, I have seen plenty of NRA videos and a lot of the people on that come across as complete retarded wack jobs - but then obviously some of them are respectable members of society as well

not to mention people like the militia men and the nut jobs in the south that are still thinkign there is a north/south divide and one day there will be a civil war in america, they legally own the guns but are hardly sane

[lord_casek]

but on the flipside not every legal gun owner is a safe and secure person, I have seen plenty of NRA videos and a lot of the people on that come across as complete retarded wack jobs - but then obviously some of them are respectable members of society as well

not to mention people like the militia men and the nut jobs in the south that are still thinkign there is a north/south divide and one day there will be a civil war in america, they legally own the guns but are hardly sane


The NRA sucks. They are an anti gun lobby in the guise of pro gun lobby. I wish members would get clued in about that.

The militias: They are here to protect us. The real militias aren't skinhead rednecks who want a race war, they don't still think there is a divide between the North and the South, they don't blow up federal buildings in OKC. The real militias, that is.

There are falsies. Fed jobs, SPLC jobs, etc. filled with nutters who are stupid enough to follow the "hey, let's blow this up" suggestions given by their handlers. They do not represent the militia movement as a whole. Not at all.

If you think I'm crazy for what I just said, research it a little.

http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2007_10_08_exclusives.html

[angelofdeath]

i guess you have a loose definition of 'sane'
most of the 'nut jobs' in the 'south' have hte same mentality as the michigan militia. (a northern state about as north as you can get in america, in case you didnt know)

i dont see TOO much of a north south divide these days, its more like, in general, a rural vs urban conflict in my view.

a handgun is about the worst personal defense weapon there is. why recommend them? the only use for a handgun is if you have to conceal your defensive weapon. otherwise they are a pretty poor defense weapon. they should only be used to fight your way back to your rifle(s)

this is the problem with freedom that people dont like. that you have to deal with someone owning guns, snorting drugs or going to church (or sacrificing goats)
most people cant just let other people live their lives.
it is only when someone tries to inflict force upon someone else, that you put them in their place, defend yourself, etc. otherwise you keep your nose in your own business. alot of people cant deal with that.

and it is QUITE APPARENT the evil assault weapon toting militia thug in the first video IS IN THE KKK

[Decyferon]

I'm all for reasonable people defending themselves I just thing the easy accessability of guns is as more of a negative than it is a positive.

you do have reasonable people owning guns, then you have tonnes of gangs running around strapped gunning each other down, those people should not have access to guns, there should be stricter regulations as to who can own a gun. Guns are illegal here and they are certainly not a common thing even within crime, although knives do pose a problem here. I have only seen one actual gun in this country (a sawn off shotgun a friends dad had, certainly not for legal or decent reasons)

I know you have a respect for guns AOD and i am positive that you would only use one if it was 100% needed but a lot of people are quick to flash guns, start shooting and ask questions later - that is where the problem lies and why a lot of the world questions the gun ownership issue within America

as for the michigan militia, i think I saw a documentary on them and they weren't exactly rooted people, but forgive me if i am incorrect it may have been some other militia it was a while ago

[IOU]

The word/concept God really needs to be taken out of our government.

God given rights.. Get the fuck outta here.

[Decyferon]

I agree IOU there are no god given rights

god is just a concept with no basis in reality, i have easter bunny given rights, or the tooth fairy given rights

[angelofdeath]

god given rights is another way of saying 'natural' rights.

i think the easiest way to put things into perspective about being 'sane' is like this...

the michigan militia and like minded people have the same mindset as the guys who shot british troops through the chest and head. constantly for 8 years after they tried to confiscate as many natural rights from their subjects as they could. the line was drawn when they went to confiscate their 'illegal assault militia weapons' on april 19th 1775.

yeah, you are right. some people are quick to flash guns. particularly the young 'gang banger' types. however, given the fact that the federal government cant keep illegal narcotics out of maximum security prisons, i hardly think they would succeed in keeping guns in only the hands of those 'sane' individuals capable of defending themselves.

i've always stood by the old saying... its the person, not the gun. you never hear of mass killings at army bases, shooting ranges, police stations, etc. you only hear of them in areas where people cant meet force with force. given the fact that gun control doesnt even come close to working, the only hope is to allow people the opportunity to use a means to defend themselves however they see fit.
once someone tries to attack an innocent person, then you can disarm him, lock him up and punish them.

[lord_casek]

Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'We Will Forcefully Resist'
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/watch-man-carries-an-assault-rifle-outside-obama-event.php

[the radiologist]

the prices of ammunition have skyrocketed over the past couple years. i hope the reason is because of the demand and people becoming keen on recent issues about how it seems the government is slowly trying to disarm its citizens.

[angelofdeath]

its a bunch of things. metals went up. supply stayed fairly constant and demand soared after obama and the democrat party take over of congress. the last case of SS109 i got was 315, loose. on strippers was 425. prices at the same place now are 799 a case, loose. and they dont have any in stock.

[.hopeless.]

but on the flipside not every legal gun owner is a safe and secure person, I have seen plenty of NRA videos and a lot of the people on that come across as complete retarded wack jobs - but then obviously some of them are respectable members of society as well

not to mention people like the militia men and the nut jobs in the south that are still thinkign there is a north/south divide and one day there will be a civil war in america, they legally own the guns but are hardly sane

still that doesnt mean the rest of us gunowners shouldnt be allowed to have them becuase those guys want to act like cunts..most of these gun laws today are just knee jerk reactions to someone getting shot in a drive by or some kid shooting up a school.i mean its a sad day when that happens dont get me wrong but just becuase some asshole goes and shoots someone out of anger or if one gang banger shoots another doesnt mean that the rest of us should be punished for their actions.(im in no way saying its ok to bring guns to school or anything like that)the vastr majority of gun owners are good people.most are collectors and some are out to protect themselves.and like whatshisname(i forgot who said it)said you have the right to protect yourself,your family and your freedoms.i dont believe that shit about keeping guns outta criminals hands either...it will be just like anything else weve tried to prohibit.alchohol,drugs...it doesnt matter theyll just open a black market for it and the only people your really gonna take them away from is law abiding citizens at the threat of making them criminals.thats my 2 cents...

[Decyferon]

I know what your saying.

America is in a situation where it will never be able to get past high gun crime simply because it would now be impossible to actually outlaw guns.

I am just happy I live somewhere that guns are not readily available to any idiot that wants one.

Believe me, if I lived in America I would own a gun simply because most criminals will have them, I don't have the need to own one because where I live if someone robbed me/broke into my house they would either have a bat or knife, if that, and I can easily deal with that myself without the need for a gun (also due to the fact they are illegal)

[viperface]

There's no incidents in military bases or police stations because people who live/work there share everything from style of clothing to manners and mindset. They live within a limited social environment with minimum room for the influence of superficial distractions ie. money, success, good, bad etc. Also not everyone in military is supplied with live ammunition.

The problems are streets and other areas where very different people in diff situations have to deal with each other and struggle for a living. Streets, housing projects, public schools, for instance. People try to learn psychology, history and politics, all this very heavy stuff while growing up, trying to figure shit out and deal with each other. Just if you identify someone as a respectable gun owner doesn't mean he/she wouldn't be subject to impulsive aggressive behavior, and misuses of firearms. Not to speak of all these perfectly normal kids who go to school one day and shoot their friends in the face with .22s

I'm not against guns, just saying they don't explain why incidents rarely happen in designated gun zones. Just like banning guns from law-obedient people doesn't stop gun related crime.
The issues aren't purely about guns or not guns, it's a very deep social problem that I think gunowners should try to solve twice as hard as people who want to ban guns. Something else than just "guns don't kill people".

Maybe people should have to go through some kind of basic firearm training before they could own one. I wouldn't let underage students own a gun. Ex marine with a company and family would be ok. Stuff like that. What do you think?

[angelofdeath]

i think the 'happy to be living in a place where any idiot cant have a gun' thing is only part of the story.

while i disagree with the above simply because i believe in maximum liberty and the right to self defense...

the main purpose of owning guns and the main reason why it was enshrined in the bill of rights was to protect from total tyranny in government. it was how this country was formed. there is alot of information out there about how every genocide in the 20th century started with gun control.

just something to ponder

[angelofdeath]

"There's no incidents in military bases or police stations because people who live/work there share everything from style of clothing to manners and mindset. They live within a limited social environment with minimum room for the influence of superficial distractions ie. money, success, good, bad etc. Also not everyone in military is supplied with live ammunition."

I think you missed the forest for the trees in my argument.
for instance, in school zones where guns, and self defense are against the law, you see here and there some guy walks in with a gun and mows down a bunch of people. i've NEVER heard of a guy walking into a police station, shooting range or an army base and start to mow down anyone. why? because at those places, people SHOOT BACK.

which extrapolates to places where concealed or open carry is very common. these areas all have less crime than areas where victims are disarmed and its 'illegal' for 'thugs' to own guns. yet some how they still do. for instance, kenneshaw, georgia REQUIRES people to own guns, (im not for making anyone do anything, but...) and crime is virtually non existent. switzerland requires, conversationally speaking all able bodied males to store a sig 550 full auto in their house with a basic battle load out. gun crime is measured as 'insignificant.'

i just know what works. im really not interested in some indepth study. all i know is that if some one tries to shoot me, it would be diligent on my part if i want to live, to try to shoot back. its that simple. there really isnt anything to discuss really. you either believe in this or you dont.

on a personal level. after years i moved back to an area on a piece of property i basically grew up on. its a piece of acreage that is now sandwiched between a middle class neighborhood, and a few apartment complexes. its the last acreage left in the area. for 5-7 years, people basically invaded the land, it was a drug trafficking highway between all these neighborhoods. riff raff was everywhere. it wasnt like this when i was growing up. all it took after moving back into this place was to walk around with a .45 in a shoulder holster when i was outside doing chores. ran a few people off, told them it was private property. i eventually put up an electric fence and all new no trespassing signs. no more problems. good fences, good defense and being peaceful is a good recipe for good neighbors.

[Decyferon]

I do understand why is was enshrined in the bill of rights

but i also think it is my freedom to not have to worry about having a disagreement with some hot head in a bar or a shop and ending up getting shot by them.

like previously said I know there are a lot of responsible gun owners, i just think having them so easily available and readily at hand causes major crime issues - which is obvious when looking at gun crime figures in America

what happened to men settling things like men and using their fists (if everything else fails) to resolve an arguement - guns or weapons of any kind are for cowards in my eyes and should not be used to resolve arguements but i also ultimately think that the gun owners in America would not be able to stand up against the tyrany of government with them either, I know the military are supposed to support the citizens of the country but nowadays they are just patsies of the government otherwise we wouldn't be so entrenched in unjustified wars in the middle east

[.hopeless.]

i think the 'happy to be living in a place where any idiot cant have a gun' thing is only part of the story.

while i disagree with the above simply because i believe in maximum liberty and the right to self defense...

the main purpose of owning guns and the main reason why it was enshrined in the bill of rights was to protect from total tyranny in government. it was how this country was formed. there is alot of information out there about how every genocide in the 20th century started with gun control.

just something to ponder

i agree with you on that.one of the major reasons why the 2nd amendment was ever drafted was becuase one of the first things the british tried to do was take away americans guns to help quell the revolution and the nazis did the same thing to the jews in world war two so the jews couldnt rebel.

[angelofdeath]

i think gun owners in america WOULD be able to stand up to the US government, simply for the fact that they cant whoop a bunch of dudes living in caves in 'stan and iraq. they have what 10K or so combatants, im not even sure of the numbers. in america, even if 1% of gun owners stood up, the the US military would be up against 750K pissed off good ol boys and girls fighting a defensive guerilla war on their own territory for their lives and liberty. just saying.

i agree with you that settling things with guns is stupid. i reckon you are talking about the gang banger types. it is stupid. real stupid. a gun is for self defense, pure and simple and is not for measuring dick size down in the 'hood.

but there is no such freedom that legitimately exists for you to live in a life free of fear. there just simply isnt. if the guy with a gun points it at you, you are being threatened. if he merely has it on his hip or at his house, and everyone is going about their own business, there is absolutely no problem. there is no confliction of rights.

but lets face facts, guns are NOT easily available in america. all guns require background checks to buy, many places require permits, registering, wait periods and on down the line. you can bet your life that the gangbangers out getting in gun battles are not going through the proper legal channels to get them. they would NOT be able to get them.

one thing that is left out is that even though america has alot of murders, etc.. in the inner cities where victims are disarmed, alot of the murders are 'gang' related for instance. where other gang members are shooting other gang members. which, frankly i could give two shits about.

[angelofdeath]

i agree with you on that.one of the major reasons why the 2nd amendment was ever drafted was becuase one of the first things the british tried to do was take away americans guns to help quell the revolution and the nazis did the same thing to the jews in world war two so the jews couldnt rebel.

actually gun confiscation is what STARTED the revolution. the british regulars marched on lexington and concord to confiscate newly made illegal militia weapons and armaments.

you are dead right about the jews in nazi germany. check out the movie 'uprising' and 'defiance.'
one major detail PC zealot steven speilberg left out of his super awesome schlinders list was at the end of the movie where oscar schlinder freed all the workers. in the real story, not only freed them but ARMED them.

[.hopeless.]

I do understand why is was enshrined in the bill of rights

but i also think it is my freedom to not have to worry about having a disagreement with some hot head in a bar or a shop and ending up getting shot by them.

like previously said I know there are a lot of responsible gun owners, i just think having them so easily available and readily at hand causes major crime issues - which is obvious when looking at gun crime figures in America

what happened to men settling things like men and using their fists (if everything else fails) to resolve an arguement - guns or weapons of any kind are for cowards in my eyes and should not be used to resolve arguements but i also ultimately think that the gun owners in America would not be able to stand up against the tyrany of government with them either, I know the military are supposed to support the citizens of the country but nowadays they are just patsies of the government otherwise we wouldn't be so entrenched in unjustified wars in the middle east

personally i think its becuase those people are to pussy to fight.its so much easier to intimidate someone with a gun or a knife then have to fight them and risk gettin an asswhoopin.and unfortunately it seems those type of people are on the rise.but the times are changing and we live in an ultraviolent society.we love shit like that...why do you think grand theft auto sells so well.theres nothing fun about being shot at or having guns pointed at your head or having a love one get shot but i think most people dont think aobut that when they decide to pull guns out.

[shai hulud]

'I'm not against guns, just saying they don't explain why incidents rarely happen in designated gun zones.

I think it's a no-brainer.

Ideally (not always in real-world situations but let's follow the line of reasoning for a second here), cops are trained to deal with hostile situations by using escalating methods...negotiation/conflict resolution, non-lethal force, then guns as a last resort. In the military you're trained in the rules of engagement. But when someone has a gun and no formal training, they're not going to know when to use it and when to use restraint..."to the person who only has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

That's my take on it. And I support gun ownership and the Second Amendment even though I am not sure if most Americans are responsible or intelligent enough to comprehend exactly what that entails. Once again, in many cases in modern American society the real world runs contrary to common sense.

[thehaze]

As far as I can tell, gun ownership as a right in America is almost like an insurance policy against the government, or any other violator of ones rights.
Ya'll got guns to protect your rights when all else fails.
Thats more important then some pussy's deluded vision of world peace.
If you take away guns, then how are you supposed to defend your liberty? The government? The same government that took away your rights under the guise of protecting you against faceless nameless and generally useless Arab terrorists?
I think not.

You need not look further then Ireland to show you all the importance of civil defence group's.
And remember, true conservative's and liberals can always come together as libertarians for the sake of getting shit done.

I'm Canadian so packin ain't an option for me. But we don't have the same issues with legislation contradictory to our charter of rights and freedoms so I really could care less. However when the political system fails and all else goes to shit, guns are a good idea.

[Power Bill]

I think that Rioting and protesting is a much better way of effecting change in your government.

If someone came to take my land (even though I don't have any) I would like a gun to defend myself with. Maybe a militia could hand them out in such a case. But most of us humans are too stupid not to shoot ourselves in the face, and only a total cunt needs to pack a weapon in public.
ps i just bought this really awesome nuclear warhead. Now everyone will have to listen to me.
in short- guns for whales only.

[Power Bill]

ps i have a sword.

[angelofdeath]

I think that Rioting and protesting is a much better way of effecting change in your government.

If someone came to take my land (even though I don't have any) I would like a gun to defend myself with. Maybe a militia could hand them out in such a case. But most of us humans are too stupid not to shoot ourselves in the face, and only a total cunt needs to pack a weapon in public.
ps i just bought this really awesome nuclear warhead. Now everyone will have to listen to me.
in short- guns for whales only.

problem is some 'cunts' might live in bad areas. walking around in a bad area, one is probably MORE likely to get into a bad situation than sitting at ones house. which is where it would make sense to be carrying a gun. if its a defensive weapon, who really cares and why is this person a 'cunt?' i mean, someone trained in hand to hand combat or martial arts carries around their 'weapons' all the time...

[Scotty1972]

Yeah! Take away legally owned guns! Only people who have illegally imported, stolen, or otherwise improperly obtained assault weapons deserve to own them!

[Decyferon]

I can see why people want to legally own guns, I just really don't see why people need to own assault weapons other than the military

[Scotty1972]

I can see why people want to legally own guns, I just really don't see why people need to own assault weapons other than the military

Amen! I just have no clue why criminals would want assault weapons. Only the military should have them. And the idea of law abiding citizens wanting assault weapons to defend against the criminals who want assault weapons because they are powerful enough for the military simply escapes my comprehension.

[Decyferon]

Thats the problem you have in America with such lax gun laws.

Obviously Criminals will always be able to get weapons through illegal means, so because terrorists are able to have dirty bombs, have RPGs, missles all that sort of thing do you think that an average american citizen should be able to own these things to 'defend' themselves against that?

To me it is just crazy the ease with which people can have firearms in the US, some states have remarkably lax gun laws and others are stricter. To defend one's self is one thing to be armed to the teeth is another.

Criminals in the US would not have assault weapons so readily available if they were illegal in the US, because most of them are legally owned weapons that have been stolen. But, America has gone to far down that road to turn back, so i'm not saying to outlaw guns because it would just be pointless.

If they wanted to have gun laws here like they have in the US I would definitely be against it and would not want this country to go down that route.

[OLD_STYLE]

I hate the fact that in my state, Illinois, law-abiding citizens cannot carry a gun with them and only the criminals can. This, like in New York, creates a place where all the criminals, who never cared for the law in the first place, take advantage that the rest wont carry a weapon with them. A very unhealthy balance.

This would of never happened if people here would do what others are doing like in AZ or TX, carrying there weapons with them at events where the MSM is present, exercising there rights for the country to see as a reminder.

Owning assault weapons, I see as a bold way of exercising that right, and a way of balancing out the scale against all the criminals who own assault weapons. Just like carrying an AR-15 to an Obama event, it sends a clear message to the establishment that "we like our guns, and we will not accept that right to be suppressed in any way".

[Scotty1972]

Thats the problem you have in America with such lax gun laws.

Obviously Criminals will always be able to get weapons through illegal means, so because terrorists are able to have dirty bombs, have RPGs, missles all that sort of thing do you think that an average american citizen should be able to own these things to 'defend' themselves against that?

To me it is just crazy the ease with which people can have firearms in the US, some states have remarkably lax gun laws and others are stricter. To defend one's self is one thing to be armed to the teeth is another.

Criminals in the US would not have assault weapons so readily available if they were illegal in the US, because most of them are legally owned weapons that have been stolen. But, America has gone to far down that road to turn back, so i'm not saying to outlaw guns because it would just be pointless.

If they wanted to have gun laws here like they have in the US I would definitely be against it and would not want this country to go down that route.

Instead of switching the topic to "RPGs, missles, all that sort of thing", I would actually prefer to keep it in the vein of things that we can actually purchase legitimately from retailers. The average home-invasion or robbery gang does not use a nuclear warhead to neutralize their victim, why would you even imagine that we would use something similar against them? They have assault weapons, they have fully automatic weapons (which we, the legitimate citizens, are forced to pay upwards of $20,000 and require numerous permits to obtain), and they have more. Our legal methods of self preservation and defense of ourselves and family are numbered - must you sincerely insist that we be denied this last form of protection?

[Decyferon]

Yes and what i am pointing out is those kind of weapons should never have been legitamately on sale in the first place. When the bill of rights was written there were not weapons capable of firing hundreds and hundreds of round a minute, those kind of weapons should never have been made available to the general public - criminals can get their hands on anything they want through illegal means, just because they can get them doesn't mean anyone should legally be able to own them

I am not denying your right to defend yourself I just think there should be stricter laws on tohse type of weapons because frankly they are overkill

[Scotty1972]

criminals can get their hands on anything they want through illegal means

I am not denying your right to defend yourself

Yes, criminals can get their hands on anything they want through illegal means. You do not believe we should be able to legally obtain weapons of the same type in order to defend ourselves with, so as a result I must ask the following question: what do you suggest we use instead?

I do feel as though you are hoping to deny rights.

While my opinion may be very unpopular, I will state it regardless. I feel that if criminals can attack us using military or assault type weapons, we as honest citizens should be able to defend ourselves using similar weapons. While others will disagree and say that we should call 911, hide, use a knife, etc,; I am honestly simply saying that I feel that free people deserve to defend their lives against violent criminals with tools of lesser of equivalent harm/damage potential. If you rob/murder/steal for a living, I do not condone the fact that you want a defenseless population, because this is simply a business motive for you. However, if you are a law-abiding citizen, I must question why you have such a burning desire to disarm the legitimate and render them into hapless victims of brutal and merciless crimes.

[Decyferon]

Also I would like to point out as I have said before that I believe there are sensible gun owners, I am not denying people's right to defend themselves, I would own a gun/guns if I lived in the US because everyone else has them

I am kinda playing devils advocate to the arguement - like I have said before I live in the UK where guns are illegal and Yes criminals do have them but hardly at all and they are only generally used during armed robberies of banks/jewellery stores etc and not to mug people, rob members of the public or during buglaries it is only complete hardcore criminals that don't bother with those petty crimes that use them so there is really no need for members of the public to own guns

[Decyferon]

Yes, criminals can get their hands on anything they want through illegal means. You do not believe we should be able to legally obtain weapons of the same type in order to defend ourselves with, so as a result I must ask the following question: what do you suggest we use instead?

I do feel as though you are hoping to deny rights.

While my opinion may be very unpopular, I will state it regardless. I feel that if criminals can attack us using military or assault type weapons, we as honest citizens should be able to defend ourselves using similar weapons. While others will disagree and say that we should call 911, hide, use a knife, etc,; I am honestly simply saying that I feel that free people deserve to defend their lives against violent criminals with tools of lesser of equivalent harm/damage potential. If you rob/murder/steal for a living, I do not condone the fact that you want a defenseless population, because this is simply a business motive for you. However, if you are a law-abiding citizen, I must question why you have such a burning desire to disarm the legitimate and render them into hapless victims of brutal and merciless crimes.

I do believe that military grade assault weapons should not be available to just anyone but America has gone to far down thatr road so the arguement is mute - you can own them so will, if they had never been made legal in the first place then your average common criminal who would rob you or break into your house would not have those military level weapons in which case for you to defend yourself a rifle or handgun is sufficient

well time for bed now so any responses from me will be tomorrow, thanks for the continued discussion tho - props given

[angelofdeath]

in 1776 the 'military assault weapon' was the flintlock rifle and musket. in 2009 it is a full automatic m16, m4, m14, m60, ak47, etc. etc. cannons and mortars were allowed to be owned by private citizens in 1776. why are we not allowed to own these today? when the 1st amendment was written guaranteeing free speech and press, does it now somehow not apply to automatic printing machines and computers? did the founders not realize that there are now new crazy religions out there that you must register for certain religions and obtain a permit to go to church?

the exact original intent of the guys who wrote and ratified the constitution was that the citizenry retain all their rights and retain ultimate power OVER the government. the founding generation was so scared of government power, they didnt even authorize the government to have a STANDING ARMY. they made it explicit in their debates and in the federalist papers which was the propaganda machine for ratification of the constitution that the citizenry was to retain power and to have weapons capable of taking on the military. the people DELEGATED the power to the government to aid in defending the citizenry. if they didnt have the right own assault weapons and all manners of weapons, they could of never given it to the government. so the citizens still retain this right, even though the government has made it illegal for most people to own full auto weapons due to NFA34.

but why such a fear of assault weapons or even nukes. the roads in the US kill more than 40K people a year... how many are killed with assault weapons? in 2001 a handful of arabs with boxcutters flew planes into the world trade center and killed 3000 americans. are we to ban box cutters, airplanes, arabs and pilots?

would it make a difference if a 'hunting rifle' had 90% of the same features of an 'assault weapon' would it change your mind on the assault weapon issue? what is so bad about them to begin with? what makes a ar15 any worse than a semi auto .22 mag? is it the looks? many hunters out west use ar15s and ruger mini 14's for ranch guns to shoot varmits... why do these people need to give up these guns? its silly. if a gun holds a few to many rounds or looks threatening it is somehow more lethal than another gun? do you really think people are bayoneted to death at an alarming rate in states where it is legal to own assault weapons? these are both features of ugly assault weapons. whats the big deal, really?

and just how are guns so 'available' in the US. some places in the US people cant even OWN guns. alot of other places have registration, 7 day waits, intense background checks, etc. the places with the high crime, have the most gun control. the places where you dont need a permit to carry a gun concealed, like vermont, gun crime is unheard of.

believe me, its not like you can walk into a store, flop down 500 bucks and walk out with a full auto AR and 1000 rounds. the criminals are already banned from getting guns. so if they get them, they are already breaking the law. even law abiding citizens cant keep up with the gun laws. they try to combat suicides or child accidents with guns by requiring trigger locks, if you dont do this, you could go to jail in jurisdictions that enforce this. there is also an unintended consequence of not being able to defend yourself when you need it with this law in effect.

[angelofdeath]

Also I would like to point out as I have said before that I believe there are sensible gun owners, I am not denying people's right to defend themselves, I would own a gun/guns if I lived in the US because everyone else has them

I am kinda playing devils advocate to the arguement - like I have said before I live in the UK where guns are illegal and Yes criminals do have them but hardly at all and they are only generally used during armed robberies of banks/jewellery stores etc and not to mug people, rob members of the public or during buglaries it is only complete hardcore criminals that don't bother with those petty crimes that use them so there is really no need for members of the public to own guns

i think what alot of people dont get, is that for so many years other countries have been run in a much more tyrannical fashion than the US has. despite what has happened to the US traveling down the road to serfdom, the US was founded with gun culture. the revolution began when a tyrant sent his thugs to confiscate guns from citizens. guns were used defend early americans lives. they were used to hunt food, and they were used to combat invading armies and defend the citizens liberty. the gun culture and the militia is what founded america. this is not the case in the countries like the UK, australia, etc.

its not the 'guns' and it never has been. when my great great grandfathers neighbor came home from ww1 he came home with a BAR, full auto. no shit. kept it in his closet. no permit, no nothing. i've heard all the stories and saw the picture of the guy and my g-g-grandfather with it. there was no gun crime to speak of like it is today. you used to be able to order 20mm solothurns through the mail before the GCA of 1968. who was shot with these?

there is a lot of debate with what has/is causing gun crime in the US but it surely isn't availability of guns. they were much more available in years past than now, and crime is much worse.

[shai hulud]

so there is really no need for members of the public to own guns

I don't trust the cops to get to my house before I can cock a shotgun and tell a burglar to get the fuck out. Every cop I've talked to about this has said variations on the same exact thing- "If every homeowner had a shotgun, there would be far fewer burglaries."

I don't see the need for owning an AR-15 in the city. It seems like more of a liability than anything else. But if you live in the desert or the mountains and can afford ammunition for it, why not? Handguns are tricky...if you're trained and understand that you don't pull it unless you plan to use it, then I'm okay with that. Otherwise, no.

Another thing I could understand is that it's kind of hard to shoot a gun in the UK and not hit someone or something belonging to someone. That's not meant to sound flippant, BTW.

I don't know...AOD, I agree with you almost across the board, but Americans have a lot of entitlement issues. Just look at people who live in cities who own huge SUVs. Something about people like that having a handgun scares me...and a lot of them do. And if their gun gets stolen, it's about even odds whether they'll report it or not (more entitlement/"I can't be inconvenienced" issues)...they'll just go buy a new one and try to forget about it or pretend they never got ripped off. That's all bad no matter how you look at it. I know you're all about liberty but just because you can afford something doesn't mean you should have it...it's not as cut and dried as that, but it's something to ponder.

You seem like a responsible guy, therefore you aren't the kind of person I'm worried about. It's the people that can't wrap their heads around what kind of responsibility they're taking on but go ahead and do it anyway that scare me.

[Scotty1972]

i think what alot of people dont get, is that for so many years other countries have been run in a much more tyrannical fashion than the US has. despite what has happened to the US traveling down the road to serfdom, the US was founded with gun culture. the revolution began when a tyrant sent his thugs to confiscate guns from citizens. guns were used defend early americans lives. they were used to hunt food, and they were used to combat invading armies and defend the citizens liberty. the gun culture and the militia is what founded america. this is not the case in the countries like the UK, australia, etc.

its not the 'guns' and it never has been. when my great great grandfathers neighbor came home from ww1 he came home with a BAR, full auto. no shit. kept it in his closet. no permit, no nothing. i've heard all the stories and saw the picture of the guy and my g-g-grandfather with it. there was no gun crime to speak of like it is today. you used to be able to order 20mm solothurns through the mail before the GCA of 1968. who was shot with these?

there is a lot of debate with what has/is causing gun crime in the US but it surely isn't availability of guns. they were much more available in years past than now, and crime is much worse.

It is certainly refreshing to hear a voice of reason anywhere near a debate about gun control. I must applaud you for being one of the few brave enough to support the fact that it is only fair for law abiding citizens to stand up to criminals, legally, with their own comparable type of defense weapon. Others would love for criminals to dominate us with illegally obtained weapons, and to harm our families with said weapons, but thankfully there are still a few voices out there who believe that letting our loved ones die tragically at the hands of murderers is simply not acceptable.

[angelofdeath]

I don't trust the cops to get to my house before I can cock a shotgun and tell a burglar to get the fuck out. Every cop I've talked to about this has said variations on the same exact thing- "If every homeowner had a shotgun, there would be far fewer burglaries."

true. im also surprised that in a youtube vid of that dude chris open carrying the AR in arizona, a cop gets asked if its legal for him to do so, and they say, "oh yes, it is." and someone said... but what about a permit...they answered with '' the second amendment.''
i wish more law enforcement personnel were like this.

I don't see the need for owning an AR-15 in the city. It seems like more of a liability than anything else. But if you live in the desert or the mountains and can afford ammunition for it, why not? Handguns are tricky...if you're trained and understand that you don't pull it unless you plan to use it, then I'm okay with that. Otherwise, no.

Another thing I could understand is that it's kind of hard to shoot a gun in the UK and not hit someone or something belonging to someone. That's not meant to sound flippant, BTW.

I don't know...AOD, I agree with you almost across the board, but Americans have a lot of entitlement issues. Just look at people who live in cities who own huge SUVs. Something about people like that having a handgun scares me...and a lot of them do. And if their gun gets stolen, it's about even odds whether they'll report it or not (more entitlement/"I can't be inconvenienced" issues)...they'll just go buy a new one and try to forget about it or pretend they never got ripped off. That's all bad no matter how you look at it. I know you're all about liberty but just because you can afford something doesn't mean you should have it...it's not as cut and dried as that, but it's something to ponder.

You seem like a responsible guy, therefore you aren't the kind of person I'm worried about. It's the people that can't wrap their heads around what kind of responsibility they're taking on but go ahead and do it anyway that scare me.

you are making some good points. but for this discussion i have been speaking purely about rights, not about tactical, strategic or practical issues. let me put it another way, i may defend someones right to say that obama is really run by the lizard alien family and was sent to take over the world, but i might disagree.

you are right. an ar-15 is a pretty poor choice for home defense in the city. why? because every bullet that comes out of any firearm has a lawyer on the other end. you are responsible for what happens. but its just that, if you are silly enough to use an ar15 in a highly populous neighborhood, you are responsible for any collateral damage. if you are in your house in the city, a much better choice would be a shotgun. a handgun would be second in my opinion.

i consider myself a decently trained enthusiast, im not some highly trained tacticool dude. even alot of the professionally trained military boys are not trained as good as you think. that is why whenever the military wants the best shooters they send them to rifles only in texas to train, a private firearms school.

i think one of the silliest things a person could do is buy a gun, shoot one mag through then consider themselves ready for anything. if your life is in danger, you must be able to hit what you are shooting at. you must stop the threat. you must also minimize collateral damage, you are ultimately liable. for instance famed firearms instructor clint smith advocates that if you or your family are not in direct danger, that you do not shoot at an attacker attacking someone else. i personally have a moral issue with that, but strategically, its probably the best advice. you might find yourself in the clinker and not the attacker.

i also think that people with escalades or any kind of 4x4 that live in the city and never leave are also stupid. my girl used to live in the city and she always wanted a jeep, i always talked her out of it. it makes no sense. BUT one does have the RIGHT to own this vehicle. the same way a person may choose to high power of a gun for home defense... they still have that right, but they must suffer the consequences if they use the gun improperly, shoot an innocent person or tear up someones property.

[Scotty1972]

true. im also surprised that in a youtube vid of that dude chris open carrying the AR in arizona, a cop gets asked if its legal for him to do so, and they say, "oh yes, it is." and someone said... but what about a permit...they answered with '' the second amendment.''
i wish more law enforcement personnel were like this.



you are making some good points. but for this discussion i have been speaking purely about rights, not about tactical, strategic or practical issues. let me put it another way, i may defend someones right to say that obama is really run by the lizard alien family and was sent to take over the world, but i might disagree.

you are right. an ar-15 is a pretty poor choice for home defense in the city. why? because every bullet that comes out of any firearm has a lawyer on the other end. you are responsible for what happens. but its just that, if you are silly enough to use an ar15 in a highly populous neighborhood, you are responsible for any collateral damage. if you are in your house in the city, a much better choice would be a shotgun. a handgun would be second in my opinion.

i consider myself a decently trained enthusiast, im not some highly trained tacticool dude. even alot of the professionally trained military boys are not trained as good as you think. that is why whenever the military wants the best shooters they send them to rifles only in texas to train, a private firearms school.

i think one of the silliest things a person could do is buy a gun, shoot one mag through then consider themselves ready for anything. if your life is in danger, you must be able to hit what you are shooting at. you must stop the threat. you must also minimize collateral damage, you are ultimately liable. for instance famed firearms instructor clint smith advocates that if you or your family are not in direct danger, that you do not shoot at an attacker attacking someone else. i personally have a moral issue with that, but strategically, its probably the best advice. you might find yourself in the clinker and not the attacker.

i also think that people with escalades or any kind of 4x4 that live in the city and never leave are also stupid. my girl used to live in the city and she always wanted a jeep, i always talked her out of it. it makes no sense. BUT one does have the RIGHT to own this vehicle. the same way a person may choose to high power of a gun for home defense... they still have that right, but they must suffer the consequences if they use the gun improperly, shoot an innocent person or tear up someones property.

I had no choice but to quote this sudden outbreak of common sense. While I do own assault weapons, they are certainly not my go-to weapons in any given situation; I analyze and react appropriately. Just because some clown wants to smash my window, I won't automatically proceed to spray 7.62x39 rounds into my neighbors house! Sure if 5 armed robbers appear (which is becoming more frequent in my area, I will respond to them with the appropriate defense), things will be handled as I see fit. However, the majority of the time I am carrying a small capacity firearm and the only intent for its use is for an extreme situation which happens to spiral out of control and is characterized by a series of events set forth by a violent criminal who is hell bent on ending the lives of myself, my family, or other innocent Americans! Despite how much this may frustrate some liberals, I simply refuse to apologize for my desire to protect the lives of other innocent American citizens from the threats of what I ultimately consider to be ultimately "domestic terrorists"; despite the fact that you may consider them to be "misunderstood children" or "victims of circumstances."

[angelofdeath]

^^^^ amen

[shai hulud]

No, the thing that's been more on my mind is rights versus the obligations and responsibilities that come with them.

About 90% of the reason I don't drive is because I have really bad peripheral and night vision. I would be as much of a hazard to myself as I would be to other people. But I see people driving and texting- TEXTING- at the same time.

A lot of people in America seem to think that just because they are capable of doing something, then by God, they're gonna do it. That bugs me.

This isn't about the constitution, it's more about a prevailing lack of common sense and place in society. No man is an island.

[lord_casek]

Except the worlds fattest man
http://i29.tinypic.com/29o4z8g.jpg
He was going to be annexed to Mexico.

[the radiologist]

I can see why people want to legally own guns, I just really don't see why people need to own assault weapons other than the military

I don't know????? Maybe we should ask all the pretty much unarmed European nations that were invaded by Germany. I'm sure having assault rifles would've helped the smaller towns, instead of trying to defend with single shot bolt action.

History repeats itself, that much is true.

[russell jones]

http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/images/cowboy.gif

Don't fuck with America!

Especially if you're Injun!

[OLD_STYLE]

Decyferon you are from the UK? This all makes sense now.

You see I live in Chicago, where cops love beating on people, where gangs run the streets and murder 40 kids every summer. Owning an AR-15 would make me feel very safe.

[Decyferon]

yea I'm from the UK, like i have said I understand the differences in America and if lived there would be a gun owner myself!

[LEVEL 75 PALADIN]

This retarded population needs more guns.

And rap.

[russell jones]

http://topbillinmusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/major-lazer.jpg

[twonpoo]

I do understand why is was enshrined in the bill of rights

but i also think it is my freedom to not have to worry about having a disagreement with some hot head in a bar or a shop and ending up getting shot by them.

like previously said I know there are a lot of responsible gun owners, i just think having them so easily available and readily at hand causes major crime issues - which is obvious when looking at gun crime figures in America

what happened to men settling things like men and using their fists (if everything else fails) to resolve an arguement - guns or weapons of any kind are for cowards in my eyes and should not be used to resolve arguements but i also ultimately think that the gun owners in America would not be able to stand up against the tyrany of government with them either, I know the military are supposed to support the citizens of the country but nowadays they are just patsies of the government otherwise we wouldn't be so entrenched in unjustified wars in the middle east

So why the hell should I have to go to a bar and wory about your dumb ass starting a fight with me? If I got a gun your drunk ass will walk away. You shouldnt be going and having "dissagreements" any damn way, keep the peace, and my piece wil keep you calm then Im all for it.

Guns arent meant to resolve arguments dumb ass , the're meant to keep people from climbing into my window. Or protect my family in bad times moving from point A t point B. Or in worst case senerio, hunting to feed my family. Another case being shooting for sport, at a range etc.

[twonpoo]

personally i think its becuase those people are to pussy to fight.its so much easier to intimidate someone with a gun or a knife then have to fight them and risk gettin an asswhoopin.and unfortunately it seems those type of people are on the rise.but the times are changing and we live in an ultraviolent society.we love shit like that...why do you think grand theft auto sells so well.theres nothing fun about being shot at or having guns pointed at your head or having a love one get shot but i think most people dont think aobut that when they decide to pull guns out.

Why the hell should I have to fight someone anyway? Stop walkin around trying to be a tough guy. And for the record, just because I own a gun, doesn't mean Im out to kill someone. But if you're planning on putting my life in threat, Im shootin your ass. But if me owning a gun keeps your insecure ass from flexxin your in public alpha male moncheezmo ass from starting a fight, and maybe acting mature and being cool for fear you might actually catch a bullet, then the gun kept your ass in check and no one even got shot.



Gun don't kill people, unless youre too stupid to think a bullet won't kill you. If youre aware of what the bullet can do, then youll be a calm as a priest, trust me.

[Decyferon]

I didn't say that I have fights in bars, I personally have never had to have a fight in a bar, but if someone was fucking with my wife and hassling her and things got to the stage where a fight broke out, it should be handled properly and not with weapons.

I am a very peaceful person I don't get drunk and aggressive I tend to chill at home and get stoned with my wife and have quiet evenings.

But sadly, some people do go out looking for fights and if one of them started something with me I would rather it be dealt with fists, and not have to worry about some idiot who has legally or illegally be given a gun which has upped his bravado to where he thinks it is fine to go around starting fights.

[twonpoo]

thats the point, people run around acting like asses because theyre no reprocussions. That didnt happen in the wild west, cuz youd get shot. You knew your limits.

[lord_casek]

I didn't say that I have fights in bars, I personally have never had to have a fight in a bar, but if someone was fucking with my wife and hassling her and things got to the stage where a fight broke out, it should be handled properly and not with weapons.

I am a very peaceful person I don't get drunk and aggressive I tend to chill at home and get stoned with my wife and have quiet evenings.

But sadly, some people do go out looking for fights and if one of them started something with me I would rather it be dealt with fists, and not have to worry about some idiot who has legally or illegally be given a gun which has upped his bravado to where he thinks it is fine to go around starting fights.

No firearm owners I know would whip out their gun for a fistfight. Guns are made to kill people.

Smart firearms owners avoid fighting at all costs.

[Decyferon]

Oh I agree Casek a responsible gun owner wouldn't whip out a gun - sadly there are gun owners that would - mainly illegal gun owners to be fair lol

[lord_casek]

Oh I agree Casek a responsible gun owner wouldn't whip out a gun - sadly there are gun owners that would - mainly illegal gun owners to be fair lol


Illegal owners are already criminals in most cases. I would expect nothing less.

Check this group out Decyferon
http://gunowners.org/

And this one
http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

[Sheriff Cousins]

If WE can't have guns, who SHOULD have them?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

The first gun laws were put into place so that robber barons could rob civilians without any sort of defense.

That's all you need to know about gun control.

Isn't worrying about someone starting a fight with you at a bar and potentially pulling his gun out and killing you over something stupid. Just as solid as an excuse for gun control as me wanting to potentially be able to protect my family and self from some "nut job" that came to rob my house?

I mean seriously.

The argument to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands would be the exact reason that guy would kill you in the bar. Because you a law abiding citizen would be following the law and you would have no means to defend yourself.

This is also about checks and balances. Just as our government was constructed so that one branch could not take control or dominate another we as civilians need to have if necessary a way in which we can check the powers that be. And this is what these laws are about, removing that check.

A gun free world would just be a world where the military's and the police forces of the world controlled all of the weapons. Sure it would be great if all weapons could be loaded onto some sort of barge and launched into space. However this will never happen and to try to create that fantasy world is insanity.

[twonpoo]

The first gun laws were put into place so that robber barons could rob civilians without any sort of defense.

That's all you need to know about gun control.

Isn't worrying about someone starting a fight with you at a bar and potentially pulling his gun out and killing you over something stupid. Just as solid as an excuse for gun control as me wanting to potentially be able to protect my family and self from some "nut job" that came to rob my house?

I mean seriously.

The argument to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands would be the exact reason that guy would kill you in the bar. Because you a law abiding citizen would be following the law and you would have no means to defend yourself.

This is also about checks and balances. Just as our government was constructed so that one branch could not take control or dominate another we as civilians need to have if necessary a way in which we can check the powers that be. And this is what these laws are about, removing that check.

A gun free world would just be a world where the military's and the police forces of the world controlled all of the weapons. Sure it would be great if all weapons could be loaded onto some sort of barge and launched into space. However this will never happen and to try to create that fantasy world is insanity.

youre the man. kudos my friend. you said everyhthing i couldnt at 7 am the other day.

[Sheriff Cousins]

The first gun laws were put into place so that robber barons could rob civilians without any sort of defense.

That's all you need to know about gun control.

Isn't worrying about someone starting a fight with you at a bar and potentially pulling his gun out and killing you over something stupid. Just as solid as an excuse for gun control as me wanting to potentially be able to protect my family and self from some "nut job" that came to rob my house?

I mean seriously.

The argument to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands would be the exact reason that guy would kill you in the bar. Because you a law abiding citizen would be following the law and you would have no means to defend yourself.

This is also about checks and balances. Just as our government was constructed so that one branch could not take control or dominate another we as civilians need to have if necessary a way in which we can check the powers that be. And this is what these laws are about, removing that check.

A gun free world would just be a world where the military's and the police forces of the world controlled all of the weapons. Sure it would be great if all weapons could be loaded onto some sort of barge and launched into space. However this will never happen and to try to create that fantasy world is insanity.

Agreed on all points except the fact that our guns are laughable in the face of TPTB.

Example:
http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/11/29/daily30.html

Nevertheless, I'm happier armed then not. In the event that I need to fight for my life and liberty I would rather know that I had the means to do so. I don't trust the government, so it simply makes no sense to allow them to remain armed in the hopes that they have our best intentions in mind at all times (which is laughable).

[x5v1s]

an armed society is a polite society

[lord_casek]

http://i28.tinypic.com/335gt8g.gif

[twonpoo]

an armed society is a polite society

werd

[.hopeless.]

Why the hell should I have to fight someone anyway? Stop walkin around trying to be a tough guy. And for the record, just because I own a gun, doesn't mean Im out to kill someone. But if you're planning on putting my life in threat, Im shootin your ass. But if me owning a gun keeps your insecure ass from flexxin your in public alpha male moncheezmo ass from starting a fight, and maybe acting mature and being cool for fear you might actually catch a bullet, then the gun kept your ass in check and no one even got shot.



Gun don't kill people, unless youre too stupid to think a bullet won't kill you. If youre aware of what the bullet can do, then youll be a calm as a priest, trust me.

first off id like to clarify.i am 100% for guns.i think people should have the right to own guns and if you read my other posts you might have seen that.and i dont understand where your getting super alpha male machismo bullshit from either.becuase im not at all like that.anyways what i was trying to say is that too many people want to resolve their problems with guns instead of actually going out and trying to A. talk it out like normal fucking human being or B. fighting if it comes down to that.no some people nowadays(not all of them.most gun owners are pretty nice people and those arent who im talking about) want to pull guns becuase it automatically gives you an upper hand and makes you the badass in charge.the majority of the people that own guns dont own them for this reason but there is a percentage that do who fuck it up for everyone else by wanting to pop shit off whenever they have a problem with someone instead of squaring up or whatever.and what you said about pulling on people who want to start shit with you or want to fight you isnt the way to go.your escalating the violence unnecessarily.if he tries to pull a weapon on you by all means go for it but if not fight him.fuck it.its irresponsible and frankly a good way to either get locked for pulling a gun on someone or getting caught slipping in a parking lot later on.guns should be used when necessary not everytime someone tries to punk you.

[christo-f]

Well, that's what you get for being fat, I guess.


Gun advocate shot by husband
October 11, 2009 - 4:04PM

Meleanie Hain.
A soccer mum who gained notoriety for openly carrying a loaded pistol to youth sports events has been fatally shot by her husband as she video-chatted with a friend, authorities say.

Scott Hain used his own gun to fire several shots into his 30-year-old wife, Meleanie, while her video chat was active and perhaps as she washed dishes in their kitchen, police said. Scott Hain, 33, later killed himself in an upstairs bedroom.

Meleanie Hain's loaded pistol - with a bullet ready in the chamber - was in a backpack hanging from the front door.

The couple's three young children were home just before the murder-suicide, but authorities stopped short of saying they were home at the time. The online friend heard a scream and turned to see Scott Hain firing, they said.

He "observed Scott Hain standing over where Meleanie was and discharging a handgun several times", Lebanon Police Chief Daniel Wright said at a news conference. The man, who was described as a friend of both Scott and Meleanie Hains, called emergency police.

Meleanie Hain became a voice of the gun-rights movement last year when she fought for the right to carry a holstered pistol at her young daughter's soccer games. Other parents complained, prompting a sheriff to revoke her concealed-weapons permit, a decision a judge later overturned.

"I'm just a soccer mom who has always openly carried (a firearm), and I've never had a problem before," Hain said last autumn. "I don't understand why this is happening to me."

The Hains later sued the sheriff who had revoked her open-weapons permit. The $US1 million ($A1.1 million) suit, which claims they suffered emotional distress and lost customers for her home baby-sitting service, remains pending against Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo.

Scott Hain, a parole officer, owned the 9mm handgun used to kill his wife. He then killed himself with a shotgun. Police found several handguns, a shotgun, two rifles and several hundred rounds of ammunition in their Lebanon home.

Friends and neighbours told police the couple had been having marital problems. However, Scott Hain was living at the home at the time, Wright said.

Their three children are ages two, six and 10.

Neighbour Aileen Fortna has said the children told another neighbour that "daddy shot mommy."

[Decyferon]

The first gun laws were put into place so that robber barons could rob civilians without any sort of defense.

That's all you need to know about gun control.

Isn't worrying about someone starting a fight with you at a bar and potentially pulling his gun out and killing you over something stupid. Just as solid as an excuse for gun control as me wanting to potentially be able to protect my family and self from some "nut job" that came to rob my house?

I mean seriously.

The argument to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands would be the exact reason that guy would kill you in the bar. Because you a law abiding citizen would be following the law and you would have no means to defend yourself.

This is also about checks and balances. Just as our government was constructed so that one branch could not take control or dominate another we as civilians need to have if necessary a way in which we can check the powers that be. And this is what these laws are about, removing that check.

A gun free world would just be a world where the military's and the police forces of the world controlled all of the weapons. Sure it would be great if all weapons could be loaded onto some sort of barge and launched into space. However this will never happen and to try to create that fantasy world is insanity.

I don't think anyone should be allowed a gun in a bar, jesus that's just asking for trouble, a drunken arguement that spirals out of control, just seems pointless.

The problem is that America has always had guns, you guys don't see it any differently. Yes criminals in the UK have guns, but they only use them for high crimes, hell most muggings, robberies etc no firearms are involved. We have barely any shootings (we do have some) and if someone ever started a fight with me in a pub or whereever I would never have to worry about them carrying a gun, illegal or legal, and that to me is a safer society to be in than one where I might get shot for wearing my favourite red tshirt, or a new pair of trainers.

I understand why Americans want their right to bear arms, but it is also weighed up against a shitload of negatives, such as the problems with gun crime in your cities and the stupid amount of deaths relating to guns you have as well. I just wish that Americans could see why other coutries see it as so strange that a nation wants to arm itself to the teeth, as a country, traditionally you have been very untrusting of outsiders, if someone has a socialist value they are a commie, all your political system seems to just breed paranoia in its citizens. I know you think guns are to stop the tyranny of government, but it hasn't done anything to stop the tyranny that your government has been involved in over the last decade or so, so why has no one stood up to the government yet?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I don't think anyone should be allowed a gun in a bar, jesus that's just asking for trouble, a drunken arguement that spirals out of control, just seems pointless.

The problem is that America has always had guns, you guys don't see it any differently. Yes criminals in the UK have guns, but they only use them for high crimes, hell most muggings, robberies etc no firearms are involved. We have barely any shootings (we do have some) and if someone ever started a fight with me in a pub or whereever I would never have to worry about them carrying a gun, illegal or legal, and that to me is a safer society to be in than one where I might get shot for wearing my favourite red tshirt, or a new pair of trainers.

I understand why Americans want their right to bear arms, but it is also weighed up against a shitload of negatives, such as the problems with gun crime in your cities and the stupid amount of deaths relating to guns you have as well. I just wish that Americans could see why other coutries see it as so strange that a nation wants to arm itself to the teeth, as a country, traditionally you have been very untrusting of outsiders, if someone has a socialist value they are a commie, all your political system seems to just breed paranoia in its citizens. I know you think guns are to stop the tyranny of government, but it hasn't done anything to stop the tyranny that your government has been involved in over the last decade or so, so why has no one stood up to the government yet?

Well I only brought up the bar example because it was something I thought you had used as defense for your argument of complete disarmament of society. It wasn't something that I came up with on the fly to help me defend my stance.

All of the things that you talked about could be cured with a better education system, and if the drug war ended I'm pretty sure you would see a lot of gun violence decrease dramatically all over the country.

I guess those last two issues are for another discussion. I do think they play a BIG part in why gun violence is as bad as it is.

____

"Neighbour Aileen Fortna has said the children told another neighbour that "daddy shot mommy."

My favorite part of that article. I mean because it's so necessary.

I wonder how I am supposed to feel after that one. :rolleyes:

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Oops.

[Decyferon]

I agree, better education, regeneration of poorer areas, a change in drugs policy would help create a better environment, but I think the problem with guns is they are now so deep rooted in America and American society that it won't ever change unless something drastic happens.

I did use the bar argument only to have a situation where there is a confrontation, but could just as easily have been a dispute over a car parking space, it was meant as a frivilous situation where people shouldn't be fighting with fists let alone pulling guns.

[angelofdeath]

" I know you think guns are to stop the tyranny of government, but it hasn't done anything to stop the tyranny that your government has been involved in over the last decade or so, so why has no one stood up to the government yet?"

you are correct.
i think the guns should of been brought back out in response to the passing of the constitution.

the infringements on liberty were brought on slowly. the frog and boiling water analogy. if obama started rounding up people and putting them on boxcars and sending them to work camps, is about the only time the second amendment would be put into action. i still think most americans would just be waving flags at the tanks that are rolling down their town squares. pussies. complacent. apathy. men with out back bones. and women that put up with it. this is america. people are used to it. they dont want freedom, they want security. they want hand outs. they want free healthcare. they dont want liberty and responsibility.

[Decyferon]

I do think freedom is thrown out like a buzzword you in America are free just like us in the uk are free we have our freedoms

none of our goverments are proposing or have ever proposed ruling like say the Chinese or north Koreans, so I can see why Americans are more concerned with security

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

the people who want to commit crimes with firearms ARE GOING to acquire them. Taking away guns from everyone who is legally/mentally capable of owning them is a ridiculous concept. And as far as the "only assault weapons" argument....umm......what? absurd.

[Rewind]

Funny that in countries where firearms are completely illegal, there they are most abundant and violently used. City of God anyone?

I'm all for the 2nd amendment.

[Decyferon]

There is nothing to back up that statement, they are illegal here and we have nowhere near as much gun crime as in the US

[Blood Feast Island Man]

Funny that in countries where firearms are completely illegal, there they are most abundant and violently used. City of God anyone?

firearms aren't completely illegal in brazil
in fact the country voted against a complete ban a few years ago

[LosingMyMind]

I can understand why people may want a gun, i understand that, I just think it is fucking stupid to legally be able to own guns such as AK47s and those kind of weapons, if you want to hunt have a rifle, if you want a gun at home to defend yourself have a handgun

I am very glad I live in a country where not every nutjob/junkie is able to arm themseves to the teeth


There is nothing to back up that statement, they are illegal here and we have nowhere near as much gun crime as in the US

Sorry to jump into this discussion. I haven't really read much of it but saw these posts from Decyferon. Something I found out recently is that up until 1988 you were legally entitled to own a huge range of firearms in the UK, including assault rifles. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 extended the list of prohibited weapons to include:

"fully automatic firearms, rifles other than those chambered for .22 rimfire ammunition, smoothbore guns other than those chambered for .22 rimfire and with a barrel more than 24 inches in length, smoothbore revolvers other than muzzle-loaders or one chambered for 9mm rimfire ammunition, and finally any rocket-launcher or mortar which fired a stabilised missile. It also prohibited exploding ammunition, as well as ammunition containing noxious substances and any form of grenade or shell designed to be projected from a firearm."

This legislation was put into place following the Hungerford Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre) and the rest of handguns were banned after Dunblane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre), but it shocked me to find out that these things were available before that.
The Hungerford guy had a lot of weapons including:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ee/RK_56_TP_Finnish_Type_56.jpg/300px-RK_56_TP_Finnish_Type_56.jpg
http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/7/7a/Beretta_92fs.jpg

The point I really wanted to make though is that while these two events were terrible, Britain has never been known for gun crime and all that time a wide range were available to the general public. In fact it's only been recently that it's really become a fairly significant problem (I think it peaked around 03). It's not guns that are the problem for the most part, it's the mindset behind them. I mean, every male in Switzerland between 20 and 30 has to have one of these at home by law:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Stgw_90.jpg/300px-Stgw_90.jpg

[Decyferon]

Yea I remember the Hungerford massacre, thing is even when you had legal firearms (and we still do, plenty of people go shooting) they aren't exactly easy to get hold of, and the law is much stricter now.

I agree the problem isn't the guns themselves, they don't fire themselves, it is the morons that can't responsibly own them that are the problem.

[LosingMyMind]

thing is even when you had legal firearms they aren't exactly easy to get hold of, and the law is much stricter now.

I don't think it's particularly easy to legally acquire assault type rifles in the US either.

[lord_casek]

I don't think it's particularly easy to legally acquire assault type rifles in the US either.


Yes it is.

"Assault Rifle" is wrong. You can assault anyone with any type of gun.

[christo-f]

Funny that in countries where firearms are completely illegal, there they are most abundant and violently used. City of God anyone?

I'm all for the 2nd amendment.

Ha!

You're an idiot.

China has 1.3 billion people, some of the most strict gun laws in the world and VERY few firearms and firearm crime.

[Not talking about freedom, etc., just responding to that ridiculous statement above]

[Decyferon]

I don't think it's particularly easy to legally acquire assault type rifles in the US either.

depends on the state, some states have stupidly relaxed gun laws and guns are very easy to get

[angelofdeath]

im curious if you actually know, decyferon, what the steps are to buy an 'assault' weapon are in the US and what the current laws are and how crime has changed from when guns were much more available... and i'd like to hear what exactly enough gun control is, and what laws you'd like to see past in the US.

[Decyferon]

Well to some extent I do, I know you need to have background checks done and then have a kind of wait period before you can get the gun, but I am no expert, I would be the first to admit it.

I did watch a couple of documentaries (and read some articles you linked to me) and I know it does vary from state to state, with some places being a lot more strict than others.

Being that I have a strong anti gun stance I don't really see why anyone would need a gun, obviously in America you guys have had guns for so long that it owuld be impossible to get rid of them so that is an avenue that isn't worth persuing, however I do see why Americans would feel the need to own a gun because almost everyone else has them!!

If you have ever been convicted of a crime you should not be allowed to own a gun until having gone through some kind of schooling system and then you need to account for your gun usage. If you have ever been convicted of any violent crimes then you should forfeit your right to ever own a gun. If you have a gun it should be locked away in a secure environment, a lot of illegal guns on american streets are stolen during home invasions, if those guns were safely locked away then they wouldn't now be on the streets.

But it is a pointless arguement, America has a gun history and will continue to have guns. There is no way they can be taken away from you, even if the government tried they wouldnt get them all, so it is pointless. I would certainly fight against them introducing gun legislation similar to the US's in the UK.

I can see why people would have a rifle to hunt or protect their homes, my main problem is with people being able to buy completely overpowered weaponary that is complete overkill. To have a gun that fires hungreads of rounds a minute isn't gonna help you hunt it is just there to kill people.

I would just rather live somehwere that guns weren't so available.

[Decyferon]

Also, on a side note, I don't think that legal gun ownership makes for a safer society, it just increases the chances of getting shot. In the UK a burglar is not gonna carry a gun, because in 99% of burglaries they will not encounter someone with a gun, whereas in the US there is a much greater chance of them encountering someone with a gun, so they need to carry one as well. Which means either the burglar (hopefully) gets killed or the home owner gets killed (which I wouldn't want).

I'm certainly not defending criminals, they are scum bags, but the fact that a lot of people in the US have guns just means that for more minor crimes guns will then be involved, when in most other countries they wouldn't.

Like I have said before if I lived in the US I would own a gun because the vast majority of people do and I would then need a gun to defend myself, I don't need a gun to defend myself in the UK because I have never encountered a criminal with a gun (and I have known a lot of criminals, the only gun I have ever known was a friend's dad who had a sawn off shotgun). If guns were legal here then the number of criminals using guns for petty crimes would increase significantly and that is a bad thing.

I was reading about this the other day and this question interested me

The Second Amendment reads as follows:

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

Now that the United States is protected by a trained, volunteer military force rather than a civilian militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does the Second Amendment exclusively provide for arms to supply a civilian militia, or does it guarantee a separate universal right to bear arms?

[angelofdeath]

the supreme court recently ruled in Heller that the second amendment is talking about an individual right. however, it also ruled in the same case states and the feds can restrict ownership however they want. which is very contradictory.

when the second amendment was written, the 'militia' was any able bodied male 16-60 (or some small variance depending on the state). still to this day the US Code details that males 18-45 are the 'unorganized' militia and can technically be called into service by the states. im sure with the equal rights laws, this would apply to woman as well. however the national guard has essentially taken away the 'state' militias and the citizens 'unorganized' militia. the national guard wasnt the 'national guard' until 1903. the people who wrote the constitution and fought in the revolution did so with their own civilian owned weapons for the most part. the federalist papers and the philosophers of the period unanimously agreed with the universal right of a free individual to bear arms. the second amendment according to original intent means everyone has the right to bear arms, in whatever capacity, variation, design, without any infringements from the government. to think that the people who took up arms against their own government with military assault weapons of the day, the unregistered flintlock rifle, musket or fowling piece meant in some way that citizens should not be allowed to own firearms is absolute absurdity and is true fiction.

which is why, even though the courts have ruled that states dont have the right to BAN guns or otherwise totally deny the RIGHT to own a gun, they can still restrict them however they see fit. which is why if the gun confiscationists were really serious, technically the second amendment would have to be repealed. but since when has a little technicality stopped the government from doing something

[Decyferon]

Do you think that the people that wrote the constitution would have had the same view on guns if they could see the problems caused by guns in American society these days?

[angelofdeath]

i think the fact that without guns we'd still be british subjects is their view.

the fact of the matter is back when you could order a BAR through the mail and deal with virtually no gun laws or background checks along with a millions rounds of ammo, or you could order 20mm solothurns for $99 through the mail to your house with no background check... crime was dramatically lower.

to me, guns are nothing but a tool. if a massive amount of killings with ball peen hammers occurs, you dont ban the hammer, you catch and punish the criminal. in effect, gun control only disarms the people who follow the laws, which are the same people who wont be shooting other people for no reason. so its absolutely pointless.

taking out frustrations with gun crime on the guns is sort of silly, as they are inanimate objects. it is the people that do the killing. when you have a murder trial, you do not incarcerate the bullet, the proximate cause, you incarcerate the ultimate cause which is the man behind the trigger.

i dont propose to have an answer to crime in the world, other than i'd like to have the ability to defend myself with whatever means i deem necessary when attacked without infringements. is this a perfect approach? no. is getting rid of all guns in the world possible? no. so i'd much rather have the legal right to own and carry a gun for my self defense in a world where there is a chance i might get shot. and even though, the chance of brandishing or using a weapon is probably still relatively low for most people.
maybe we need public hangings of violent criminals. maybe we need actual justice instead of 'rehabilitation.' im not sure what proper solution is. but i do know that taking away the means of self defense of law abiding peaceable folks is only victim disarmament as the initiators of violence dont follow the law as it is.

i think your concerns about felons, etc not being able to own guns is a valid point. but i take it step further. i think there would be no need to have a debate about whether violent criminals can vote or own a gun, if violent criminals were dealt with accordingly. murder or rape someone? life in prison or death penalty. no need for a debate about them owning a gun when they get out.


im just rambling...

[LosingMyMind]

Yes it is.

"Assault Rifle" is wrong. You can assault anyone with any type of gun.

That's why I said assualt type rifle...I really don't know much about this subject, just running on a few assumptions.

[nsmbfan]

I think the one thing that Decyferon fails to realize is the cultural diversity in America.

Like it or not, people are afraid of people: mainly people different than them. AND BOY WE GOT A LOT OF THAT HERE!! It doesn't help that the government knows this and actively scares the shit out of the public through mass media.

Nobody knows their neighbors here anymore. They're scared to meet them, and you would to if the first 45 minutes of every news cast on EVERY CHANNEL depicts the most gruesome and violent parts of human civilization. Short list of shit we hear about all the time that you might not: pedophiles, murder/suicide, women mutilating their children, terrorists, poison in your foods, fake ass diseases, and whatever threat is the latest TREND to hit the shelves.

People own guns because they're trained to live in fear. Period.

Most crime is committed not out of greed, but out of necessity. We starve our own population and lock up undesirables based on government agenda. AND IT'S WORKING FUCKING FLAWLESSLY!!!

Decyferon: Be grateful that you have the luxury of commenting on how the other half of the world lives. But take it with a grain of salt... bruh.

[Decyferon]

Oh I do take it with a grain of salt, and by and large I try to play the devils advocate in this arguement mainly because so many people are pro gun, so i like to point of things from the other view.

We have a hugely multicultral society here as well, so I do understand that point, however I feel our media is softer on other cultures than maybe the mainstream American media is meaning we are maybe a little more accepting and trusting. I mean my nextdoor neighbour is Filipino, my son goes to school with Muslims a from all different countries, maybe we don't have the segregation of cifferent nationalites that you do in the US.

We are bombarded with the same news stories as yourselves but I just think the way it is portrayed here is less scare tactic than in the US, having watched a fair bit of American news coverage from some of the american new sources we get here on digital TV.

I completely agree with AOD on punishment though, I have stated before that if you rape or murder someone and get life then it means life, none of this stupid cushy cell, TV and weights, I mean bare stone walls and the minimum in food, it isn't punsihment they way that prisons are nowadays, maybe that would make people think twice before pulling the trigger.

[Feed Yer Ego]

Yeah! Take away legally owned guns! Only people who have illegally imported, stolen, or otherwise improperly obtained assault weapons deserve to own them!

YEAH! BECAUSE LOTS OF PEOPLE SUGGEST THAT ALL THE TIME AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT GUN CONTROL MEANS!

I'M YELLING @ THE PAST! THO IM SURE THIS GUY IS STILL RETARDED!

[lord_casek]

That's why I said assualt type rifle...I really don't know much about this subject, just running on a few assumptions.


All good.

[nsmbfan]

im not responsible enough to own a gun. i probably need psyche meds.

also everything i own amounts to less than $3,000. so until I have something worth stealing or killing for, I don't need a gun.

but i'm glad i can get one with a fairly low amount of hassle. but this is Texas, everythings different. the wild west man, you need to have a gun to protect your gold and kill coyotes.

i can see how people would like to think that they're protected. hell, that's what law and religion is pretty much centered around - this grand notion that something, someone, SOMEWHERE has our best interests in line.

truth is, nobody does. protect your own.

[herbsyntec]

^I think it is a bit dangerous to make connections between religion and police officers. I love Christ, and want nothing to do with a police officer. They are extremely corrupt and we have no right whatsoever to fight back against them and their error in enforcement.


I would also gladly give up a handgun for a fully automatic weapon. When you look at the original intent of the bill of rights...it seems as though I'll just let it speak for itself.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It seems as though they were referring to the people being able to protect the country itself. In the context of the time it was written, this seems to be an appropriate analysis. George Washington never wanted a standing army, we obviously have that and more. I think that the purpose of the second amendment was to prevent a standing army, and defend the freedom of the United States and the people if the government became to oppressive.

Handguns are good for murdering, but the police allow them not fully autos because they don't want to be outgunned and they want to be able to assert control over society(the reasons for this is a completely different discussion).

[Smart]

the supreme court recently ruled in Heller that the second amendment is talking about an individual right. however, it also ruled in the same case states and the feds can restrict ownership however they want. which is very contradictory.

which is why, even though the courts have ruled that states dont have the right to BAN guns or otherwise totally deny the RIGHT to own a gun, they can still restrict them however they see fit. which is why if the gun confiscationists were really serious, technically the second amendment would have to be repealed. but since when has a little technicality stopped the government from doing something

I don't sweat gun rights so I'm certainly no authority, however, I'm not sure you're entirely correct with that characterization of the SCOTUS ruling.

Generally, my understanding is the Feds license gun dealers and there are provisions for arms dealers to own/sell all types of ordnance. There are many federal export rules but that's not what we're talking about here. I know that FFL dealers must comply with state laws as well but I think that really only restricts who is allowed to buy. Most state laws apply to private ownership rules by unlicensed owners. Things like carry laws and gun security (i.e. no loaded guns where children have free access, not sure if there are any states that mandate gun locks but I don't think so).

Speaking directly to the SCOTUS ruling, they struck down the DC ownership ban. This is tricky because DC isn't actually part of any state or territory. However, there is currently a case in front of the SCOTUS concerning a Chicago suburb's handgun ownership ban, signs point to that ban being struck down as well. After that comes the NYC ban if it isn't covered in the Chicago ruling and that should effectively eliminate restrictions on handgun ownership except in the case of felons. Since some states allow felons to own guns, but NOT handguns, then perhaps that would be the next step but I don't think that's gonna be as easy to fight.

[angelofdeath]

Generally, my understanding is the Feds license gun dealers and there are provisions for arms dealers to own/sell all types of ordnance. There are many federal export rules but that's not what we're talking about here. I know that FFL dealers must comply with state laws as well but I think that really only restricts who is allowed to buy. Most state laws apply to private ownership rules by unlicensed owners. Things like carry laws and gun security (i.e. no loaded guns where children have free access, not sure if there are any states that mandate gun locks but I don't think so).

the feds regulate lots of things about weapons. NFA GC68 and '86 weapons are all federally regulated. ownership, creation, etc. but overall you are pretty much correct in your statements above. and yes locations do have restrictions on locks, gun storage, etc etc.

Speaking directly to the SCOTUS ruling, they struck down the DC ownership ban. This is tricky because DC isn't actually part of any state or territory. However, there is currently a case in front of the SCOTUS concerning a Chicago suburb's handgun ownership ban, signs point to that ban being struck down as well. After that comes the NYC ban if it isn't covered in the Chicago ruling and that should effectively eliminate restrictions on handgun ownership except in the case of felons. Since some states allow felons to own guns, but NOT handguns, then perhaps that would be the next step but I don't think that's gonna be as easy to fight.

the ruling was to narrow. it struck down the DC BAN, but it didnt say that DC couldnt outlaw gun shops, gun registration, or basically make it damn near impossible to own the gun that you have an 'individual right' to own. it should of struck down all gun 'bans' in the country, if you use the courts inclusion of the 14th amendment precedents. the NRA types praise heller. i dont. if you read the decision, you will find the court recognizes an individual right to firearms ownership, but allows states and the feds to regulate however they want to. if the case was decided in favor of the second amendment and not in favor of gun CONTROL like it was, with an inclusion of the 14th amendment, no state would be allowed to pass any law restricting gun ownership nor would the FEDS. this will never happen. even the pro gun portion of the court will never deny that the feds have a right to regulate them, even though the second amendment specifically says the right shall not be INFRINGED. however to the statists, back ground checks, fingerprints, carry bans, wait periods when you might have a specific threat where you need a gun, restrictions on parts and types of weapons, retina scans and penis molds are just reasonable measures to prevent criminals from getting dangerous weapons!

[x5v1s]

im a card carrying member of the nra ... the gun in bars issue is over the line in my opinion
im in az too ,,shits close to home

[christo-f]

You guys all go on about British colonial rule and how the guys that drafted the constitution blah blah fucking blah.

It's all a complete crock! Everyone knows you didn't need guns to scare off the Brits, all you needed to do was wave a bar of soap at them!!



[Sorry Decyferon, I'm sure you shower]

[Smart]

apologies in advance to Decyferon and all you other limey bastards who subjugated my ancestors, and are still at it to a marginal extent (the bodies in the graves shall never rest until...). Nothing personal.

Still, I love me some stereotyping!
http://www.gospelgifs.com/clips/clipz2/images/crss001.gif

is to:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/vampire-power-1.jpg

as

http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_2009_07_14__05_49_41/toothbrush_front.jpg005943B7-FC79-4EDD-B6109CBA5F44AA6A.jpgLarge.jpg

is to:

http://mostlymedia.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/50004british-flag-posters.jpg

[Decyferon]

hahahaha damn you all having found my weak spot - I'm off to skulk in the corner!!!!

[laughslast]

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2




I really wasn't going to comment on this because of the simple observation that so many people have already covered most points. However, I must say that some of the basis for these arguments are very revealing about the basic framework we have crated in our minds as the reasoning behind the existence of government, the derivation of rights, and the purpose behind this Amendment.

So in response to this...."assessment" of what I think people are trying to answer in their response to the initial video this is my answer.

The reason I have deduced in my personal political philosophy as to why government in the form of the democratic-republic we have in the United States exists is because of the social contract. The social contract being where we as citizens give up a degree of control(such as immediate violent actions, to create nuclear energy in my backyard, and to wage war) to our representative in this particular government system for their protection.

I think the reason government exists(that I have deduced in my own personal political philosophy as only applies to the US and should not be taken as "fact" even if derived from our own "Founding Fathers") directly implies where our rights derive from. Us. Not "god-given". I don't mean to be Nitzschean. Fuck, I mean to be Zarathustra. God is dead. At least as far as where you try and derive rights from a man made entity. You can pray to your god for mercy, but lets face it you are facing man. And man is a fucking beast. I get my rights because I stand up for it. At the very least I hope so, I hope I never regress to a neophyte plebeian.

Which then leads to the purpose of this Amendment, which now the very obvious historical glaze over is: the Constitution would not have passed without this and 9 other Amendments. This Amendment and the others do not exist in vacuums of space and isolation. They interact with each one. That is the purpose of one document encompassing all this. Granted with flaws, but it is our framework that should be our reference point to our core arguments. Not the fire of our quick reactions of the heart and mind. The purpose I then see for this Amendment as per the necessity for a free State. Easy out. Same language as the Amendment itself. It is what it is.

However, in response to the video. I don't think that the language of the Amendment in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution really supports what this and other people taking similar actions are doing. And lets be real REAL honest here. They aren't bearing arms to protect themselves from a State militarily threatening them. They are bearing arms to protest political actions at demonstrations through intimidation. Just not cool.

[angelofdeath]

were the colonists in 1775 bearing arms against a state that wasnt 'threatening' them? when the british attempted to just 'do their duty' and 'follow the law' by disarming americans in 1775 on april 19th, the americans met them and shot them through the chest.

bearing arms isnt limited to 'a state militarily threatening them' its to defend ones life liberty and property. end of story.

the declaration of independence, a marvelous document in defense of natural rights and self government eloquently reminds us that when the state becomes tyrannical it is our right and duty to overthrow said state and replace it with another one.
carrying a gun to a political protest hurts no one. the swiss carry full auto sig 550's to vote. americans should do the same. everyone should carry guns to political protests to remind these bastards exactly who the boss is.

and the social contract theory is sort of silly. i didnt contract with anyone.

[laughslast]

were the colonists in 1775 bearing arms against a state that wasnt 'threatening' them? when the british attempted to just 'do their duty' and 'follow the law' by disarming americans in 1775 on april 19th, the americans met them and shot them through the chest.

bearing arms isnt limited to 'a state militarily threatening them' its to defend ones life liberty and property. end of story.

the declaration of independence, a marvelous document in defense of natural rights and self government eloquently reminds us that when the state becomes tyrannical it is our right and duty to overthrow said state and replace it with another one.
carrying a gun to a political protest hurts no one. the swiss carry full auto sig 550's to vote. americans should do the same. everyone should carry guns to political protests to remind these bastards exactly who the boss is.

and the social contract theory is sort of silly. i didnt contract with anyone.

Ok. I'm not exactly sure how to approach this response.

Because at the core, I am an Anarchist. However, I think it is important to realize why our particular type of political system was developed. In such, it sprung from this sort of thinking about politics. Also, in this thinking it removed God or god from the reasoning as to why a political system gained its legitimacy. Not to say that you are referencing god but to clarify why I am using the Constitution as my point of reference. Also, the Declaration of Independence is quite a document but not the frame work for the political system I live in. It is a document that clarifies the political philosophy being pursued.

To say you didn't contract with anyone is true in the sense that YOU didn't sign anything. Except maybe a wall. However, from the moment we are born or naturalized if you didn't pop out of a pussy here you become a part of the State. A recipient of its tools of coercing the people of the State into acquiescence of its control.

Now to the Swiss argument. Good point. I personally am not a fan of solo force for the pursuit of goals politically because........well physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Well, now that I say that does that mean that you could eventually yield peaceful outcomes? hmmm...

Well anyways. I just think that the guy wasn't trying to show political leaders who the boss was. He was trying to intimidate fellow citizens.
But, I do think that with your Swiss argument sheds light on something a lot of Americans(I only reference Americans because...well, that is who I happen to interact with most) have as a misconception about Switzerland. That it is a calm, peace loving, and neutral country. Well, in reality every citizen is required to have a bunker and all that stuff. The people are required by the State to be the enforcement of the law.

Which in actuality is way closer to democracy. Which the key to democracy is the demos, the people. I totally want pure democracy. I think you have a very good point. It's just.....I don't want to be intimidated. I really don't like cops walking around like I have to be subservient because they can shot to kill if I resist, and I don't like a guy walking around with an assault rifle to establish his point politically.

Now me not liking it is completely different from saying something else, i.e. not allowed, illegal, should be banned.

I just think politically....its intimidation. And kinda not cool.
The thing is to reference how America should duplicate a system in another country is to remove historical, social and cultural points of significance that yielded both systems. Perhaps something to strive for? Yet.....its just not what we have to work with.

[angelofdeath]

i understand the social contract theory, just these days, i reject it.

im glad you made the distinction between saying you do not like to be intimidated by guns and that the practice shouldn't be banned. most do not make this distinction. usually if someone doesnt like something, automatically it should be banned.

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter... one man carrying a gun to a political rally to assert his rights and in his mind remind his masters who is supposed to be boss is another mans 'he is out to intimidate people!'

i am uncomfortable with the state forcing people to own guns, serve in the militia, etc. however i think the overall stance of switzerland compared to the US is the way to go. if i had to choose between having a calm peace loving country that makes its citizens be armed i'd choose that over the war like aggressive policies w/ citizen disarmament in the US.

i think the best bet if you dont want to be intimidated if someone else is carrying a weapon, is to carry a weapon. just my opinion though.

but this sort of yields the question... when are we justified in using force to back up our points politically? do we wait till a time like now where are rights have been stripped slowly over time or do we wait until we have absolutely no rights? tough questions that all americans should be asking themselves.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

When everyones, including some of the lower levels of the elite, standard of living goes completely down the drain. That is when people will forcefully demand a change in government, and if denied "for your own safety" or "we(the elite) know better" they will be led to revolution. That being the most likely case, it is crucial to slowly take away rights;slow enough so noone will notice(i.e. temporary breach of rights, until crisis is resolved, only to eventually stay that way once everyone is used to it.) and slowly dumb people down to accept this(i.e. reality tv, caring more about what Paris Hilton(or Obama!) is wearing in People Magazine/Cosmo than the real things that matter). Just look at the things that make headline news these days!
Anyway, people will forcefully back their points politically when they are not recognized and their lives are drastically affected by it. Luckily, people have seem to begun to wake up a little(thru emails, talk radio, etc.) and have begun to see whats going on, and more and more are acting and bringing awareness by using the system to make sure that our rights remain protected. USE THE SYSTEM-GETTING INTO POSITIONS OF POWER TO CHANGE THINGS. The last thing we need is a revolution....the people arent ready for that yet. Once things get abolutely out of control due to the government and/or elitists, that is when you will see force to protect rights and political points.
Kinda hazy and not fully explained i know, but what do u cats think?

[.hopeless.]

but this sort of yields the question... when are we justified in using force to back up our points politically? do we wait till a time like now where are rights have been stripped slowly over time or do we wait until we have absolutely no rights? tough questions that all americans should be asking themselves.


who's to say that we need to use force to back up our points politically? there are other ways to inflict change than by being forceful. people are just too passive agressive about things and dont want to stand up for their rights.or their to fucking stupid to pay attention.the problem is people need to act now before we have to result to violence or show of force.i personally feel we should be able to eject any politician at any time if we feel he or she isnt meeting our standards.or listening to what we the people want.the politicians arent the ones with the power we are.or atleast we should be...but what im saying is its better to try to solve these matters in a peaceful manner first than to jump straight to using force.tho if its necessary then by all means.light them niggas up.

[angelofdeath]

I think the peaceful attempts are over with. They have all failed.

As a great author put it... America is at a strange crossroads. It's to late to try peaceful avenues and to early to shoot the bastards.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

I think the peaceful attempts are over with. They have all failed.

As a great author put it... America is at a strange crossroads. It's to late to try peaceful avenues and to early to shoot the bastards.

I dont think they have completely failed..yet. If the media changed to open peoples eyes and concentrate on the real issues rather than garbage things that dont really matter but are RELATED to significant things would help too....dont broadcast the entire day about a balloon yo, let people know exactly what legislation implies and what exactly their elected representatives are voting on.

However that is an interesting quote. But i dont believe the people will be drawn to armed revolution until the economy is completely twacked and we are in a real depression. Americans are used to living luxurious lives provided by their forefathers who took risks to work hard, fight, and die for. They WILL NOT live like the rest of the world lives. (Sorry to any foreigners-but we paid our dues in a collective effort to be in the position to live the way we do. F what other countries think)

Side note-
Democracy is not the only way. def prolly the best, but let underdeveloped countries choose what type of govt. they want. if they dig tyrants and socialism, cool! And for those who say they want democracy but are scared to go vote-f off. Our Founding Fathers signed their own death certificate by signing the dec. of indep.; they took the risk and fought the greatest army of the day, and u dont think they were scared? if u want democracy, take the risk. otherwise keep true to allah and the regime(unless its been toppled by us already-your welcome) and live like you want.

[christo-f]

Something that I've thought about for a while. I work with a lot of people that come from security and law enforcement agencies, the kind that would be tasked with taking your guns away, etc. etc.

They are the biggest proponents of gun ownership I've ever come across. From ex-NY cops to ex-FBI to ex-USSS and special agents. All to a man pro-gun and are not fans of big government and heavy regulation. Sometimes feels like a bit of a contradiction but interesting all the same.

[Smart]

This is because the majority of people involved with the 'enforcement' community consider themselves handpicked by God. It has 'always been their calling' and 'they just want to see justice served'. Most of those animals can't get more than basic security clearance, they have loud voices and numbers but they amount to a single pile.

The people who's opinions really count on a national/global scale are those in the 'intelligence' community. This doesn't mean upper echelon FBI or some supre spooks from the CIA, just average folks with some clearance. The opinions are varied, the arguments anti/pro are many and astute. Most of these folks have an operational understanding of the issue, field conditions and their own opinion. Anything less is basically arguing about it with everyone on 12oz and anything more is arguing with a politician.

[christo-f]

The people who's opinions really count on a national/global scale are those in the 'intelligence' community. This doesn't mean upper echelon FBI or some supre spooks from the CIA, just average folks with some clearance.

Interesting you should say that as that is exactly who I am talking about. These people used to work for NY/LAPD, military, USSS, ICE, etc. etc. Now they are in the intelligence field, predominately analysis. Also might add that some of them have never worked in the field before and have come straight from universities like Oxford, U. Texas, John's Hopkins, etc. They all have pretty much the same stand on the issue.

They'll be happy to hear that their opinion counts.

[angelofdeath]

Something that I've thought about for a while. I work with a lot of people that come from security and law enforcement agencies, the kind that would be tasked with taking your guns away, etc. etc.

They are the biggest proponents of gun ownership I've ever come across. From ex-NY cops to ex-FBI to ex-USSS and special agents. All to a man pro-gun and are not fans of big government and heavy regulation. Sometimes feels like a bit of a contradiction but interesting all the same.

i think this is not really true. there are MANY in the LE/MIL world that are pro gun. there are some libertarian types. some are what you would call 'patriots.' most of the military is 'pro gun' and that also includes people who interpret pro gun as meaning that they (the .mil) want to retain the right to bear arms and that the people are peons that dont need them.

i feel there are many allies to liberty in the military and law enforcement community, but overall they are the enemy of liberty. why? they take an oath. to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. they are to stand down or turn and shoot their officers if illegal orders are given to destroy the rights guaranteed by the constitution. i have yet to see cops and federal agents stand down over the drug war. why arent they standing down over orders to raid peoples houses and confiscate property in the drug war? it is blatantly unconstitutional, yet federal police and federalized and federally funded local law enforcement break their oath each and every day. in waco texas in 1993, the ATF enforced was supposedly serving a warrant over unconstitutional gun laws (if they are pro gun, why are they enforcing unconstitutional gun laws?) and a meth lab. these men took an oath, yet they simply followed unconstitutional orders. in new orleans louisiana during hurricane katrina military confiscated lawfully owned citizen's firearms. blatant disregard for their oath and the constitution. every time a police force knocks down a door in a no knock raid, they are violating the constitution, yet they still do it.

why do cops routinely pull guns on citizens lawfully carrying a firearm open, in a state in which it is legal to do so?

i did an experiment over the past few months. i wrote to various sheriff's departments across the US in states that allow open carry of firearms. almost every dept responded with something along the lines of...'there is no law forbidding open carry, but it will not go over well. you will be more than likely questioned.' some states with legal open carry responded with...'there is no law forbidding open carry, however a common law statute 'going armed for the terror of the public' is what is generally enforced.' when i enquired further as to weather all open carry cases are dealt with force by the police in one form or the other, i got the generic "it depends on the case."
which basically means... there is no law forbidding open carry of firearms, but we, the police, do not like it, so we will find a reason to harass you at the very least and hopefully put you in jail and confiscate your weapon, because we do not like armed citizens.

i have little faith in the .mil and le world to say they are really, overall, an alliance in the war for liberty. i have a feeling in my gut that if it came down to a concentration camp situation, half of the military would defect to defend the citizens. the other half would follow orders, and be brain washed by the propaganda that they are doing 'God's work.'

[Decyferon]

I'm glad the police are hassling someone who is walking around with a gun on display, they are doing their job, how do they know without questioning the person if the gun is legal or not. I would rather they presume it isn't legal and they need to question the legality of the weapon than to assume they have an open carry permit. If it is a legal weapon and the person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem answering the few enquiries the police have.

If you want the right to walk around displaying a gun then you better have to put up with people questioning you if it is legal or not, because face it you don't live in the wild west anymore there is really no reason to walk around with a gun on display unless you want to look like a mild psychopath, there is just no need for it on a day to day basis

[angelofdeath]

sure there is.
is there a need to speak freely or to dress however you want? is there not a day to day need for freedom of religion?

i dont think you understand the law. there are numerous states that allow open carry of guns without a permit of any kind. open carry is different than concealed carry, where only one state allows permitless concealed carry.

they are not doing there job, they are harassing a citizen who hasnt broken the law. its no different than walking up to a 22 year old black or latino male that is 5'10" and heckling him because statistically they are more likely to murder or rape someone than any other type of person. the mere act of gun possession is not a crime. why cant i go and heckle cops for open carrying firearms?

do cops also have to check on the legality of the signs that protesters march with ? just for their own safety. wouldnt want any contraband stolen cardboard to be used to make that sign. and that stake or pole the sign is attached to... shit it could kill someone.

when a cop confronts and detains, or arresting a person for open carrying a firearm where it is LEGAL, they are harassing the public not doing their job. they are supposed to be protecting this persons rights, not trampling on them by asking stupid questions and detaining him when he has broken no law or threatened anyone. if there is no law against it, how can a law be broken, and therefore how can one be detained or arrested for not breaking a law?

if by 'legal' gun you are referring to gun registration, i can assure you states that have open carry do not have gun registration. there is no such thing as a 'legal' or 'illegal' gun unless you want to talk about machine guns, or deal with the issue of a felon having a gun, etc.

there are a few states that have people on a day to day basis open carrying guns. take the black guy in arizona carrying the ar15. perfectly legal and the police didnt heckle him, they told public it was the guy's right. end of story. this is the way law enforcement is supposed to act.
there are many open carry 'events' that are put together to inform the public of this lost or dying right.

for fucks sake... if you cant carry a gun, then what good will it do you if you need to defend your self?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I'm glad the police are hassling someone who is walking around with a gun on display, they are doing their job, how do they know without questioning the person if the gun is legal or not. I would rather they presume it isn't legal and they need to question the legality of the weapon than to assume they have an open carry permit. If it is a legal weapon and the person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem answering the few enquiries the police have.

If you want the right to walk around displaying a gun then you better have to put up with people questioning you if it is legal or not, because face it you don't live in the wild west anymore there is really no reason to walk around with a gun on display unless you want to look like a mild psychopath, there is just no need for it on a day to day basis


Just want to get the record straight.

You are basically down for any authority figure to assume you are GUILTY before INNOCENT?

And walking around with a gun is a sign of being a mild psychopath?

[Decyferon]

No but I don't want people walking around with guns out in the open without anyone questioning the legality of the situation. How am I to know that the person carrying a gun is legally carrying it, do they need a badge on display or some shit to show they have an open carry permit and they aren't just some idiot walking around with a gun in a public space. I don't believe that anyone should just be able to walk around with a gun without expecting to be questioned if they have a valid permit, If I was driving a car and got stopped I would be asked if I have a valid license there is no difference to the 2 situations.

As for in those states where there is no legal or illegal guns because of gun registration then that is just another of those bizarre fucked up things that happens in America.

AOD- I agree with you the cop shouldn't be able to arrest someone once they have established they have an open carry permit -where we disagree is that I believe the cops should have the right to establish if you have the permit, because if you don't you are illegally carrying a gun in public and why would you do that? I wouldn't want to live somewhere where just because people can have an open carry permit then means that anyone can wander around with a gun in public without anyone questioning the situation.

I know you all love your guns but frankly it amazes me to how blind you seem to be about them. The reason America has so many petty criminals with guns? Because you have so many legal guns, the market is flooded with weapons that MAKE them easy accessable to the criminals. They can steal them, plain out right buy them or just take them, then you go on about the founding fathers and some rubbish that took place 200 odd years ago and you cling to it like a chrisitian does to a bible. I am pretty sure that the founding fathers didn't mean for people to be walking around shooting each other up when they put the bearing arms part in the constitution.

Face it none of you gun owners are fighting any tyranny of government with your weapons.

As for the walking around with a gun in public, then yea I would think there was something wrong in your head, just pointless, your either some ridiculously paranoid person, or someone with something to hide, basically I wouldn't trust you for shit, and I don't assume guilt before innocence. But if you are carrying a gun in public then you either are or are not breaking the law. If your in a public place then public safety comes before your right to legally carry a gun and the police are right to stop you and find out if your legally entitled to carry the gun as public safety could be an issue if you don't have a permit.

You want the right, deal with the hassles. None of your arguements have so far proven to me that gun ownership is a good thing, in fact it just goes to show me how bad an idea it is, why don't people wake up and realise that the gun crime in america is because of your legal guns, you say well criminals will have guns because they are criminals, but that isn't the case your criminals have guns because they are so readily available and they can just take them. A society without guns is better than one with them.

[angelofdeath]

No but I don't want people walking around with guns out in the open without anyone questioning the legality of the situation. How am I to know that the person carrying a gun is legally carrying it, do they need a badge on display or some shit to show they have an open carry permit and they aren't just some idiot walking around with a gun in a public space. I don't believe that anyone should just be able to walk around with a gun without expecting to be questioned if they have a valid permit, If I was driving a car and got stopped I would be asked if I have a valid license there is no difference to the 2 situations.

Decyferon,
The part you are missing in this entire post, as i tried to explain, in 26 US states, open carry of firearms, is legal. there is no permit to obtain to open carry. there is only 1 US state that allows concealed carry without a permit. all other states require a permit to carry a firearm concealed. do you know the difference between having a firearm concealed and carried in the open?

its no different than putting a sign in your front yard or going to whatever church you want. there is no permission process. at all. there is no 'checking to see if this is legal.' it is 100% legal. the only police confrontation is just blatant harassment unless they can articulate reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in an actual crime for detention or have probable cause for arrest. the mere act of open carrying a firearm, as i have already said, is legal. there is no reason to stop the open carrying guy any more than there is a reason to stop all males because they are equipped to be rapists, all women because they are equipped to be prostitutes or chuck norris because he can kill with his martial arts trained bare hands.

it is already well established that you are hoplophobic and you do not think any citizen is capable of defending their own self or property. this is not the issue. the issue is, in 26 open carry states, where carrying a firearm without a permit is legal, why are these people being heckled for doing something that is perfectly legal and 100% within their rights? this was brought up as it is nothing more than an extension of the conversation that was going on about how cops are pro gun, when in reality they are not, because very districts across the country dont get alarmed and shaken up about open carry by 'citizens.' (more properly, subjects)

As for in those states where there is no legal or illegal guns because of gun registration then that is just another of those bizarre fucked up things that happens in America.

i guess that you do not know that all gun confiscations in history began with just a sensible registration measure. in 1935 hitler instituted it. its nice to know that you support gun registration and confiscation, the exact same policies that helped lead the defenseless jews to the boxcars bound for the 'work camps.' i would much rather of given these people a fighting chance to shoot these aggressors. to practice with Alexander Solzhenitsyn talked about what should of been done. that whenever a guard came around they would be killed. i would much rather support the gun wielding patriots in the warsaw ghetto that were attempting to defend themselves from the nazi wehrmacht with 'illegal military assault weapons' than to parade around spouting off nonsense about how only criminals have guns and you are a paranoid psychopath if you own a gun let alone carry it.

AOD- I agree with you the cop shouldn't be able to arrest someone once they have established they have an open carry permit -where we disagree is that I believe the cops should have the right to establish if you have the permit, because if you don't you are illegally carrying a gun in public and why would you do that? I wouldn't want to live somewhere where just because people can have an open carry permit then means that anyone can wander around with a gun in public without anyone questioning the situation.

i think you are just so far down the road to serfdom that you do not realize that i am talking about open carry, that does not require a permit in 26 states. hopefully i have fully explained the laws above. there is no 'permit' to check in 26 states.

the practice of open carrying a firearm is fairly uncommon in most of the US. while im not defending the actual practice of open carry on strategic grounds, i am defending it on a 'you have the right' to do it grounds. open carry isnt the best way to carry a firearm unless you are well trained in firearm retention. most people that practice open carry do so in a group of 2 or 3. open carry also can put you at a disadvantage, as the criminals already see what you have and could act accordingly. say, shooting you in the chest before threatening to rob you. however, just like police wearing guns is a deterrent so is a citizen wearing a firearm.



I know you all love your guns but frankly it amazes me to how blind you seem to be about them. The reason America has so many petty criminals with guns? Because you have so many legal guns, the market is flooded with weapons that MAKE them easy accessable to the criminals. They can steal them, plain out right buy them or just take them, then you go on about the founding fathers and some rubbish that took place 200 odd years ago and you cling to it like a chrisitian does to a bible. I am pretty sure that the founding fathers didn't mean for people to be walking around shooting each other up when they put the bearing arms part in the constitution.

you seem to have a very distorted view of causes. you firmly believe that guns make people act a certain way, namely that whenever a person sees a gun they want to go out and shoot someone. you believe guns kill people. i believe people kill people. if guns kill people... then how come i cant use this defense:

i am arrested for murder. i say... 'sir, you are holding the wrong person, i did not kill this person, it was the bullet. look! it is quite obvious. i was standing right here and the bullet just struck that person down!'

personally, in this discussion, i could care less about the second amendment. my right to defend myself by whatever means necessary is a natural right and is not granted by any second amendment. if the constitution was never written, everyone in the world would still have the right to bear arms. you have the right to bear arms. you do not want to exercise this right. this is totally fine. no one is forcing you. as the pro choicers say.... if you dont want one, dont have one. well, if you dont want a gun, down own one. its that simple.

you punish the criminal, not the tool used to commit the crime. if we are to ban tools used to commit crimes we would have to ban ropes, hammers, axes, knives, forks, cars, scissors, pitchforks, shovels, bare hands, feet, wrenches, ice picks. you know the guy who robs a store with just his finger stuck in his jacket pocket, yup, have to ban fingers too.

Face it none of you gun owners are fighting any tyranny of government with your weapons.

this is just hilarious to me. as that is what happened in 1775-1783 when we kicked the british out of the US. this is what the rag tag bunch of arabs are doing in iraq while they are holding the largest army in the world at bay with a few thousand men.

As for the walking around with a gun in public, then yea I would think there was something wrong in your head, just pointless, your either some ridiculously paranoid person, or someone with something to hide, basically I wouldn't trust you for shit, and I don't assume guilt before innocence. But if you are carrying a gun in public then you either are or are not breaking the law. If your in a public place then public safety comes before your right to legally carry a gun and the police are right to stop you and find out if your legally entitled to carry the gun as public safety could be an issue if you don't have a permit.

prediction:
once you read my explanation of open carry laws in 26 of the US states, your argument will change from 'the police are just doing their job to make sure the gun is legal' to 'well, the police should just be arresting these people because they are paranoid nuts with something to hide. but i dont assume guilt before innocence.' its always funny to me. liberals are pretty good on civil liberty except when it comes to guns.

You want the right, deal with the hassles. None of your arguements have so far proven to me that gun ownership is a good thing, in fact it just goes to show me how bad an idea it is, why don't people wake up and realise that the gun crime in america is because of your legal guns, you say well criminals will have guns because they are criminals, but that isn't the case your criminals have guns because they are so readily available and they can just take them. A society without guns is better than one with them.

governments were supposedly instituted among men to protect our rights, here in the US. not to trample on our rights. if we have a 'right' to open carry a gun, as there is a legal right to open carry without a permit in 26 states, why are we being hassled for doing so?

atleast you are honest. despite all your rhetoric about 'illegal' and 'legal' guns and possession and carrying, you really just want all guns confiscated and guns to not exist in society.

how in the hell do you propose to do this?
im a realist. there are guns in the world. you cannot take them away. gun control laws only disarm the victims, they do not disarm the criminals. i will be holding on to mine.

the main difference between a free man and a slave is the right to own a firearm.

its good to know that you are against allowing the jewish peoples of europe who suffered under a genocidally bent dictator the right to defend themselves. its good to know you are against peasants in russia being thrown into work camps dont have the right to defend themselves. its good to know that you do not believe you should be able to own a firearm to shoot and kill the guy who is raping your wife at gun point in the other room while your children watch.

[Decyferon]

Oh I am a realist AOD, like I have said before there is no way that guns will be taken away, logistically it just isn't possible.

As for the open permit, well ok if anyone can wander around in those states just carrying a gun then that, to me, just seems crazy. Like I have said before, there are lots of responsible gun owners, but also lots of very irresponsible gun owners, to think that they can walk around unquestioned in a public space carrying a gun is madness. OK there are individual rights, what about the rights of everyone to feel secure without people openly carrying guns, there is a flip side to every arguement. My reasoning behind the police questioning people was because it is the police's job to protect the public, if someone is wandering around with a gun that person may be a threat to the public, and in my eyes should be questioned on the legality of the gun. I'm sure that in those states with open permits that there are still rules to people not having certain guns or some kind of safety barrier. This is also my view on government, they do stand for the individual but also need to stand for society in general.

Ideally, I would like guns not to exist in the general populace, but it won't happen, I am not blind to the fact, but this is a message board where we express out personal views this is mine. I can see why the right to bear arms was given but I also see the world has changed a lot since this right was put to paper.

A slave is not someone who doesn't have a gun, that is rubbish, I am not a slave and I do not own a gun. You use some far out examples, like the rape scenario, well to be honest in the UK if someoen breaks into your house there is a very very large chance they will NOT have a gun, I could defend myself suitably with a number of things I have to hand. If I lived in the US I would have to have a gun because so many criminals have easy access to them that the most petty of crimes now involve firearms, such as muggings or burglary.

To say I don't believe a person is capable of defending themselves or their property is stupid, I have said before that I know the gun situation in america is what it is and I would own one in the US, I am just saying that the proliferation of guns in society is more a negative than a positive

[angelofdeath]

As for the open permit, well ok if anyone can wander around in those states just carrying a gun then that, to me, just seems crazy. Like I have said before, there are lots of responsible gun owners, but also lots of very irresponsible gun owners, to think that they can walk around unquestioned in a public space carrying a gun is madness. OK there are individual rights, what about the rights of everyone to feel secure without people openly carrying guns, there is a flip side to every arguement. My reasoning behind the police questioning people was because it is the police's job to protect the public, if someone is wandering around with a gun that person may be a threat to the public, and in my eyes should be questioned on the legality of the gun. I'm sure that in those states with open permits that there are still rules to people not having certain guns or some kind of safety barrier. This is also my view on government, they do stand for the individual but also need to stand for society in general.

there is no right to feel secure. no such critter. what if a black person is intimidated by the mere fact a white person lives next door? tough shit.
getting into technicalities... the issue is really carrying a gun on public property. if you are 1000 feet of a school... illegal. no guns allowed due to clintons' school gun ban. no guns in post offices. no guns allowed on private property, such as stores that have 'no gun' signs. most states restrict guns on property that serves alcohol.

if a person has a right to protest on public property a person should have a right to carry on public property as it is essentially the same right. gun ownership just like protest is not a crime. this all gets cloudy because of the public property. which is actually common ownership by all taxpayers with everyones ability to use such property but it is controlled by the government. so when you have a situation like this, with all the diverse people in america you are going to have disagreements about what can and cannot be done on said property. in the angelofdeath free society, property owners would decide whether firearms are allowed or not. of course in the shopping mall that forbids firearms, this is where all the robberies and murders would happen.

it is interesting to note that in places like schools and post offices... well. no need to mention what happens in those places, but what the hell. people going postal and mass murders of school children without proper armed guardians on the property.

A slave is not someone who doesn't have a gun, that is rubbish, I am not a slave and I do not own a gun. You use some far out examples, like the rape scenario, well to be honest in the UK if someoen breaks into your house there is a very very large chance they will NOT have a gun, I could defend myself suitably with a number of things I have to hand. If I lived in the US I would have to have a gun because so many criminals have easy access to them that the most petty of crimes now involve firearms, such as muggings or burglary.

i guess where you and i differ is that i would just like to use the best tool available for the job at hand. if i have to go about defending myself, i'd rather it be with a handgun that starts with a 4, than my bare hands. im not well trained in hand to hand combat. and definitely would not feel safe playing steven seagal on someone with a gun pointed at me. i also like to use a chain saw when cutting wood instead of a hand saw or ax and i like to use air tools when working on cars instead of hand tools. why mess around? sure, i could try to grapple with the guy at 3 am in my house stealing my shit and trying to shoot at me, but i'd rather try to have the upper hand when im threatened. there is no such thing as a fair fight when fighting in defense. you do anything to stay alive.

To say I don't believe a person is capable of defending themselves or their property is stupid, I have said before that I know the gun situation in america is what it is and I would own one in the US, I am just saying that the proliferation of guns in society is more a negative than a positive

but you are all for denying someone the basic human right of owning an inanimate object because you are scared of people with guns. i guess i see the big picture.
where guns can be used to defend your lives liberty and property knowing full well that the guns i own and that the guns everyone i know owns, will only be put to that use and not for any other aggressive purpose.

[Decyferon]

I agree you do anything to survive when defending yourself, I just prefere to defend myself against people when they don't have guns, obviously because you live in the US and have grown up around guns you are used to using that as your defense because the criminals also have guns, I DO SEE the american point of view.

I however live somewhere without guns, I have never encountered a criminal with a gun or been threatened with one, I have never known anyone to have been burgaled by someone with a gun nor mugged with a gun. Guns are not needed, but you need them in AMerica because there are just so many of them and easy access to them.

I understand having a rifle or handgun, I do think that what the american government should be doing is taking away AK47s and those sort of guns and focussing on getting those off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, then normal citizens.

[angelofdeath]

I agree you do anything to survive when defending yourself, I just prefere to defend myself against people when they don't have guns, obviously because you live in the US and have grown up around guns you are used to using that as your defense because the criminals also have guns, I DO SEE the american point of view.

I however live somewhere without guns, I have never encountered a criminal with a gun or been threatened with one, I have never known anyone to have been burgaled by someone with a gun nor mugged with a gun. Guns are not needed, but you need them in AMerica because there are just so many of them and easy access to them.

I understand having a rifle or handgun, I do think that what the american government should be doing is taking away AK47s and those sort of guns and focussing on getting those off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, then normal citizens.

its sort of silly to sit back in the arm chair and pick and choose who you will be defending yourself against when this is out of your control. the firearm is the great equalizer. the old lady can use this thing to shoot the guy trying to kill and rob her with a knife. the gun is the best tool for the job, no matter if you are facing another gun, a rapist with a knife or a gang of hammer skins. usually the mere sight of a firearm will diffuse the situation.

i have never personally encountered a criminal with a gun or been threatened by one.
its one thing to say guns are not needed in situation X but its an entirely different situation to say guns are not needed in situation X and you are forbidden from owning one and we'll decide what is best for you.

your concern of AK's which are used in very little, if any meaningful percentage of crimes, is a common one. all the gun control measures are aimed at exactly that... keeping evil ak's out of the hands of evil people. but for some reason the bad people still have the firearms. the gun control measures only disarm the people who are already law abiding. if someone is going to use a gun to commit a crime like murder, breaking a gun control law is nothing.

[Decyferon]

this is why any gun controls measures I talk about focus on disarming the criminal population before the civilian. I believe the common man deserves precident over the criminal and I would never disarm them before taking that shit off the streets

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

I understand having a rifle or handgun, I do think that what the american government should be doing is taking away AK47s and those sort of guns and focussing on getting those off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, then normal citizens.

the percentage of crimes involving firearms of the assault nature (ak47s, sks, ar15s, augs, what have you) are pretty low man. Handguns (and shotguns)are definitely the most prevalent when it comes to committing crimes with a gun involved...and notice most are stolen?

Again, the people who want to commit crimes with a firearm are going to get one. Making the availability of guns a lower number will do nothing to stop firearm related crime. Think its a culture thing bra...

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

SCRATCH THAT LAST POST

uhh...how would one disarm ONLY the criminal population?

That would be sweet. But so would world peace. Thats livin in an unrealistic fantasyland bro

[angelofdeath]

"how would one disarm ONLY the criminal population?"

that is the question.
if the gov cant keep drugs out of max security prisons, there is no way in hell to disarm only criminals. i think a lot of the gun control crowd's argument centers around a world in which there is no guns, which therefore would lead them to conclude that if the criminals dont have guns (leaving the GOVERNMENT criminals out of this at present) law abiding citizens shouldnt have them either. only problem is... getting them out of the hands of the criminals. impossible. better chance at seeing winged swine.

[Decyferon]

I know it is an impossibility, don't worry I'm not living in a dream world!!

It is just a hard thing to tackle, maybe they should punish criminals who use guns a lot harsher, then you have the problem of an already over populated prison system.

I definitely think that if the government wants a war on something as they always seem to, they should focus on getting illegal guns out the hands of criminals, but they won't because they know it is a hopeless task and not worth putting their political reputation on the line, but it idoesn't mean someone should at least try and fight back against the number of criminals using guns.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

word, it would be real cool if criminals didnt have access to guns, but thefts of guns will always occur, and they will always be able to acquire one if they really wanted it.

Perhaps instead of focusing on getting rid of the tools the criminals use, maybe the government should wage a war on the circumstances that cause the psychological factors that would prompt someone to get involved in criminal activity in the first place....wage war on the root of the problem these people have..

[lord_casek]

I know it is an impossibility, don't worry I'm not living in a dream world!!

It is just a hard thing to tackle, maybe they should punish criminals who use guns a lot harsher, then you have the problem of an already over populated prison system.

I definitely think that if the government wants a war on something as they always seem to, they should focus on getting illegal guns out the hands of criminals, but they won't because they know it is a hopeless task and not worth putting their political reputation on the line, but it idoesn't mean someone should at least try and fight back against the number of criminals using guns.


Maybe it would be better for the good people to be armed? Making it hard for criminals to
know whether or not they might get their head blown off if they try some shit.

What happened during the shooting in Dallas in the 60's needs to happen again.
Read about it, Decyferon. You might be impressed with our countrymen over here.
The people defended the police and other people with their own guns allowing police
to rush the clock tower and "subdue" the shooter (by blowing his face off).

[FUCKMUNI]

I can understand why people may want a gun, i understand that, I just think it is fucking stupid to legally be able to own guns such as AK47s and those kind of weapons, if you want to hunt have a rifle, if you want a gun at home to defend yourself have a handgun

I am very glad I live in a country where not every nutjob/junkie is able to arm themseves to the teeth

you got a liberal ass mindset and im glad people like you decide to keep your asses on the UK...where yall seem to willingly LOVE to give up your rights....you must live in a cozy as little neighborhood, but im in the east bay homie...oakland...even 16 year olds out here got heat....i keep mr AR15 loaded at all times in case some smart ass wants to get sick and try and rob my house...and i keep 30 rounders in case he wants to bring his friends...


stop tryin to control other people....im glad you stay in the UK...all these liberals faggots from SF and cali should join you....UK= where people love to be controlled and protected by their government...yall are PUSSIES...

[Decyferon]

your a fucking moron that obviously doesn't know shit, I have as many freedoms as you, try looking at your own neighbourhood, you got 16 year olds running around with guns and you think I live in the place without freedom, jesus christ, sounds to me that you live in the fucked up place not me!! I don't mind having a discussion with mature adults like AOD who can discuss something without getting offensive and acting like some little hoodrat.

I'm not trying to control anyone, I was putting the other side to the arguement, obviously hit a raw nerve with you and made you cry.

[FUCKMUNI]

hahaah yall dont have shit in the UK....they want to ban kitchen knives HAH, your government is all abuot control and restricting your rights...wake up

[Decyferon]

my god your an idiot, they aren't going to ban kitchen knives what do you do watch Fox news for your round up of what happens in the world?

[FUCKMUNI]

im not really here to get into some real technical argument i just like to bash on the liberal minded....but all i can say is that i got my AR...and you dont....so when SHTF and you are in a bad situation i sincerely wish you good luck!

[Decyferon]

because is being liberal is such a bad thing??

why do so many Americans have such a problem with a liberal approach. A liberal is about freedoms and choices. I know a lot of Americans get that confused with socialism, which they then get confused with communism, which they then get confused as being some totalitarian dictatorship.

I find it amazing sometimes, to me a liberal is pro choice, anti racism, anti homophobia anti any kind of prejudice.

In the UK a conservative is the government which fucks a country and screws over all the people for the benefit of the Richest minority.

Also, when the shit hits the fan, I will be doing just fine because I wont have a bunch of crazed teenagers running around with military grade weaponary

[FUCKMUNI]

the only freedoms liberals fight for are gay rights and illegal immigrants who shoot law abiding citizens....im from the bay we see the effects of liberal government..tell that to Tony Bologna and his kids who were shot up by a illegal immigrant gang banger who was given "freedom" because its not PC to just ship these faggots off....and now you wanna take my gun rights so that these gangbangers can rob my family and threaten my life? HAHA...i took the AQT and im accurate with my AR out to 400 yards....it would be in their best interests to go rob someone unarmed...

[FUCKMUNI]

maintain natural point of aim....take note of distance to target, windage....let the rifle relax in your support hand and do not grip it....maintain steady breathing and pay attention to the sway of your iron sights with your breathing...round chambered, safety off...take a breath and gently sqeeze the trigger as your exhale...make sure to keep your finger movement at a minimum, even your bodys heart beat can affect where the round will go...check your shot and adjust your sights/aim accordingly......shooting a rifle is a beautiful art maybe you should try it...then you will understand why some of us want to own ARs and Ak47s...

[Decyferon]

But the whole gun control arguement (although I have said it before America is too far down the road now to do anything about) if you had controlled guns a little tighter than you have then you wouldnt have these gangbangers having such ready access to guns with which they then kill people that don't deserve it. I don't have a problem with sensible gun ownership.

In the UK, if someone commited a crime like the one you mentioned they would serve a prison sentance then be deported back to where they came from. The only immigrants that get to stay in the country is if they are claiming political asylum because they would be killed for their beliefs in their home country. Obviously some slip through the net, but that guy you mentioned should have been shipped back to where he came from.

The problem lies in that guns are so easily available that it is no hassles for the criminals to get hold of them, I have said it so many times but it isn't like that here, if someone breaks into my house they WILL NOT have a gun, I can easily just smash them round the head with a baseball bat and be done with it. If there were stricter regualtions then it would be harder for the criminals to get hold of the guns, personally I think they should toughen up the sentances for illegally owned guns, if you use a gun for a crime, then automatically that should mean you get 20 years inside or more, the punishments just don't fit the crimes, three is no deterant for these gangbangers and criminals with guns.

[FUCKMUNI]

i might be missin a step lol its been a while....

[FUCKMUNI]

But the whole gun control arguement (although I have said it before America is too far down the road now to do anything about) if you had controlled guns a little tighter than you have then you wouldnt have these gangbangers having such ready access to guns with which they then kill people that don't deserve it. I don't have a problem with sensible gun ownership.

In the UK, if someone commited a crime like the one you mentioned they would serve a prison sentance then be deported back to where they came from. The only immigrants that get to stay in the country is if they are claiming political asylum because they would be killed for their beliefs in their home country. Obviously some slip through the net, but that guy you mentioned should have been shipped back to where he came from.

The problem lies in that guns are so easily available that it is no hassles for the criminals to get hold of them, I have said it so many times but it isn't like that here, if someone breaks into my house they WILL NOT have a gun, I can easily just smash them round the head with a baseball bat and be done with it. If there were stricter regualtions then it would be harder for the criminals to get hold of the guns, personally I think they should toughen up the sentances for illegally owned guns, if you use a gun for a crime, then automatically that should mean you get 20 years inside or more, the punishments just don't fit the crimes, three is no deterant for these gangbangers and criminals with guns.


alright you got some points....it is waaay to easy to people to get illegal guns because of straw purchases and the availability of legal weapons....but i still think criminals will get weapons....if they shut down local gun shows i know the next big thing wuold be to have weapons shipped from china in parts and then assembled here by the triads i already know that happens...same thing from africa or middle east....the only thing wuold be the price would go up....like AOD said its IMPOSSIBLE to keep guns out of criminals hands..

btw are you anglo brit? immigrant brit? curious how you think the UK has more freedoms than the US unless you moved to the UK frmo somewhere like Islamabad.

[Decyferon]

lol I am born in the UK, but I have never felt like I have had any freedoms taken away, the only difference between you and I is that I can't legally own a gun (although I probably could because there are legal guns here but I have no need for one) but I can go to the doctors or hospital whenever I want with no fear of bills or having no insurance, so it is swings and roundabouts really.

I didn't say I have more freedoms than the US, I said I am just as free as you.

It's like me saying to you did you live in the UK and move to th eUS which makes you feel you have more freedoms than someone here.

[FUCKMUNI]

it aint even that hard to make guns either...people in afghanistan make AKs out of stone molds in mountain huts you dont need a factory...making legal guns illegal would create a huge black market for those who know how to make homemade weapons...there will always be a need for guns it will NEVER go away..we dont live in utopia this is real life

the only way to solve gun crime is for the entire populace to be armed, even grannies. then when some fuck decides to rob a store or someone he is gonna have to worry about having a gun pulled in HIS face....like you said we are too far ahead from a gun free society theres no going back

[Decyferon]

Oh I agree we don't live in a utopia, I have always said there is nothing to be done about the gun situation in America.
But something needs to be done about the people that abuse gun ownership and aren't resposible and personally they should be hit with the full extent of the law

[angelofdeath]

The problem lies in that guns are so easily available that it is no hassles for the criminals to get hold of them, I have said it so many times but it isn't like that here, if someone breaks into my house they WILL NOT have a gun, I can easily just smash them round the head with a baseball bat and be done with it. If there were stricter regualtions then it would be harder for the criminals to get hold of the guns, personally I think they should toughen up the sentances for illegally owned guns, if you use a gun for a crime, then automatically that should mean you get 20 years inside or more, the punishments just don't fit the crimes, three is no deterant for these gangbangers and criminals with guns.

look at prohibition of drugs. drugs are super controlled. you need have to be put on a government watch list to buy cold medicine! 'illegal' narcotics, cannot be kept out of maximum security prisons, there is no way to 'tighten' measures to reduce gun crime. absolute impossibility. yet despite this extreme control of 'illegal' narcotics people are still blowing up their own houses in an effort to try to make money making meth.
there are 20,000 gun laws 'tightening' just a 'little bit more to stop gun crime.' none of them have worked. but what has worked is that law abiding citizens are restricted from owning or purchasing weapons to protect their self. back when there were virtually no gun laws, we had virtually no crime. back when you could order 20mm anti material weapons through the mail with no background check, no one was killed with them. when you could have as many 'unregistered' machine guns with any amount of ammunition, virtually no one was killed. i think it is false and overly simplistic to actually try to make an argument that gun control will 1. work, 2. has worked. 3. and that just a little bit more is need to create a perfect humane peace and flower loving society.

hey, atleast the UK has partially practiced what they preached. but if they really believed that guns are horrible and can simply just be given up and the perfect society could be achieved, why dont they disarm the military as a bright shining example of peace and love? they could lead by example!

but look at your argument. a criminal wont have a gun, so you can just bash him in the head with a baseball bat. is this any less lethal? why are you so opposed to guns, yet have no calms about bashing someones dome in with a baseball bat? the 'justice' system looks at a murder/killling with a gun the same as a murder with a baseball bat. just because i may or may not have small armory, doesnt mean i am 'safe.' owning a gun doesnt really make one trained in its efficient use, nor does having a baseball bat make you trained in the combative use of a baseball bat. im all for choice. options. if someone is trying to kill me, all bets are off. i will use whatever means necessary to stop the threat. a firearm is probably the best means to do so.

i dont think there needs to be harsher penalties simply because a crime was committed with a gun, i think harsher sentences should be dealt out all around, for crimes involving a victim and all victim less crimes decriminalized. whether someone is murdered with a bic pen or with an ak-47 makes no difference at all.

[angelofdeath]

maintain natural point of aim....take note of distance to target, windage....let the rifle relax in your support hand and do not grip it....maintain steady breathing and pay attention to the sway of your iron sights with your breathing...round chambered, safety off...take a breath and gently sqeeze the trigger as your exhale...make sure to keep your finger movement at a minimum, even your bodys heart beat can affect where the round will go...check your shot and adjust your sights/aim accordingly......shooting a rifle is a beautiful art maybe you should try it...then you will understand why some of us want to own ARs and Ak47s...

squeeze... dont pull
watch... dont blink
move ... dont wait
kill... dont think

[Decyferon]

I meant petty crimes like robberies or muggings with guns. A murder is murder whether with bare hands or a gun.

What I meant about the baseball bat comment was I would rather have the bat and a robber without a gun than live somewhere where every petty criminal can be armed to the teeth. Like I said before it is the easy accessability of guns to criminals due to the right to bear arms that is why so many criminals in America have guns.

Obviously disarming the military is just silly and I don't see how that has any bearing on the subject of gun ownership in the general populace.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I meant petty crimes like robberies or muggings with guns. A murder is murder whether with bare hands or a gun.

What I meant about the baseball bat comment was I would rather have the bat and a robber without a gun than live somewhere where every petty criminal can be armed to the teeth. Like I said before it is the easy accessability of guns to criminals due to the right to bear arms that is why so many criminals in America have guns.

Obviously disarming the military is just silly and I don't see how that has any bearing on the subject of gun ownership in the general populace.

What is the difference between being robbed by someone with a gun or with someone with a knife? Your life is still at risk, and you are still having your possessions stolen. The penalty should be the same for both.

The increase in penalty should basically be used if violence is used or the amount being stolen is more severe. Just like assaulting someone while shouting our a racial slur shouldn't really constitute a "hate crime" and be given a stiffer penalty.

Disarming the military isn't silly. A standing army isn't necessary.

[Decyferon]

Sorry was on my wife's iphone so couldn't type out a complete answer. I meant if the gun was used during hte crime then it should be harsher. I am just chucking out ideas really because gun crime is a huge problem in the US I don't read so much about knife crimne in the US so I was looking at tackling the more serious problem. I know it is no solution but maybe in some cases it might deter someone from using a gun.

It would be silly to disarm the military, what good will they be in fighting these wars with no weapons? I can't see why you think the military should be disarmed when the population isn't.

[FUCKMUNI]

someone else said this im copy pastin.....

Liberals are about freedom.....It is exactly the opposite. Unbelievable.

How are they on the side of freedom when it is they who are trying to restrict free speech when it is against their particular point of view?

How are they on the side of freedom when contrary to natural law they restrict the individual's right and therefore ability of self defense?

How are they on the side of freedom when they are for seizing personal property and therefore ones productive time on earth in order to redistribute it to others?

How are they on the side of freedom when they demand that you purchase a health care policy or face oppressive fines or prison or both?

How are they on the side of freedom when they demand to come into your home to dictate the flow of water in your toilet, the types of light bulbs you use, whether you may barbeque your meals, or have a nice fire on a cold winter night?

[angelofdeath]

I meant petty crimes like robberies or muggings with guns. A murder is murder whether with bare hands or a gun.

What I meant about the baseball bat comment was I would rather have the bat and a robber without a gun than live somewhere where every petty criminal can be armed to the teeth. Like I said before it is the easy accessability of guns to criminals due to the right to bear arms that is why so many criminals in America have guns.

Obviously disarming the military is just silly and I don't see how that has any bearing on the subject of gun ownership in the general populace.

ilotsmybrain made a good point about the crime aspect. no difference in robbing someone with a gun or a pencil really... the end result is still the same.
as for justice and restitution.. i believe in the 2 teeth for a tooth, plus expenses to capture.

the overall stance is that guns are not needed. you do not need a gun to protect yourself. people shouldnt own guns. cops dont have guns, they have billy clubs, right? why stop there? why not disarm the military? be a bright shining example that gun control works and leads to a peace loving society!

or are you admitting truth to the armed deterrence theory? that a person or entity that is armed is less likely to be involved in a conflict, AND that when the person is armed they have a means to fight back. if this applies to a collective defense mechanism, why cant you allow citizens to protect their house or neighborhoods with the best means of defense, namely firearms?

if you have an disarmed UK, give it 20 minutes and the people who hate the Uk will be running over the entire country while everyone is trying to fight off and invaders ak 47 fire with suppressive fire in the form of rocks and bricks.

i like the swiss model. armed to teeth. perfectly neutral. armed citizens. freedom. no crime. very little problems.

if we are to look at gun availability as the sole factor in crime, we can easily look to rural america to find that the people with the most amount and the craziest variety including legal NFA/class III weapons (full auto) are the least likely to use them. the swiss model is another example of full auto machine guns in the hands of private citizens with virtually no crime to speak of.

[angelofdeath]

agreed...liberal by its original definition, (which is what liberals still try to cling to today) is basically the philosophy i am promoting on this board. laissez faire, decentralized government, maximum individual freedom. however, if you notice the amount of disagreements i get into with modern liberals on this board, you can see the ideological disconnect from the philosophy of the great classical liberal freedom lovers and the statist liberals of today.

[Decyferon]

someone else said this im copy pastin.....

Liberals are about freedom.....It is exactly the opposite. Unbelievable.

How are they on the side of freedom when it is they who are trying to restrict free speech when it is against their particular point of view?

How are they on the side of freedom when contrary to natural law they restrict the individual's right and therefore ability of self defense?

How are they on the side of freedom when they are for seizing personal property and therefore ones productive time on earth in order to redistribute it to others?

How are they on the side of freedom when they demand that you purchase a health care policy or face oppressive fines or prison or both?

How are they on the side of freedom when they demand to come into your home to dictate the flow of water in your toilet, the types of light bulbs you use, whether you may barbeque your meals, or have a nice fire on a cold winter night?

none of this is applicable where I live, if that is what a liberal in the US stands for then they are not a liberal.

[Decyferon]

ilotsmybrain made a good point about the crime aspect. no difference in robbing someone with a gun or a pencil really... the end result is still the same.
as for justice and restitution.. i believe in the 2 teeth for a tooth, plus expenses to capture.

the overall stance is that guns are not needed. you do not need a gun to protect yourself. people shouldnt own guns. cops dont have guns, they have billy clubs, right? why stop there? why not disarm the military? be a bright shining example that gun control works and leads to a peace loving society!

or are you admitting truth to the armed deterrence theory? that a person or entity that is armed is less likely to be involved in a conflict, AND that when the person is armed they have a means to fight back. if this applies to a collective defense mechanism, why cant you allow citizens to protect their house or neighborhoods with the best means of defense, namely firearms?

if you have an disarmed UK, give it 20 minutes and the people who hate the Uk will be running over the entire country while everyone is trying to fight off and invaders ak 47 fire with suppressive fire in the form of rocks and bricks.

i like the swiss model. armed to teeth. perfectly neutral. armed citizens. freedom. no crime. very little problems.

if we are to look at gun availability as the sole factor in crime, we can easily look to rural america to find that the people with the most amount and the craziest variety including legal NFA/class III weapons (full auto) are the least likely to use them. the swiss model is another example of full auto machine guns in the hands of private citizens with virtually no crime to speak of.

There are police in this country with guns, they are there when a major crime goes down and criminals are using guns, generally these are bank robberies and other more severe crimes.

I do believe a country needs a military for protection, I don't believe these armies should be wandering around in the middle east putting their noses in countries they have no right to do so. Obviously if an army was disarmed then anyone could stage a military coup in that country so I think you do need to have a line of defense.

AOD you know my arguement, I have no problem or issues with responsible gun owners, I just think that the readily access of guns in the US is a bad thing because it means so many guns get into the hands of people that really shouldnt be using them, these people, if guns weren't so readily available wouldn't have them and gun crime wouldn't be so much of an issue. I don't see a problem with responsible people like yourself having the right to defend yourself, because so many criminals have guns I see no problem with you having them, in theUK where guns are not so common I don't see why people need access to them.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

ilotsmybrain made a good point about the crime aspect. no difference in robbing someone with a gun or a pencil really... the end result is still the same.
as for justice and restitution.. i believe in the 2 teeth for a tooth, plus expenses to capture.

the overall stance is that guns are not needed. you do not need a gun to protect yourself. people shouldnt own guns. cops dont have guns, they have billy clubs, right? why stop there? why not disarm the military? be a bright shining example that gun control works and leads to a peace loving society!

or are you admitting truth to the armed deterrence theory? that a person or entity that is armed is less likely to be involved in a conflict, AND that when the person is armed they have a means to fight back. if this applies to a collective defense mechanism, why cant you allow citizens to protect their house or neighborhoods with the best means of defense, namely firearms?

if you have an disarmed UK, give it 20 minutes and the people who hate the Uk will be running over the entire country while everyone is trying to fight off and invaders ak 47 fire with suppressive fire in the form of rocks and bricks.

i like the swiss model. armed to teeth. perfectly neutral. armed citizens. freedom. no crime. very little problems.

if we are to look at gun availability as the sole factor in crime, we can easily look to rural america to find that the people with the most amount and the craziest variety including legal NFA/class III weapons (full auto) are the least likely to use them. the swiss model is another example of full auto machine guns in the hands of private citizens with virtually no crime to speak of.

I still think you cats should consider the possibility that guns do not own a mind, and that people CHOOSE to commit crime. The availability of guns because of lack of laws or whatever isnt the problem. Instead of arguing about gun laws and how they should be more/less controlled, get a little deeper, to the root of the issue: Why is it that people want to commit crime(including utilizing the gun as a tool to complete crime)?

Its peoples mentality of it being acceptable to commit crime in the first place that you should be worried about. Psychologically the feel nothing towards their fellow human...thats the problem. Not the tools they use or the laws that control them.

just like society forces us to accept homosexuals as "normal, just different". its not normal to commit crimes...THERES A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM!!!!

[Decyferon]

damn man, we are having a hard enough time dealing with just guns now we have to look at crime in society as a whole and the psychological reasoning behind it.

There are so many factors, some people are just fucking lazy and don't see why they should work for the things they want, other people are born into it and no no difference and don't try and improve their situation, other people are just stuck in a bad place can't get a job that provides can't get help from anywhere and have no other option, other people are just unhinged and like to be violent and criminal in their actions.

To say guns don't change people isn't really true, SOME people get a self inflated sense of security or of power when they hold a gun just like the self inflated ego of someone using coke.

There is nothing different about a homosexual they don't choose who they are attracted to, they don't have an choice in the matter, a person always has a choice whether they commit a crime or not

[nsmbfan]

just wanted to say LOL @ Fort Hood, not for the tragedy, for the blow it dealt pro-gun folks.

simply because of the comment made in regards to : "You never see shooting sprees in miltary bases, police stations, or gun shows - EVERYBODY HAS GUNS THERE!"

just lol.

and Decy wants to secretly be an American.

[Decyferon]

just wanted to say LOL @ Fort Hood, not for the tragedy, for the blow it dealt pro-gun folks.

simply because of the comment made in regards to : "You never see shooting sprees in miltary bases, police stations, or gun shows - EVERYBODY HAS GUNS THERE!"

just lol.

and Decy wants to secretly be an American.

HAHAHA secretly want to be American, damn you busted me, I was just chowing down on some MacD's while burning a huge V8 engine in the car for no reason!! Nah I am happy to be british, not proud just happy.

I would like to come to America though, while I do generally conflict with people on here there are a lot things I like about America and would definitely visit when my son is older, I just wouldnt want to live there.

also I would get flamed to fucking hell and back for saying that Fort Hood comment

[nsmbfan]

yea, you only need to see about 1/4 of america anyways. it tesselates, naming the roads after the trees they knocked down, and shopping malls in every shape size and flavor. all selling goods from Taiwan.

if you're into culture, we haven't any. that being said i'd rather eat my Faux Burger from McDonalds than EVER eat cod fish... or any type of fish... no matter how many "chips" come with it.

[Decyferon]

I fucking hate fish and chips, I am not what you would call a normal british guy, I fucking hate football, I don't really drink, I have no interest in fish and chips, have no interest in getting slaughtered every friday and saturday and have a fight in the street. I am not patriotic at all about England the vast majority of this country is a shit hole - then again I also fucking despise MacDonalds.

I am not bothered about the culture of the US there are just a few places I would like to visit thats all

[angelofdeath]

just wanted to say LOL @ Fort Hood, not for the tragedy, for the blow it dealt pro-gun folks.

simply because of the comment made in regards to : "You never see shooting sprees in miltary bases, police stations, or gun shows - EVERYBODY HAS GUNS THERE!"

just lol.

and Decy wants to secretly be an American.

its funny you mention this... because the govt. doesnt even trust soldiers to carry their own arms on military bases, yet they are allowed to have any ordnance they want in the combat zone.

[shai hulud]

That's a no-brainer. It's called "naked self-interest on the behalf of the brass." There's an enemy to shoot at on the battlefield and lots of medals and promotions to be had.

But when you tell Private Pyle that he has to sleep with his gun and he gets his hands on some live ammo after 13 weeks of hell on earth, it's gonna get weird.

[lord_casek]

I fucking hate fish and chips, I am not what you would call a normal british guy, I fucking hate football, I don't really drink, I have no interest in fish and chips, have no interest in getting slaughtered every friday and saturday and have a fight in the street. I am not patriotic at all about England the vast majority of this country is a shit hole - then again I also fucking despise MacDonalds.

I am not bothered about the culture of the US there are just a few places I would like to visit thats all


I dig how you brits call it "MacDonald's".

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

damn man, we are having a hard enough time dealing with just guns now we have to look at crime in society as a whole and the psychological reasoning behind it.

There are so many factors, some people are just fucking lazy and don't see why they should work for the things they want, other people are born into it and no no difference and don't try and improve their situation, other people are just stuck in a bad place can't get a job that provides can't get help from anywhere and have no other option, other people are just unhinged and like to be violent and criminal in their actions.

To say guns don't change people isn't really true, SOME people get a self inflated sense of security or of power when they hold a gun just like the self inflated ego of someone using coke.

There is nothing different about a homosexual they don't choose who they are attracted to, they don't have an choice in the matter, a person always has a choice whether they commit a crime or not
Psychological reasoning is the basis for ANY decision dude...including whether or not to use a gun in a crime.

My point would be to change the factors then:
People are lazy. 1)liberals like to hand out un-lazy, hard working peoples money. This being the case, why would you work?! 2)media has people like that thinking everything is given to you in life, i.e. Paris Hilton, other privelaged reality TV young celebrities. Real life proves that hard work will get you what you want, but everyone in Hollywood has people thinking its handed out for free.

People are born into it. 1)Again, YOU CHOOSE how you want to live your life. Cant blame it on others. There are many people that come from nothing and hopeless situations to extreme success. 2)Everyone knows theres a better life, they just CHOOSE not to do what it takes to achieve it. (Loyal to 'da hood, yo!) If they dont try, they got nothin to complain about.

People are stuck in a bad place. 1)this is not an eternal position unless they allow it to be. Just do what it takes 2)external help can aid in getting out of ones circumstances, but dont rely on that ish-then you become lazy. 3) There is ALWAYS another option other than crime...

Unhinged violent people. 1)Most are or will be in prison. 2) These types are going to be violent no matter what, guns or not.

The amount of people that get enough of an ego boost with a gun in their hand to go commit crime is so miniscule it shouldnt even be factored in. I feel REAL GOOD and powerful when i hold guns; but i choose not commit a crime with one. Id like to, but I have self control.

-point being all of these things are still a choice influenced by other factors. Limit the factors.

SOMETHING happened to homosexuals that messed them up so much that they feel attracted to the same sex, whether it be uncle fondlin' or relating more to their mom growing up. They were not born that way, its not natural, its a confused/unfortunate psychological problem. They choose to be normal, or choose to blame it on whatever happened and accept it as "thats just the way i am. Accept me." instead of dealing with the underlying issues.
Same as criminals that use guns. Somthing happened- traumatic experience, violent homelife, whatever. They were not born to commit crime, its a mental issue, and those issues indeed have an influence on their choice to commit the crime.

too far fetched?

[FUCKMUNI]

just wanted to say LOL @ Fort Hood, not for the tragedy, for the blow it dealt pro-gun folks.

simply because of the comment made in regards to : "You never see shooting sprees in miltary bases, police stations, or gun shows - EVERYBODY HAS GUNS THERE!"

just lol.

and Decy wants to secretly be an American.

the victims at ft hood were not armed army policy is that in rear bases you cannot have weapons you have to draw it from the armory if you are going to the range.....mr alluh akbar was gunned down by a cop...if the victims were armed like at foward operating bases Mr hassan would have been pumped full of lead and the death count would be lower

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

America is a society of instant gratification...fast food, drive thru banks, credit cards...people gotta have it now! Why take 5 years to become successful when you can stay in the ghetto and get rich instantly by committing crimes?

[Decyferon]

Psychological reasoning is the basis for ANY decision dude...including whether or not to use a gun in a crime.

My point would be to change the factors then:
People are lazy. 1)liberals like to hand out un-lazy, hard working peoples money. This being the case, why would you work?! 2)media has people like that thinking everything is given to you in life, i.e. Paris Hilton, other privelaged reality TV young celebrities. Real life proves that hard work will get you what you want, but everyone in Hollywood has people thinking its handed out for free.

People are born into it. 1)Again, YOU CHOOSE how you want to live your life. Cant blame it on others. There are many people that come from nothing and hopeless situations to extreme success. 2)Everyone knows theres a better life, they just CHOOSE not to do what it takes to achieve it. (Loyal to 'da hood, yo!) If they dont try, they got nothin to complain about.

People are stuck in a bad place. 1)this is not an eternal position unless they allow it to be. Just do what it takes 2)external help can aid in getting out of ones circumstances, but dont rely on that ish-then you become lazy. 3) There is ALWAYS another option other than crime...

Unhinged violent people. 1)Most are or will be in prison. 2) These types are going to be violent no matter what, guns or not.

The amount of people that get enough of an ego boost with a gun in their hand to go commit crime is so miniscule it shouldnt even be factored in. I feel REAL GOOD and powerful when i hold guns; but i choose not commit a crime with one. Id like to, but I have self control.

-point being all of these things are still a choice influenced by other factors. Limit the factors.

SOMETHING happened to homosexuals that messed them up so much that they feel attracted to the same sex, whether it be uncle fondlin' or relating more to their mom growing up. They were not born that way, its not natural, its a confused/unfortunate psychological problem. They choose to be normal, or choose to blame it on whatever happened and accept it as "thats just the way i am. Accept me." instead of dealing with the underlying issues.
Same as criminals that use guns. Somthing happened- traumatic experience, violent homelife, whatever. They were not born to commit crime, its a mental issue, and those issues indeed have an influence on their choice to commit the crime.

too far fetched?

Whilst your comments about crime make sense, your comments about homosexuality are completely off base and have no bearing in reality. People are not turned homosexual it is how they are, there isn't a problem with them, there are no underlying issues. What is it with some many people being so homophobic or ignorant towards homosexuals on this site. I have know plenty of gay people and there is nothing wrong with them, they respect if your not gay, they will not make moves on you and they tend to be very nice genuine people.

To say it is unnatural is complete garbage, that is just some ingrained religious bullshit that says it is unnatural.

[angelofdeath]

^^ i think the guy was trying to say that you are not 'born' gay... you BECOME gay

[Decyferon]

and I was disagreeing with him, it isn't a life choice like being a smoker, it is something you have no control of and is within you from birth lol but this thread isn't about that

[nsmbfan]

no matter how many threads exist, the same topics keep showing up.

and the same stupid comments along with them.

but my cousin was born gay. gay as a handbag full of rainbows. we knew something was weird with Nathan when he was 4 or 5 years old. some people are just gay. some people are fat. mostly there's more fat people than gay people.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

cool. funny how all the same topics do come up!
Wrong thread, but religion aside, would not natural selection weed out homosexuals? they cant reproduce...
(reply Decy then lets can it-off topic-my bad);)

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Crap.
Im not homophobic-be gay i dont care. Just dont force it down my throat(no pun intended) and tell me i must accept it!
ok done.

Is there always legislation coming thru about guns? Like a constant flow? I never hear about it anymore

[Decyferon]

cool. funny how all the same topics do come up!
Wrong thread, but religion aside, would not natural selection weed out homosexuals? they cant reproduce...
(reply Decy then lets can it-off topic-my bad);)

just to reply then we can get on with the topic of shooting things!!

I don't think natural selection would weed out homosexuals, because there are plenty of hetrosexual people that cannot have babies or don't want to have babies. A gay person can reproduce and there are a lot of gay families that have children, just because the baby isn't carried or fertilised by one part of the couple doesn't mean they cannot reproduce.

Maybe in the animal world it would play more of a part because they don't have the same kind of technologies and science that we have.

[angelofdeath]

Crap.
Im not homophobic-be gay i dont care. Just dont force it down my throat(no pun intended) and tell me i must accept it!
ok done.

Is there always legislation coming thru about guns? Like a constant flow? I never hear about it anymore

i think the dems are to busy trying to cram healthcare down peoples throats, that guns are taking the back burner at present.

current gun legislation.
http://gunowners.org/111anatb.htm

the biggest threat is the gun registration bill that requires a permit for all hand guns and semi's even ones that are already owned. the license is revokable for any number of reasons, leading to confiscation of previously legally owned guns. the funny thing is in this bill you are required to lock your guns up and keep them unloaded, therefore making a loaded gun ready to repel any attack by an intruder or murderer ILLEGAL.

[angelofdeath]

also:

Gun rights, control groups find fight in health debate
FRIDAY, 21 AUGUST 2009 00:00
By Jordy Yager

A Virginia-based gun rights group has taken issue with the Democrat-led healthcare proposals, saying that the proposed plans could strip citizens of their rights to own a gun.

The Gun Owners of America group, which boasts more than 300,000 members, has been warning its ranks that the proposed healthcare legislation would compile the information of Americans into a government database. The group says that by using this data, the government could deem a citizen “medically unfit” to carry a gun.

“All of the proposals that we’re aware of would handle people’s health data that way,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of the group.

“And then you end up having a gazillion people lose their gun rights because of some medical record that someone doesn’t like, where they say, ‘Oh, that might be a danger to their self or others.’ No trial, no due process, just gone.”

The group also objects to Health and Human Services Secretary Katherine Sebelius, saying that she is prone to restrict gun rights.

“It wouldn’t be any problem for her to drag up some old discredited study from the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and say, ‘Guns are contagious and they’re a public health menace. This is another reason for someone to pay a surtax on their insurance because they’re causing all of that trouble in the emergency room,'” Pratt said. “That means that we have a dog in this fight.”

But Paul Helmke, president of the gun control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Pratt has the wrong linkage between gun rights and healthcare.

“One of the burdens on our healthcare system are the 70,000 to 80,000 people that suffer gunshot wounds every year and survive, ending up in wheelchairs, or showing up in emergency rooms without insurance after being shot. There is a connection [between healthcare and gun rights] but it’s not the connection that Larry Pratt is talking about. We as a society are paying a large portion of the cost for this gun violence.”

While Pratt said he has not expressly asked his group’s membership to brandish their firearms at political forums, he fully supports the demonstrators who were seen earlier this week with their licensed guns protesting outside the Phoenix convention center where Presdent Barack Obama was speaking.

Pratt said it helps draw attention to their objections of the healthcare bill and that it could help spur the public to not be shocked when citizens are seen carrying legal firearms in public.

“I think it’s been helpful,” Pratt said. “These fellas hit the jackpot with national publicity. Hopefully a discussion [will result] that will make it plain that good gun control is when a cop or a citizen has their gun in their holster. Just as we’d typically be unalarmed to see a cop with a piece on his hip, we shouldn’t have any different reaction to anybody else. A cop is just us with a uniform.”

But Helmke, a former mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., says that the presence of guns makes attendees at these forums nervous and it stifles political debate.

“Our system of government is built on a robust system of public debate and how much are you going to argue with a guy that’s carrying a gun?” Helmke said. “It’s a level of intimidation, a level of bullying that is inappropriate in our public discourse. You worry enough about people carrying signs on sticks; well, guns are a whole new level of escalation. It endangers people at these events.”

© 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp

[Decyferon]

“One of the burdens on our healthcare system are the 70,000 to 80,000 people that suffer gunshot wounds every year and survive, ending up in wheelchairs, or showing up in emergency rooms without insurance after being shot. There is a connection [between healthcare and gun rights] but it’s not the connection that Larry Pratt is talking about. We as a society are paying a large portion of the cost for this gun violence.”


that is a stupid amount of people getting injured by guns, I mean really stupid, doesn't that make you think that something needs to at least be looked at to stop that kind of drain on resources? I'm not saying take the guns away but that is a ridiculous number of people.

Also, if they have health records on the system then I don't see why that can't be used to determine if someone is fit to own a gun. mental health issues, depression there are lots of things that can factor in here not just for the safety of others but for the saftey of that person. To kill yourself with a gun is a hell of a lot easier than pretty much any other method of suicide. Again, I'm not saying take away the guns because there are responsible owners but anything to reduce that number of gunshot victims would help.

“It wouldn’t be any problem for her to drag up some old discredited study from the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and say, ‘Guns are contagious and they’re a public health menace. This is another reason for someone to pay a surtax on their insurance because they’re causing all of that trouble in the emergency room,'” Pratt said. “That means that we have a dog in this fight.”

I disagree with this surtax on gun owners because I admit the vast majority of the gun shot victims are through illegally used guns.

[angelofdeath]

nearly as many people are killed in car accidents each year.... just sayin'


it sounds good on the surface to take away the rights of individuals who are 'mentally unfit.'
then i thought about it.

who is doing this deciding who is fit to exercise their own rights? the government. most in the government think you have a mental problem just merely by wanting to own a gun in the first place! i dont believe rights should be taken away except through due process of law. this is basic anglo legal tradition. where as mental health records are checked and one section of the government can decide who can do what. one effect a mental health check has had on guns in the US is disarming veterans. GOA warned that if the mccarthy bill passed veterans would be denied gun rights. they sure were. why? because of mental health reasons. if you returned from theater and saw a psych doctor regardless of your actual condition... you are now unfit to own a gun, but you are still ok to kill for uncle sam.

a much better approach is to punish people who commit crimes, instead of punishing people who havent done a thing wrong without due proces.

[Decyferon]

no not the government, medical professionals.

Say you have someone with a history of bi-polar who maybe has attempted suicide in the past then I'm sorry they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, same as someone with mental health issues who may be prone to delusions, they also shouldn't be able to have a gun. It is more common sense than anything else.

I don't think just becaue someone has seen a psych doctor then that would make them unfit to own a gun unless the report from the doctor specifically made a point of saying that the individual may be a hazard or risk to themselves or others. I don'tt see a problem with a medical professional making that call, it isn't the government making the call.

You cannot compare people dying in car accidents to guns, Cars are a much more useful tool than a gun and the economy would be screwed if all of a sudden they decided to ban cars, nothing would happen in the economy if you banned guns. (before I get everyone jumping down my throat I'm not saying ban guns just comparing the usefulness of them to cars)

[Decyferon]

actually comparing guns and cars, there are medical conditions that mean you are not allowed to drive a vehicle, therefore there is no problem in not having a gun due to medical reasons

Also, with cars you are required to take a test get a license before you have the right to drive a car, if you abuse that right then you have it taken away, I don't see why guns cannot be treated in the same way. To own a gun like a car is not a right it is a priviledge

[angelofdeath]

no not the government, medical professionals.

ah yes. this eases my mind.
the govt. will set qualifications for the medical professionals and under which criteria someone is able to exercise a certain right. do you think they will allow just any old medical 'professional' to decide who can and cannot own a gun in their ultimate quest to ban all guns?

It is more common sense than anything else.

so, if we have strict mental health checks, and denial of rights without due process of law, will you then cease to support further gun control? if not, when will you stop supporting further gun control?
what about if this 'common sense' measure actually disarms more normal people because certain doctors can arbitrarily decide if you are fit to do certain things? what if we as a society decide that islam is a religion of destruction and violence and that anyone who practices it is a threat to society because after all muslims blow up people with bombs and kill civilians in their jihad. we must immediately register all muslims and pass legislation requiring mandatory mental health screening to see if they are fit to get a permit to practice this religion. its only common sense. we must keep an eye on these people.

this is denial of rights without DUE PROCESS.

if someone is really that much of a threat to society due to mental health reasons, they would of already committed a crime or will do so in the not so distant future, where they can be locked up behind bars forever and there will be no need to worry about their mental health to see if they can own a firearm. if this person is so nuts, a firearm is the least of your worries. i'd be more worried about him building an anfo bomb out of totally legal and available materials and blowing up a building with thousands of people in it. of course we must ban fertilizer and diesel fuel, because after all, this is just ridiculous that people can actually buy these bomb components! its just common sense. mandatory health screen checks for all people who own diesel vehicles that must refuel them! watch list! potential terrorists in diesel trucks!

I don't think just becaue someone has seen a psych doctor then that would make them unfit to own a gun unless the report from the doctor specifically made a point of saying that the individual may be a hazard or risk to themselves or others. I don'tt see a problem with a medical professional making that call, it isn't the government making the call.

if you look into the specifics of the bill and the controversy around it...you'll see that some 300K veterans were denied the right to bear arms. GOA made a move against this and eradicated the law.

the government is making the call. they are deciding the criteria in which a person cant own a gun. they then hire a medical professional, under their requirements, to screen people. do you think hitler would of hired a pro jew medical professional to do his mental health screens? get real.
if someone is a risk to themselves, that is their own problem. the only problem comes when they commit a crime. then you lock them up, but not until then. i am not in favor of jailing people or denying rights to people that have not committed a crime.

should we also, like the old days, reinstate the death penalty for suicide?

You cannot compare people dying in car accidents to guns, Cars are a much more useful tool than a gun and the economy would be screwed if all of a sudden they decided to ban cars, nothing would happen in the economy if you banned guns. (before I get everyone jumping down my throat I'm not saying ban guns just comparing the usefulness of them to cars)

cars are much more useful? in the US varied stats show that upwards of 2.5 million incidents occur each year where people use a gun to save a life. less than 10% is the gun actually ever fired to where the attacker is killed or injured
as many as 200,000 woman a year use a firearm to defend against sexual abuse! how are guns not an effective and 'useful' tool? civilians kill twice as many bad guys than do police, AND only with a 2% error rate compared to the 11% with law enforcement.
to say that guns are not 'useful' is astonishing to me.

who cares about the economy and if it was slow due to banned cars... its about rights, not the economy.

actually comparing guns and cars, there are medical conditions that mean you are not allowed to drive a vehicle, therefore there is no problem in not having a gun due to medical reasons

Also, with cars you are required to take a test get a license before you have the right to drive a car, if you abuse that right then you have it taken away, I don't see why guns cannot be treated in the same way. To own a gun like a car is not a right it is a priviledge

we are looking at two different issues.
the only reason one cannot drive in a car with certain medical conditions is because the roads are public. you have all the right in the world to be a blind nut ball and drive your car on your own private farm all you want. you dont need a license or permission.

you are talking about banning the mere ownership and possession of firearms or severly limiting it to bb guns. we havent even touched on the issue of having guns in public. this is a much more indepth subject. we are merely discussing ones right to purchase or own a gun due to mental health, not to carry the gun in public.

what other 'rights' do you consider privileges?

[Decyferon]

You have the guidelines for the professionals set in place beforehand, psychiatrists are already professionals and are able to make the decision, it isn't about government. If someone is suffering from mental issues and could be a danger to themselves or others why would you want them to own a gun, they wouldn't be allowed to drive, I don't see why they should be allowed a gun.

You have previously stated that there is open carry therefore the gun would be in a public space so just like cars it affects everyone and I don't believe they should be allowed one. If someone is a risk to themselves or others then it isn't just their problem that is a very selfish approach to take in my view.

I'm sorry but cars are more useful, you take away cars and other vehicles then how do the supplies get to shops? How do people get to work, vehicles are more useful than guns, I'm not saying guns aren't useful just not as useful to the bigger picture as a car.

How is owning a gun a right? It isn't, just like having a car isn't a right.

I didn't mention banning guns, I just suggested that people who are unfit to own a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one, that is common sense. I understand your viewpoint I really do, hell I even conceed to your points sometimes, but it seems to me that you feel that the be all and end all is that it is a natural right to own a gun no matter how much of a risk you may be to others or yourself and to me that is just plain negligent. So as long as someone hasn't commited a crime it is ok for them to own a gun even if they are a risk to themselves or others, so is it ok for someone with mental issues to walk into a gun shop and say they want a gun to massacre all their co-workers? but because no crime has yet been commited it is ok to sell them the gun, no of course not, they shouldn't be allowed one.

It is like Healthcare isn't a right it is a priviledge, and I am priviledged in that I have free healthcare, it isn't my right to have it.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

word up angelofdeath. The medical professionals that decide would most likely be on a govt. appointed "committee" of sorts..

however decy has a point about not allowing psychologically toubled people to own guns, or at least be reviewed...its whos doing the reviewing like you said...but currently anyone who purchases a gun legally already has a federal background check before leaving with the gun, which leads me to believe that that this legislation is just another step to allowing more govt. control of "decisions" on who is "capable" (in this case medically) of owning a gun.

Pass this and expect the next one to limit who gets guns even more, until eventually a piece of legislation says 'just let the govt. have guns.(like UK) The general public obviously is not responsible enough'---using the 70-80,000 figure as proof to back it up.

[Decyferon]

We can own guns in the UK, it isn't just the government. Just the vast majority of people don't believe it to be necessary. Farmers own shotguns, people hunt, people go shooting as a hobby. I don't think the decision should be made by government, it should be an independent panel of medical/psychiatrict specialists. With a due procedure in place for appealing against decisions.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

If people havnt committed any sort of crime ever, but have a mental issue, does putting a gun in their hand(which is a right-to bear arms-in the US contitution) automatically make them a threat to society?

Its a tough question, because we dont know. And we would all feel horrible if they did snap and massecre their coworkers. But what if they dont? should we deny them their right to own a gun to go hunt with their coworkers?

If we had no right to guns in the constitution and the govt. later amended it to allow us that right, THEN it would be a privelage.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

yeah that seems to be cool decyferon.

[Decyferon]

I would also go on to say that as well as it being an independent body of medical specialists they should also have some gun specialists on the panel to make the decision, people with experience of weapons, maybe ex military or something along those lines.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

yeah i dont think any gunowner would have an issue with that proposal

[DPMS556]

debating with a liberal from the UK about U.S gun rights is pointless.. Its possible he has deep rooted anger from when his country got served by a bunch of farmers in 1776

[Decyferon]

and comments like that just make you look like an ignorant fool, I am not patriotic, I couldn't give a shit about American independence, I couldn't give a toss about the British Empire. I am merely discussing issues surrounding guns with like minded adults, why would I care about something that happened so long ago??

thats like saying I hate germans because of the second world war, compplete rubbish, I am married to a german.

The fact is that it is something that happened in the past and is totally irrelevant now, just like I think that a document written so long ago wihch may have been relevant at the time, may no longer be as relevant as it once was.

[angelofdeath]

You have the guidelines for the professionals set in place beforehand, psychiatrists are already professionals and are able to make the decision, it isn't about government. If someone is suffering from mental issues and could be a danger to themselves or others why would you want them to own a gun, they wouldn't be allowed to drive, I don't see why they should be allowed a gun.

it isnt about the government, eh? then why do you even need them in the equation to begin with. why not just let patients and doctors decide if they are fit to own a gun and see how this goes over. the government is the ultimate decider in the situation. they are making the rules. they are appointing doctors. they letting a third party decide what rights you have without due process of law. do you not get this? it is literally no different than saying....'hey, that guy that was just ran over on the highway... it wasnt me! it was the car that ran him over! see! i had nothing to do with it!'
do you really believe that logic?

if someone has mental issues to where they are an endangerment to society, then why in the bloody blue blazes are they NOT LOCKED THE FUCK UP!?!

all this mental health check stuff is about control. it is about infringement of a persons right to obtain a weapon. this mental health check.. how long does it take?
what about the person who has threats to their life. go to buy a gun to defend an imminent threat, yet, they have to wait 7 days to obtain a legal means of self defense, and they are killed on the 6th day of the wait. that is blood on the governments hands! what about the people who support magazine capacity restrictions. after all, no one needs more than 1 shot! my gosh! what about where one shot wont do the job? what if the restriction is 5, and there are 6 attackers? do you realize that you are actually in support of incrementally denying people the capacity to defend themselves!?

You have previously stated that there is open carry therefore the gun would be in a public space so just like cars it affects everyone and I don't believe they should be allowed one. If someone is a risk to themselves or others then it isn't just their problem that is a very selfish approach to take in my view.

if you learned anything from the open carry discussion, is that in close to 20 states, open carry is technically legal. however it is essentially made ILLEGAL by means of enforcement and harassment. it is interesting to note... how many mentally incompetent people are going out massacring people from obtaining those easy to get american weapons? ever notice that in the state (vermont) with NO requirements for carrying a gun, no license, no permit, no nothing, that this never HAPPENS?

i'll also conclude that on the myriad of points i made in my argument above, in which you didnt respond, that you cannot refute therefore you conceded the debate, and simply resorted back to onerous unfounded support of gun control measures.

what about all those people that walk down the side of the road/highway with cars flying past them. why arent all the cars crashing into the pedestrians all the time? because people do the killing. (accidents aside) its the same with concealed carry permit holders. in states with shall issue concealed carry, people walk by people armed and trained every day. and these people are not the ones aggressing.

How is owning a gun a right? It isn't, just like having a car isn't a right.

you have a skewed view of rights. you have essentially the right to do anything you want, own anything want, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of someone else by means of aggression. my owning a gun doesnt hurt you in any way at all. if you shoot you for no reason, then you can take away my gun, because i'll be in jail getting a shot of lethal injection.
sure you have a right own a car. as long as you attain it through free exchange, you have a right to own a car. i dont really know what you are talking about. perhaps you need a good solid foundation on the meaning of rights and privileges.

I didn't mention banning guns, I just suggested that people who are unfit to own a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one, that is common sense. I understand your viewpoint I really do, hell I even conceed to your points sometimes, but it seems to me that you feel that the be all and end all is that it is a natural right to own a gun no matter how much of a risk you may be to others or yourself and to me that is just plain negligent. So as long as someone hasn't commited a crime it is ok for them to own a gun even if they are a risk to themselves or others, so is it ok for someone with mental issues to walk into a gun shop and say they want a gun to massacre all their co-workers? but because no crime has yet been commited it is ok to sell them the gun, no of course not, they shouldn't be allowed one.

unfit to own a gun. how do you know they are unfit if they havent committed a crime?
if you want to get REAL specific, lets look at who is 'unfit' to own a gun.
if you are be raped, murdered or robbed in america, statistically, it is more than likely going to be done by the proverbial 22.7 year old black or latino 5'8" male. given their low make up of the overall population, they commit MOST of the crime. why not lock up these people without due process? just round them up. deny them of all their rights. elect a committee of doctors to check them out. book them. throw away the key. let them out when they turn 40. do you realize this is the same logic you are using to enact infringements on arms ownership? why target mental cases that make up an insignificant portion of the population... lets really stop crime! lock up the people i just told you about. its the same thing about how people are more scared of snakes and spiders, but 40K people a year are killed by cars in the US! how many are killed by snakes again? i think the number is very rarely over 100. its a fear thing, not a 'lets fix the problem' thing.

as for your scenario in the gun shop.... with the exception of govt regulations on ownership of guns, it is illegal to 'discriminate.' if arms ownership is legal and gun shop owners discriminated against selling guns to all blacks on grounds of racism, they would be charged with racism and sued. yet the 22.7 year old black or latino guy is more likely to commit a crime than anyone.
but why couldnt gun stores discriminate against purchasers? most gun shops cater to the law enforcement crowd anyway... do you really think that shops like this would want to sell a gun to a frothing at the mouth looney ball?
which takes us back to my first point... if these nut jobs are such a danger to society, why arent they locked up!?!? if you can prove to me that a person will shoot whoever they see on sight next time they go outside, this person shouldnt just be denied the right to own a gun, he should be locked up in jail with the key thrown away.

do you care to comment on my bomb scenario from my other post?
where do you draw the line? should be ban all things dangerous to peoples health and well being including but definitely not limited to chocolate, fat, cholesterol, cookies, bungee jumping, sky diving, driving, rock climbing, hand gliding, swimming, charcoal grilling?
why focus on guns, why not focus on other inanimate objects that need to be mixed with human labor and intellegence to be lethal? why not focus on banning house hold products that can be assembled to make bombs that kill thousands instead of focusing on a firearm?

am i in favor of arming psychopaths? im in favor of due process, non pre emptive jailing or denying of rights to citizens, and am in favor of any infringements on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms to defend their lives liberty property and sacred honor. given the super small number of psychopaths that mass murder citizens with firearms, i believe that the mental background checks are another notch in the ever tightening belt of tyranny and abolition of private gun ownership. no gun control zealot will answer me when they think enough gun control is enough and will not promise me that they will cease pushing for more controls once they get the current idea passed. it is a never ending battle for gun confiscation from private citizens with no end until this goal is achieved or until americans begin shooting the zealots with the combat triad.

the legal and moral un-infringed defensive use of firearms by far out weighs the insignificant fear of mental cases owning a gun.

[Decyferon]

Sorry I didn't address all points AOD, for some reason everytime I try to break down the quotes in replies like you do it never works and I sometimes forget all the points I am trying to make and for that I apologise.

The bomb scenario - if someone walked into a shop and tried to buy loads and loads of Hydrogen Peroxide I would expect the shop to question the person on why they are buying such a huge volume of something that could be turned into a bomb. Maybe for items like that in that quantity they should also have to go through the wait period to make sure everything was fine for them to buy it, I don't know I am just playing devils advocate in these discussion because otherwise it would be pretty much a one sided discussion with everyone agreeing about guns, I try to put the other side of the arguement. But yea if someone wants to hurt someone they can do it with any number of implements where there is a will there is a way, it just happens to be very easy to do with a gun.

The Government gave you the right to own a gun, the government in essence can take away that right as well. The consititution is just a government document really. We live in a world where we are governed by our governments, they factor into pretty much everything, I don't neccesarily agree with that but that is the world we live in.

So are you saying that if I walked into a gun shop and stated I wanted to kill a load of people then it is fine to sell me the gun because I havent killed anyone yet? just interested to know. obviously the gun shop owner wouldn't want to but like you said, he can't discriminate so he has to sell it to me.

The issue of cars - ok I concede you have a right to buy a car yes but you have to be tested and pass the test, you have a license that will get revoked if you misuse that vehicle, i think the same should be said of guns. You crash the car you have to make a report, why not the same for guns, you use the gun you make a report, I dunno i find it hard to compare the 2 as they are such different items. (and for the record I think it would be stupid if you had to make a report every time you discharged your gun, but the police have to do it why not normal citizens)

As for the discrimination aspect, I did state that if someone had mental problems then they should be judged whether or not they are suitable to own a gun, I am sorry but I don't believe that you should just be able to pick one up, I didn't state that everyone should go through the process of a panel of specialists , but if during the 7 day check period you mentioned it flagged something in their medical history that may cause an isse then it should be addressed by an independent panel to make a decision on this. Just because someone is Black or Latino doesn't mean they can't have the gun, but if something flagged up then I think it should be investigated further, say a history of violent crime, or as i said before mental health issues.

Like I have said before I don't believe it is a problem for responsible people to own guns, I really don't, I would just rather there were checks to ensure that they were responsible and mentally fit to own the gun before being given them, rather than give them the gun and see if they are responsible in retrospect.

I agree with the mental isue being in a vast minority, it was just an example.

I find your arguement about the mentally disturbed person to contradict your other points, you say if they are such a danger then lock them up, but they haven't commited a crime. I am not saying these people don't deserve their freedom to not be locked away what I am saying is they may have their right to own a gun taken away because they are unfit to own one.

Obviously we will never agree on this subject you are for the complete ownership of gunno matter whether someone is fit to own one or not, I am in favour of stricter regualtions of guns and gun ownership. My opinion won't change and neither will yours.

To me there is a duty in place for gun shop owners and the governement to ensure that dangerous items like guns should be owned by responsible people, just like a car which is a dagerous item, you fail your test you are not allowed to use your car. People have a right to own a gun, people also have the right to live in safety without guns being put in the hands of people who arre going to abuse them, you have nothing to worry about as you are a responsible gun owner.

Rather than focusing on responsible legal gun owners my issues are with irresponsible gun owners and illegal guns in the hands of criminals, it is very clear you would not have such a huge volume of gun crime in america had guns been harder to get hold of, the common everyday thief wouldnt go through the hassles to get a gun if they weren't so readily available.

[angelofdeath]

The Government gave you the right to own a gun, the government in essence can take away that right as well. The consititution is just a government document really. We live in a world where we are governed by our governments, they factor into pretty much everything, I don't neccesarily agree with that but that is the world we live in.

the government gave NO ONE a right to own a gun. i realize you are probably talking about the second amendment. the constitution of the US is based on natural rights theory. this means that you were born with all your rights. born a free man. the bill of rights, in this instance the second amendment, merely recognized this inalienable right to self defense, and said that the federal government would never infringe on this right.

citizens created the states, they created the federal government. if we didnt have a power, how could we of given the federal government any power?

forget about government for a second. so you are trying to tell me that if in a state of nature, absent government, a man doesnt have a right to defend himself by what ever means necessary? we need a government to tell us that we can defend ourselves? forget about the constitution, it doesnt mean anything anyway. we stopped following it years ago. without any second amendment everyone still has a right to defend themselves by any means necessary. the only thing government can do is either protect it (which is has done a really awful job at) or infringe on the right to own a firearm.

So are you saying that if I walked into a gun shop and stated I wanted to kill a load of people then it is fine to sell me the gun because I havent killed anyone yet? just interested to know. obviously the gun shop owner wouldn't want to but like you said, he can't discriminate so he has to sell it to me.

this is an entirely different debate. we say we are going to kill people all the time. 'i'll kill you, you bastard!' some people NEED to be killed. if someone is violating someones life liberty or property, they should be dealt with accordingly. currently, to my knowledge FFL holders can discriminate if any particular threats are made.
but the real question is... is incitement a crime? where do we draw the line with selling things to people who say certain things? what if the same scenario happened in a grocery store. say the guy told a cashier he wanted to buy a gallon of bleach to kill his wife.
maybe this could be dealt with another way... maybe if the threat is serious the authorities should be notified.

how do we know the person is serious or if the person is lying?
are we to extend it to people who sold things to people, without the person making an actual threat known? say, someone bought a bottle of lye drain cleaner. dumped down his daughters throat. killed her. is the grocery store owner that sold the lye responsible for anything?


The issue of cars - ok I concede you have a right to buy a car yes but you have to be tested and pass the test, you have a license that will get revoked if you misuse that vehicle, i think the same should be said of guns. You crash the car you have to make a report, why not the same for guns, you use the gun you make a report, I dunno i find it hard to compare the 2 as they are such different items. (and for the record I think it would be stupid if you had to make a report every time you discharged your gun, but the police have to do it why not normal citizens)

if you dont drive on public roads, you dont need an inspection, license, or any of that.
you are trying to equate driving a car on a public road with the mere act of purchasing or ownership of a gun on PRIVATE PROPERTY. if you own a car and drive it on your property, you need no license, etc etc.

make a report? this is just silly. insane gun control measure. when you crash a car, you do make a report, if you damage something. you are liable. when you shoot a firearm, you are responsible for the outcome. as is said.. there is a lawyer at the other end of every round you fire.

As for the discrimination aspect, I did state that if someone had mental problems then they should be judged whether or not they are suitable to own a gun, I am sorry but I don't believe that you should just be able to pick one up, I didn't state that everyone should go through the process of a panel of specialists , but if during the 7 day check period you mentioned it flagged something in their medical history that may cause an isse then it should be addressed by an independent panel to make a decision on this. Just because someone is Black or Latino doesn't mean they can't have the gun, but if something flagged up then I think it should be investigated further, say a history of violent crime, or as i said before mental health issues.

your concern is that the mental case will cause damage to peoples property or inflict casualties on the populace, correct? my point was that why focus on the insignificant mental case, and if you really wanted to try to curb crime, why not preemptively in prison everyone that is likely to commit a crime. you are basing your reason for denying a 'mental' case ownership of a firearm on likelihood, by extension you should imprison the group most likely to commit a crime.

of course this is absurd. you dont throw anyone in jail preemptively, you throw them in jail after they commit a crime. this is due process.

atleast you are ok with denying the right of someone to defend themselves the right to obtain a firearm. those people who get killed due to government bureaucratic wait lists.... that is blood on YOUR hands as well.

Like I have said before I don't believe it is a problem for responsible people to own guns, I really don't, I would just rather there were checks to ensure that they were responsible and mentally fit to own the gun before being given them, rather than give them the gun and see if they are responsible in retrospect.

do you also favor people being checked out to see if they are responsible to have children, own a house, cook, work, go to church or to speak freely? i mean, all these things could easily damage society. maybe we just need some sensible regulation on this free activity.

it is insane to me that you said in another thread that in another thread you are for maximum personal freedom, yet i have yet to see one area where you advocate freedom instead of government control.

I find your arguement about the mentally disturbed person to contradict your other points, you say if they are such a danger then lock them up, but they haven't commited a crime. I am not saying these people don't deserve their freedom to not be locked away what I am saying is they may have their right to own a gun taken away because they are unfit to own one.

it was not a real argument, it was a line to show fallacy in your logic. that if you want to really prevent crime, imprison the people doing, not try to find some boogeyman in the form of mentally incapable retards mass murdering millions of citizens in the US. of course, no one should be locked up unless they have committed a crime.

but if you can find enough proof that someone cant own a gun, then that person must really be a nut case. there must be some sort of condition that proofs without the shadow of a doubt that when that person walks out of the govt controlled health board doctor determining who can own a gun and who cant, will kill someone by whatever means necessary. if you can really prove this, then yes, that person should be locked up. however, i believe this is pretty hard to prove. a person will use whatever means necessary to kill someone, including rocks or bare hands... a gun is the least of your worries. perhaps we should ban water and bodies of water, because after all, that person my drown someone!


To me there is a duty in place for gun shop owners and the governement to ensure that dangerous items like guns should be owned by responsible people, just like a car which is a dagerous item, you fail your test you are not allowed to use your car. People have a right to own a gun, people also have the right to live in safety without guns being put in the hands of people who arre going to abuse them, you have nothing to worry about as you are a responsible gun owner.

as i said previously, mere ownership and use of a gun on private property is an entirely different thing than a car on a public road. if you would like to extend the analogy to carrying firearms on public property, we can. but it is an entirely different area. as of right now, it is technically legal for people to carry firearms, with permission on private property. if you own the property, of course you must give yourself permission to carry a gun.

the problem with public property. everyone technically 'owns' a peice. it creates a huge conflict. smart lefty anti gun types who are scared of evil right wing mentally handicapped nut jobs want to tell the other party what to do. so of course the government decides what is 'best'
however you cant deduce that something is 'best' because the conclusion wasnt a result of free exchange and ideas. it was a result of the govt. entity telling people what to do.
hence you see the conflicts associated with public property. if we had private EVERYTHING property owners would be free to allow carrying of firearms or disallow it all they want. if you dont like the policy, let the property owner know, but other wise, take a hike. its not your jurisdiction.

Rather than focusing on responsible legal gun owners my issues are with irresponsible gun owners and illegal guns in the hands of criminals, it is very clear you would not have such a huge volume of gun crime in america had guns been harder to get hold of, the common everyday thief wouldnt go through the hassles to get a gun if they weren't so readily available.

the common every day thief doesnt use FFL's to obtain weapons. they get them from the trucks of cars. by instituting the ffl system, you create a black market, with profits to be made running guns to malcontents. as long as you have this system, you will have people set to use a gun in a violent way getting guns, just like you will have people consuming drugs.

we dont live in the garden of eden. no one is perfect. the only thing we can hope for is a government that will not infringe on our rights to defend ourselves from vermin. if i feel that is best done with an ar15 and feel i need, 8000 rounds to feel safe, so be it. if you like base ball bats to defend yourself and hate guns, so be it. as the pro choicers say....'dont want an abortion dont have one!' so it is with guns... dont like guns? dont buy one. otherwise, mind your own business.

[Decyferon]

ok taking away everything about government, I have stated before that I would do anything to defend my family and would kill to defend them, I am not denying the right to defend oneself, but again it is completely hypothetical, what i was takling about were people unsuitable to own a gun in modern day society, thre is a difference between the 2 situations. I am not denying the responsible ownership of guns, i have said this many times.

If someone walks into a shop and states they want to kill someone whether in jest or serious that should raise flags with the owner and some degree of background checking (like that that is already in place) should be done, if anything comes up during that check then yes further investigation should be needed.

People are checked for jobs, Teachers have background checks ran on them, anyone who works with children has background checks done on them, I recently spoke to my council about arranging legal walls and the guy suggested I run sme workshops for kids, buut would need a background check done, so I refused. People are checked (albeit finacially) when they want to buy a house, you try buying a house with cash, you will get checked for money laundering.

If someone is a nut job and they are a danger to themselves or the public then yes they should be taken out of the public realm and given treatment for their issues, this happens all the time when people get sectioned into mental institutions.

I am for maximum personal freedom, however, if that freedom is going to cause problems in society, such as an armed mental person then there needs to be measures in place to combat against this situation (in the rare cases). It is the same thing as you have the right to have your beliefs, say if your a muslim extremist, you have the right to feel that you want the west to die in a blaze of gods wrath however if you start acting on this, such as arming yourself then the line is crossed, I would rather these sort of things be stopped before the deaths of innocents rather than after. The same can bve said of the homophobe who all of a sudden decides to start inciting homopbic violence against gays then that should be stopped, he may not have actually done it, but if he is actually inciting people and encouraging people to kill gays then yea I think he should be prosecuted.

While you don't need a licenese to have a car on PRIVATE property you do inthe public domain. If you own a gun and it stays in your home and is never in the public then yea why need a license, if you are going to have it in public then yes stricter measures such as testng and license and accountability comes into play.

A lot of the guns in the hands of criminals have been stolen from legal gun owners, that is the point I was making, most normal criminals wouldnt get guns because for most crimes you don't need them (I have used the UK criminal example before) however due to the easy access of just breaking into a house and taking the guns, a lot more criminals are armed and these weapons are used in crimes unnessecarily.

As for saying the blood is on my hands if someone dies while waiting the 7 days to get their firearm so be it, I don't care. I would rather the checks be performed than just allowing anyone to own a gun, say no background checks are done and you just hand over the gun when they give you the cash, they then leave the store and shoot 5 people then in the same vein as your thinking I would say the blood is on your hands for just freely allowing the handing out of guns with no checks.

Remember I have said I don't hate guns, I just think there is a lot of issues surrounding them, you know I have stated many times I would own a gun if I lived in the US. I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership I would just like the checks to be in place beforehand to determine the responsibility of the person than in retrospect.

[angelofdeath]

People are checked for jobs, Teachers have background checks ran on them, anyone who works with children has background checks done on them, I recently spoke to my council about arranging legal walls and the guy suggested I run sme workshops for kids, buut would need a background check done, so I refused. People are checked (albeit finacially) when they want to buy a house, you try buying a house with cash, you will get checked for money laundering.

im for a free society with government only intervening to protect life liberty and property from physical aggression. understand this first, then understand where my arguments come from.
these situations you describe, background checks for jobs, teachers, etc. are legitimate if a private company does so as this is freedom of association. you have the right to associate with whom you want, bar none. this would obviously extend to a company hiring who they want, setting certain requirements. however what role does the government play in mandating this? in my view they legitimately play no role. if a company wants to hire someone that is a felon, fine. if another company doesnt, who cares. it is wrong for the government to intervene into the choices and contracts of others in these situations.

by extension, if a gun shop owner refuses to sell a person a gun in a free society, for whatever reason, so be it. the government should not be setting a standard on transactions of free individuals, especially on inanimate objects.

as for the government doing a back ground check on the source of your cash, this is a total trampling of freedom. no one has a right to know where the the hell you got your money from.

I am for maximum personal freedom, however, if that freedom is going to cause problems in society, such as an armed mental person then there needs to be measures in place to combat against this situation (in the rare cases). It is the same thing as you have the right to have your beliefs, say if your a muslim extremist, you have the right to feel that you want the west to die in a blaze of gods wrath however if you start acting on this, such as arming yourself then the line is crossed, I would rather these sort of things be stopped before the deaths of innocents rather than after. The same can bve said of the homophobe who all of a sudden decides to start inciting homopbic violence against gays then that should be stopped, he may not have actually done it, but if he is actually inciting people and encouraging people to kill gays then yea I think he should be prosecuted.

how orwellian. you are for maximum personal freedom, YET i have yet to see an instance where you favor the individual choice over the force of the state. gun ownership doesnt cause any problems. people cause problems. guns are tools, objects.

i can prove to you that guns dont cause problems in society, by the simple fact that if invite you to my house. i'll sit a loaded gun on the coffee table. you can see that unless someone picks up that gun and attempts to use it in an aggressive manner, that there is no harm done at all.

the mere act of arming ones self is not aggression. aggression is being beaten and robbed. aggression is murder. owning an inanimate object is not an evil in itself or 'mala in se.' only mala in se crimes should be criminalized. crimes with a victim.

your recipe of freedom except where society experiences negative affects is a recipe for totalitarianism. we will have to abolish all manners of activities. drugs will have to be banned all together, even 'legal' ones. alcohol... banned. smoking... banned. eating fast food... banned.

the muslim extremist has it within his rights to own whatever he chooses. after he attempts to commit acts of violence against people... then you shoot him, lock him up, etc.

While you don't need a licenese to have a car on PRIVATE property you do inthe public domain. If you own a gun and it stays in your home and is never in the public then yea why need a license, if you are going to have it in public then yes stricter measures such as testng and license and accountability comes into play.


ok, sounds good. will you stop supporting and arguing for gun control now? i have conceded. if you lift all restrictions for gun ownership and allow people to own what they want, and keep it on their own private property or on property they have permission to be on.... i'll stop arguing for any further gun freedom. no more background checks, no more licenses, no more waits, no more nothing. i give someone the cash, i get the gun, it stays on my property. done deal.


As for saying the blood is on my hands if someone dies while waiting the 7 days to get their firearm so be it, I don't care. I would rather the checks be performed than just allowing anyone to own a gun, say no background checks are done and you just hand over the gun when they give you the cash, they then leave the store and shoot 5 people then in the same vein as your thinking I would say the blood is on your hands for just freely allowing the handing out of guns with no checks.

the blood is not on my hands because i didnt pull the trigger. am i responsible for someone's death if i give them a bottle of bleach and they drink it or make someone else drink it? c'mon. you are trying to equate someone selling a gun to someone with someone who is legally restricting the right of someone to defend themselves by some arbitrary government nuissance of a wait list?

two different worlds i guess. totalitarian mindset (called liberal these days) and the libertarian free society model.

[El Mamerro]

I always feel like chiming in for a bit in here but discussions get so kilometric it's almost impossible to address everything. However I do want to say something about this:

cars are much more useful? in the US varied stats show that upwards of 2.5 million incidents occur each year where people use a gun to save a life. less than 10% is the gun actually ever fired to where the attacker is killed or injured
as many as 200,000 woman a year use a firearm to defend against sexual abuse! how are guns not an effective and 'useful' tool? civilians kill twice as many bad guys than do police, AND only with a 2% error rate compared to the 11% with law enforcement.
to say that guns are not 'useful' is astonishing to me.


Nobody's saying guns aren't useful, the argument there was whether cars are more useful than guns, and you'd be retarded to say they're not. By your own stats, guns are being useful to save lives for less than 1% of the population, and that's IF those 2.5 million cases involved different individuals. I don't have to get into specifics on how much more useful cars are than that and how much more influential they are in our lives.

And now for a rant.

I'd like to address the focus on extreme situations here. Mentally unfit people going on shooting sprees is not, and shouldn't be, the focus of this discussion, it's not the main problem with guns in the US. The problem, as I see it, is the gun mentality and perception in America, which compounds the issue in much more subtle ways than just being about massacres. If every single person in America owned guns, massacres would still happen via tools that render guns obsolete (like bombs). The Ft. Hood tragedy proves that the psychological deterrent of gun presence is not enough to keep people from committing atrocities. Even if guns were locked away in that particular case, logic would say no one is stupid enough to go on a rampage in an Army base, but it still happened. I don't buy for a second that if every single citizen had a gun, people would stop doing nasty things to each other in America. I think the situation would become worse.

Allusions to Switzerland and the gun culture there pop up often in this discussion. The problem with that comparison is that the Swiss are Swiss, and Americans are Americans. The cultural perception and image of guns that a person growing up in America forms is vastly different than that of someone who grows up in Switzerland. Their perception of guns is pure, and adheres greatly to the values espoused by AOD and others in this thread, and they are honorable values indeed. On a fundamental level, I agree with you guys and the constitutional right to own guns wholeheartedly.

But those are not the values ingrained in the majority of Americans today. Those were lost long ago, and have been replaced by the image of guns as an instrument of power and control, a switch that decides life/death with such totality it represents the purest form of winning and losing, and Americans are about fucking WINNING. Hand everyone in this country a gun, and watch how it becomes a society so paranoid, so distrustful of each other, and so full of misguided self-superiority, collapse into chaos would be imminent.

I firmly believe that the average American, upon possessing a gun, will experience a shift in their self-perception and their relationship to others that will lean towards the negative and the antisocial, even with the beneficial aspects of confidence about self-defense. This would clearly affect mentally unfit people even more... having a gun may not push a half-crazy person to commit a massacre, but it may affect their psychology and make their antisocial behavior feel more defensible and secure. In a country like Switzerland, with traditional gun culture values, this would not be that much of a problem.

This is my main problem with advocating the full arming of a populace that is not culturally mature enough to handle being armed. As much as I agree 100% with the right for everyone to be armed on a fundamental basis, I cannot responsibly recommend that everyone follow this advice. It would fuck things up considerably, in my view.

Deep down I feel that the right approach to this complex problem is for a person wishing to be armed to somehow prove he/she can handle the responsibility. How to pull this off, I'm not sure. I agree that a government-run program would be inefficient and restrictive. But I do believe in science, and if a way could be devised for an independent panel of scientists, working with factual data, to establish a reasonable set of empirical parameters that could determine a person's capability to possess a gun, I would be all for it. As much as this would make people throw hissy fits about who gets to decide this and how, I do believe that the mind is quantifiable and observable from a neutral standpoint, so that a fully objective decision, free of moral coloring, can be made. Clearly, we don't quite have the ability to do that just yet, but it's a looming possibility in the future.

In the meantime, go ahead, exercise your freedom and get a gun. I just wouldn't necessarily recommend it, cause it might turn you into an asshole.

[lord_casek]

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

If we restricted everything based on "might do this or that" then we would ALL be living in a cell.
"Based on Code457938y45, and your recent comment overheard by your disgruntled neighbor about disliking your boss, you are deemed a high risk individual at your job and in the rest of society for that matter, based on scientific probabilities. You hereby must take a year of counseling and in no way ever say the word 'gun' and 'office' in the same sentence."
Where would it end?

Get real here. No one is perfect, thus no system designed by any human is perfect. Common sense went out the window decades ago, but really. Prosecute the rare cases of firearms in crimes, and continue to. Regulating things more will make the system/people more responsible and better? Hardly. The only thing further regulations would do is lead to more regulations because crime will never disappear.

To think people will never commit crime is, again, a dreamland. Id love that to be the case, but reality is much differant than this far fetched fantasy of everything being beautiful and perfect. Bummer.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

sidenote, but related to viewpoints:



DIVORCE AGREEMENT

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.



Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.



You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell(You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P. S. S. And we won't have to press 1 for English.

[angelofdeath]

I'd like to address the focus on extreme situations here. Mentally unfit people going on shooting sprees is not, and shouldn't be, the focus of this discussion, it's not the main problem with guns in the US. The problem, as I see it, is the gun mentality and perception in America, which compounds the issue in much more subtle ways than just being about massacres. If every single person in America owned guns, massacres would still happen via tools that render guns obsolete (like bombs). The Ft. Hood tragedy proves that the psychological deterrent of gun presence is not enough to keep people from committing atrocities. Even if guns were locked away in that particular case, logic would say no one is stupid enough to go on a rampage in an Army base, but it still happened. I don't buy for a second that if every single citizen had a gun, people would stop doing nasty things to each other in America. I think the situation would become worse.


Their perception of guns is pure, and adheres greatly to the values espoused by AOD and others in this thread, and they are honorable values indeed. On a fundamental level, I agree with you guys and the constitutional right to own guns wholeheartedly.


I firmly believe that the average American, upon possessing a gun, will experience a shift in their self-perception and their relationship to others that will lean towards the negative and the antisocial, even with the beneficial aspects of confidence about self-defense.


In the meantime, go ahead, exercise your freedom and get a gun. I just wouldn't necessarily recommend it, cause it might turn you into an asshole.


nice post.
i'd like to compliment you on having the ability to fear government control not really want to criminalize gun ownership, yet be able to criticize it. much respect.
i criticize all sorts of things, that i think are wrong, immoral or stupid, but i dont support criminalization of things like drug use, alcohol use, etc.

i'd like to point out, that i do not for one second think that a utopia would be achievable in the US and no crime would exist if people armed themselves. we do not live in the garden of eden. people will always kill people. glossing over the fact that trained soldiers at fort hood that are disarmed not being able to stand up to a mad gun man, is a cop out. seriously. soldiers were not armed.
when pro gunners make statements like..'you dont see mass murder at army bases or police stations...' its more of general statement. its not a literal statement. few things NEVER happen. there are exceptions to everything. as i said, we are NOT in the garden of eden. even if soldiers were armed at fort hood, you will still get a crazy guy on rare occasions doing this sort of crap. but its safe to say more mass killings happen with known disarmed victims than with known armed victims. more crime takes place in areas where a means of self defense is illegal than in states where it is respected.

one of the main points you are making, i have to take issue with. it think it might be safe to say some 'gang banger graff hipster types' might get a big head if they own a gun. but im uncomfortable in saying that the average american will get a big head if they own a gun. the lawful gun owning crowd are made up of the most decent people i have associated with. i feel i am either the sole reason for or a contributor to the reasons why atleast 5 people i personally know and are close to have bought weapons. i am responsible 100% for atleast 1 person getting a concealed carry license in a very non gun friendly state. these people experienced no ego trips, no inflated heads and if anything mellowed out and became less of the wild people they once were.

but you are right, america doesnt have the gun culture it once had. much to america's loss. rural america still has a gun culture, but most of america's citizens live in huge cities that have just about forbidden gun ownership.

i dont have answers. i do know that giving people a means to defend themselves is the only means available right now. crime free utopia will never exist. it never has and never will. an armed populace almost always reduce crime, but never gets rid of it 100%. the only thing i know is best is to at least give people the liberty to have a means to attempt to defend themselves. it could mean a lot. we'll never know that if the peoples in europe who suffered under nazism and communism for all those years... if they were armed like the swiss, if they would of been able to fend off their masters and live in freedom. but i damn sure do not support the policies of the dictators in disarming citizens. the citizens are the ones that are supposed to have the power, not the other way around.

[nsmbfan]

You guys write to much to address a point. Keep it simple.

Gun owners own guns to make them less scared. It's empowering. Fear is what keeps everyone in line. It's shitty but it's working - as a control mechanism.

My postulate is that if you gave everybody a gun, and taught them to respect its power, you would see less crime and people would generally be happier. People need a way to protect themselves.

On the other hand maybe we'll all kill ourselves and each other. But didn't we all used to own swords?... same thing. Personal protection.

Every tyrannical government in existence used scare tactics and robbed their civilians of their weapons. It's how you suppress an entire group of people, give them no way to stand up for themselves. ie. slaves couldn't own guns... use your imagination as to why that rule existed.

[nsmbfan]

i'd like to point out, that i do not for one second think that a utopia would be achievable in the US and no crime would exist if people armed themselves. we do not live in the garden of eden. people will always kill people.

i dont have answers. i do know that giving people a means to defend themselves is the only means available right now. crime free utopia will never exist. it never has and never will. an armed populace almost always reduce crime, but never gets rid of it 100%. the only thing i know is best is to at least give people the liberty to have a means to attempt to defend themselves. it could mean a lot. we'll never know that if the peoples in europe who suffered under nazism and communism for all those years... if they were armed like the swiss, if they would of been able to fend off their masters and live in freedom. but i damn sure do not support the policies of the dictators in disarming citizens. the citizens are the ones that are supposed to have the power, not the other way around.

nice. and this is the idealogy that will prevail in the new world. old ideas die hard, but they die with their creators. there is hope for us.

and my post above this one isn't saying that Utopia could be achieved 100% either, but you're right we can get damned close. guns are a symbol of power. and we all need to be empowered as a society, and stop obeying our masters.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

We aren't talking about arming everyone.

It is the choice that is given. It is your right to own a firearm. It is not within the governments ability to limit that choice. It is unconstitutional.

The argument is much like the one with drugs. People tend to think that once something that was illegal becomes legal, everyone is going to jump on board. The nation will give in to wide spread addicts.

This is not the case. It is an argument based off a fallacy. Because it is based off of the idea that people can not make proper decisions. If this is the case than the same people put in authority to use these weapons are also as incompetent, and how will they make the right choice in when to use or not use their weapon, and if it is used in the improper manner, how will you deal with this?

I will not sit here and pretend that every single person born is born with the responsibility and maturity it takes in handling a fire arm. I however refuse to believe that banning that choice for everyone is the proper way in dealing with that issue.

Education like I always say is the key. If a single person can be educated in behaving properly with a firearm, in public and private use. Most people should be capable of doing the same thing

Now how American culture contributes or takes away from any of this is another discussion, because that bleeds into many other area's besides gun control.

[nsmbfan]

Doesn't matter anyhow. We're all dead after 2012. :P

[angelofdeath]

Guns in the WRONG Hands
Posted by William Grigg on November 12, 2009 11:43 AM
New Rochelle, New York resident James Pileggi was sitting in his parked car with a friend on the evening of November 3 when he decided to show off his new toy — a 9mm equipped with a laser sight. Unfortunately, the gun went off, and another of Pileggi’s friends, 27-year-old Andre Everett, was struck in the throat. Everett died at a nearby hospital about 45 minutes later.

Pileggi has been arraigned on a charge of second-degree manslaughter. He is still drawing a paycheck as a member of the Eastchester, New York Police Force: After he inadvertently killed his friend through culpable incompetence with a firearm, Pileggi was put on “administrative leave,” which is essentially a paid vacation.

It’s worth remembering that, as a police officer, Pileggi was among the “Only Ones” — the exalted beings commissioned by the divine State to carry firearms, presumably because of their bottomless benevolence and unfailing competence.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Decy--Have you ever shot a gun?

[El Mamerro]

My postulate is that if you gave everybody a gun, and taught them to respect its power, you would see less crime and people would generally be happier. People need a way to protect themselves.


My postulate is that if you gave everybody a gun, people would be more wary and distrustful of each other and therefore we would be unhappier. Even if I have the means to kill you, the fact that you can so easily kill me before I am able to defend myself (and vice versa) will create negative pressure in the way we associate with each other. This is sometimes referred to as "politeness", but it's a respect charged with antagonistic tension. Happiness will not come forth from that.





On the other hand maybe we'll all kill ourselves and each other. But didn't we all used to own swords?... same thing. Personal protection.


Swords don't allow the level of disconnect and distance that guns do. It's relatively simple to defend yourself against a sword attack, since the attacker makes himself vulnerable by proximity. When it becomes too easy and risk-free for people to kill each other (as it begins to happen with guns), you're gonna see a prevalence towards it being used more often than a sword would be.



We aren't talking about arming everyone.


I know it's not the main point, but the everyone-armed scenario keeps being offered as a pro-gun argument, as in everyone armed > everyone unarmed.





Now how American culture contributes or takes away from any of this is another discussion, because that bleeds into many other area's besides gun control.


Even if it does bleed to other areas, it doesn't make it any less central to the issue. It's the main thing that needs to be addressed and solved if you wish to eliminate the hostility towards guns that leads to restrictive legislation.

[shai hulud]

Education like I always say is the key. If a single person can be educated in behaving properly with a firearm, in public and private use. Most people should be capable of doing the same thing

Now how American culture contributes or takes away from any of this is another discussion, because that bleeds into many other area's besides gun control.

That's why things like addiction and teenage pregnancy/STDs are so prevalent. Education currently takes the stance of "Don't do this at all or you're morally corrupt" on these matters, which anyone who went through adolescence will tell you is exactly the wrong message to send.

There should be education that informs kids of the risks and consequences of their actions without judgment. Some kids deliberately do things that they have been told not to do because they want to feel like they're getting away with something...whether it's sex, drugs, or being in a gang and packing a gun.

Unfortunately, education still relies on the "Scarlet Letter"/carrot and stick principle in an attempt to get kids to toe the line, and it's not working.

[Decyferon]

Decy--Have you ever shot a gun?

yes I have, it was fun although highly dangerous as was young and irresponsible (was when I was a teenager, we 'borrowed' a sawn off shotgun from a friends dad)

I would love to go to a shooting range and give a variety of weapons a go, I am not against guns per se, I tend to subscribe to Mams viewpoint that he made a hell of a lot better than I have been able to.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

ive only been to england a few times, and there always seemed to be alot of shooting/guns magazines at book stores. Are there alot of shooters/ranges to shoot at? Are citizens able to go rent-and-shoot or anything?

[Decyferon]

They aren't in every town or anything like that but there are avid shooters here, it is look upon as more of a sport or pasttime.

I think people can go and rent and shoot, to be honest I have not looked into it as money is always needed for other things, there was a gun shop not far from where I grew up.

actually just did a quick search and yea there are clubs that you can rent, not public ranges but places you join
http://www.fordranges.co.uk/

[angelofdeath]

from what i understand... if i am remembering right...you are only allowed to 'own' a 'sporting' gun such as a shotgun and they must be kept locked at the govt approved sporting club.

[Decyferon]

I'm not 100% sure, I know you can't buy things like you can in the U.S. I just tried having a look and unsurprisingly enough it was very hard to find. I did find some information on gun ownership, it didn't mention anything about storing weapons at home, I seem to remember (if memory serves me right) that you can with license/forms whatever you need you can have shotguns at home in a locked secure place, but that may be different now, i'm not sure.

[Smart]

speaking off the top of my head, not in any way certain but I'm pretty sure Britons are fairly unregulated when it comes to 'long guns'. So called 'assault rifles' were squished under a 'capacity' clause but we had shotguns galore when I was in Ireland. I think it's pretty much hand guns and high capacity rifles that are looked at hard... keep in mind it was '89 when I was over there shooting and the IRA was still a very real thing, but yeah... there's actually a few provisions in UK law that exempts handguns so, even though they claim to be "free" there's actually a bunch running around, and from what I've heard since, it's like a heyday with the automatics coming across the channel along w/ the drug trade. England is the current home of unregulated gun trade, just like how America is with the dope.

*I mean besides Mexico, or for that matter, South America... and Africa, and the Middle East, and the East... but apart from them it's all England.

[angelofdeath]

^^^ i think the 'sporting guns' law i was talking about was passed in direct response to the IRA. im still pretty sure the long guns must be kept at a regulated sporting 'club.'

which is why the IRA was training in africa and places like that. then going back to ireland to raise hell.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

That's why things like addiction and teenage pregnancy/STDs are so prevalent. Education currently takes the stance of "Don't do this at all or you're morally corrupt" on these matters, which anyone who went through adolescence will tell you is exactly the wrong message to send.

There should be education that informs kids of the risks and consequences of their actions without judgment. Some kids deliberately do things that they have been told not to do because they want to feel like they're getting away with something...whether it's sex, drugs, or being in a gang and packing a gun.

Unfortunately, education still relies on the "Scarlet Letter"/carrot and stick principle in an attempt to get kids to toe the line, and it's not working.

This is extremely relevant. Instead of properly teaching children or even adults for that matter how to use a gun, and how to be safe around weapons. It is simply put off limits.

Now I know this is a graffiti forum so I am going to assume most of you have similar traits to me. For a very long time something being off limits was basically an invitation for me to get involved. It didn't happen with me with weapons, but in other area's that you have mentioned.

The TRUTH has to be taught. Living in a politically correct society doesn't work. Guns exist. People are going to be into situations where they are around, and if they don't know how to properly behave, accidents will happen. Or even horrible decisions that lead to the loss of life, destruction of property etc and etc..

I also agree that our culture here in America is a big problem. I'll even attribute that to my favorite music/culture for the last 10 years of my life. Hip Hop. I believe that everyone should be held accountable for their own actions, however you can't deny the affect a message can have when you hear it constantly.

Kill people, sell drugs, pimp women, repeat. It sells a life of irresponsibility.

Not to mention the constant violence you see on TV and the movies. Not even just fictional stuff.

Like I said though that contribute to A LOT of things. Teen pregnancy, drug use, violence, education.

Unfortunately for a lot of people they don't figure it out till it is too late.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JARPjyybQVE

Story CNN did on the Michigan Militia.

Check it out.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

This is pretty crazy...

Decyferon, I'd check that out.

[Decyferon]

^^^ Jesus Christ that is just crazy, that jury must have been filled with idiots, surely there is no problem with him handling it to hand it in, especially considering he was a soldier (or was) and would know how to handle guns. Sometimes the law is ridiculous, I would have let him off and fined the police for wasting court time if I were the judge.

[nsmbfan]

i still say we all go back to swords.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

nah man. rocks. or things off the streets, like bottles and such.

[irrannich]

The anti-gun media is going to have trouble milking this one. People expect soldiers to have guns. We have been told for years that:
"Only the police and military should have guns."
This guy was a major, an authority figure in the minds of most, who was wearing the official uniform of the federal governments Army when he committed the act. He was on a military base supposedly under control of the Army.

[.hopeless.]

i really think that people should have to go through training to use a gun.kinda like a drivers license. and everyone has to get one and renew it every once in a while to own or operate a gun.unless of course you have some one who already knows how to use one with you.kinda like driving cars.i dont care WHAT guns you can get i just dont like the idea of some jackass who doesnt know what he's doing to be owning a gun.idk if there is already a law about like this i assume there is.but if not we need one.i love guns.but i dont like seeing people injure themselves or others becuase they didnt know what the hell they were doing.will it stop people from using firearms illegally? hell no but i think it would help bring down the accidental deaths involved with firearms.


also the gun license you get has to go with the gun your gonna buy.so if your getting an Ak or something along those lines you would need a new license to operate that one and another to operate a pistol or something.again i dont know if there are laws like this in place,im pretty sure they are but not everywhere.only in certain states.

[.hopeless.]

i wanna start a talk on assault weapons but i dont know where to begin. someone say something...

[angelofdeath]

umm...
alright.
buy one.

also to comment your silly notion that everyone who owns a gun must be properly licensed and professionally trained (by someone the govt approves)in order to own a gun to prevent accidental deaths...
i dont think this would solve anything. ever seen the video of the cop who is 'trained' to teach firearms (apparently... as he was giving a lecture to school kids) safety and was saying how he was the only properly trained person in the room that could handle a firearm and he proceeded to shoot his self in the leg with his sidearm?
accidents happen. also if people want to kill themselves, they will. 40K people die on the roads each year, and we have cops to enforce traffic law and license requirements to drive.

to my knowledge there is no law requiring citizens to be trained by certain certified agencies/firearms schools to own a gun. there IS in many states that have 'shall issue' concealed carry laws that you must attend an 8 hour pistol class in order to obtain a permit to carry concealed. pre requisites and regulations are not compatible with 'rights.' you either have the right or you dont. no one can infringe on it. what next... mandatory child/parenting classes... because after all you might feed your kid lye instead of milk one day. govt licensing is not compatible with any right whatsoever.

none of my comments on the proper training of firearms should be construed that i am against training. i am 100% in favor of training, however it should NOT be a requirement to practice a RIGHT that you already have. i do not favor putting people in jail if they dont have proper 'papers' for this requirement you propose.

that being said, i think everyone should go to a place like thunder ranch or front sight. a gun is useless unless you know how to use it.

[.hopeless.]

yeah i get what your saying..whatever.ive been up for two days haha..not really an excuse i just really wish i could sleep for more than 2 hours.

[lord_casek]

i dont think this would solve anything. ever seen the video of the cop who is 'trained' to teach firearms (apparently... as he was giving a lecture to school kids) safety and was saying how he was the only properly trained person in the room that could handle a firearm and he proceeded to shoot his self in the leg with his sidearm?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1_EoRZOVes

I love that video.

[nsmbfan]

casek, brah, we need your interweb magics.

some troll keeps harrassing me after i called him stupid (haha, that sounded dumb). somebody in channel 0 requested that we rape his mom and get pictures on facebook STAT.

much obliged sir.