gun law reform... please!

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Except you have to remember it is government. The same government that said they could never envision terrorists flying airplanes into a building, yet that happened, and the FAA, the US Military and every single person in government wasn't able to do one little fucking thing to affect that outcome was there? Total failure of every single defense system the government has.

I tell ya, if you can just hijack an airplane and fly it around for an hour and then fly it into a building and NO ONE tries to stop you? LOL, I wouldn't put too much faith in government being competent enough to round up more than 2 or 3 dissidents.

Look around, do you see any politicians NOT acting like Morons? All the smart people aren't in government.
Click to expand...


9/11 was a battle, the single battle terrorism ever won in their declared war on the U.S.

there was recently a poll here that asked if people were still frightened by terrorists - most said no.


I don't think it is a coincidence that the only time the American people were frightened by terrorists was when we had leaders that needed us to be fearful in order for them to accomplish their agenda. Note that this current administration has no need for that same frightened citizenry and lo and behold, we are no longer frightened.

What you are maintaing is that a loosely organized population that is armed with a vast assortment of irregular weapons from blunderbusses to mock "assault weapons" is capable of taking on the most sophisticated and powerful military ever assembled. Our country is still capable of a prolonged two theater war, and you actually believe that some ad hoc militia could take it on? The question is, would our military follow orders or refuse to fight our own citizens.

I submit that our military is well enough trained that it will follow orders first. We see evidence of that same military following orders to torture, we see that they have been used in riots (and this is only the state militia). Times have changed, your weapons won't do you a lick of good in the next revolution the gun toters are so anxious to start.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Hardly a battle since we didn't get to fight back. Pearl Harbor, now that was a battle. Very one sided. But they even call that an attack only. We were attacked. We have given back what we did receive and the world is a slight bit better. However, the local wholesale terror is only just now beginning to become casual, pointless, punk experience. Fight Club. This, I think, is bound to continue.

Future fiction has predicted this for a long time. So, instead of focusing on the nut case battle punks and gun control, I like the stories of when the trained and armed average citizen gives back what they were about to receive.

Yeah, the causal media mediocre doesn't cover it, but the facts are there. And the stories happen every day. Somewhere right now, a plain old person is about to exercise his police power with malice afore thought. The bad guys are not executed however. The person prevented that from happening to himself. Ho hum. Not an interesting News Day. But, millions of times a year this happens without any police back up. And the country's crime rate is way down. The world's violence is way down. But what is up is the whining of the do-gooders without a plan.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Yeah, the causal media mediocre doesn't cover it, but the facts are there. And the stories happen every day. Somewhere right now, a plain old person is about to exercise his police power with malice afore thought. The bad guys are not executed however. The person prevented that from happening to himself. Ho hum. Not an interesting News Day. But, millions of times a year this happens without any police back up. And the country's crime rate is way down. The world's violence is way down. But what is up is the whining of the do-gooders without a plan.
Click to expand...

So you maintain that citizens protect themselves with firearms "millions of times a year"?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
So you maintain that citizens protect themselves with firearms "millions of times a year"?
Click to expand...
How many people die in the USA because SOMEONE else shot them on purpose? You will probably be surprised how low the number actually is.



9,000 people murdered by guns

3400 drowned

5 million died from tobacco
300,000 from Obesity
30,000 died in auto accidents
10,000 died from lightning strikes
6,000 due to texting while driving
550 killed while shopping on black friday
450 people died falling out of bed
bathtubs killed 330
120 people were killed by Deer.
over 100 people are killed by icicles in Russia alone!!!
70 children were killed by hot dogs
Loose dogs killed 30 people
High School football killed 20 people
OMG OMG OMG sharks killed 5 people!!!!!


Which are you more scared of? Driving or sharks?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
9/11 was a battle, the single battle terrorism ever won in their declared war on the U.S.

there was recently a poll here that asked if people were still frightened by terrorists - most said no.


I don't think it is a coincidence that the only time the American people were frightened by terrorists was when we had leaders that needed us to be fearful in order for them to accomplish their agenda. Note that this current administration has no need for that same frightened citizenry and lo and behold, we are no longer frightened.

What you are maintaing is that a loosely organized population that is armed with a vast assortment of irregular weapons from blunderbusses to mock "assault weapons" is capable of taking on the most sophisticated and powerful military ever assembled. Our country is still capable of a prolonged two theater war, and you actually believe that some ad hoc militia could take it on? The question is, would our military follow orders or refuse to fight our own citizens.

I submit that our military is well enough trained that it will follow orders first. We see evidence of that same military following orders to torture, we see that they have been used in riots (and this is only the state militia). Times have changed, your weapons won't do you a lick of good in the next revolution the gun toters are so anxious to start.
Click to expand...
Usually in a battle you have 2 sides, in this instance we only had one side, therefore it was not a battle. Government cannot keep you safe and cannot/will not ever try to take guns away as long as we are democratic about the way we elect our leaders. Won't happen, no way, no how.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
So you maintain that citizens protect themselves with firearms "millions of times a year"?
Click to expand...
Florida State University did a study and found that between 800,000 and 2.5 million people used guns in a defensive manner each year, 80% of which was nothing more than brandishing. Of course it wouldn't be a political hotspot if people weren't using the upper limit of the study findings.

http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
http://suite101.com/article/selfdefense-involving-a-firearm-a140512


The estimate of "Millions" might be a stretch.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Florida State University did a study and found that between 800,000 and 2.5 million people used guns in a defensive manner each year, 80% of which was nothing more than brandishing. Of course it wouldn't be a political hotspot if people weren't using the upper limit of the study findings.

http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
http://suite101.com/article/selfdefense-involving-a-firearm-a140512


The estimate of "Millions" might be a stretch.
Click to expand...
Good websites
And you know where I stand on gun control
Even though I don't own any (fishing accident fell overboard years ago)
But dont bring Kleck into the mix, it is irrelevant
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
So you maintain that citizens protect themselves with firearms "millions of times a year"?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to accurately measure the lowering effect an armed person has on crime. However it should seem obvious that a criminal is less likely to attempt aggression against a person he knows or believes to be armed.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
How many people die in the USA because SOMEONE else shot them on purpose? You will probably be surprised how low the number actually is.



9,000 people murdered by guns

3400 drowned

5 million died from tobacco
300,000 from Obesity
30,000 died in auto accidents
10,000 died from lightning strikes
6,000 due to texting while driving
550 killed while shopping on black friday
450 people died falling out of bed
bathtubs killed 330
120 people were killed by Deer.
over 100 people are killed by icicles in Russia alone!!!
70 children were killed by hot dogs
Loose dogs killed 30 people
High School football killed 20 people
OMG OMG OMG sharks killed 5 people!!!!!


Which are you more scared of? Driving or sharks?
Click to expand...

Drama, I am arguing specifics, we both agree that the 2nd amendment means what it seems to mean and I really don't care if one hundred times the number of firearms related deaths occured, If it says that we have a right to keep and bear then the dead are the cost of doing business in America. If it ever got too bad we could find some other solution than to confiscate everyone's firearms.

the key to this is a little known ruling by the Supreme Court that says that the government is not, repeat NOT responsible or liable for one citizen harming or killing another. Many of us liberals believe otherwise, when he reasonable of us realize that the state has no real obligation to protect one citizen from another two things become strikingly clear.

1. We alone are responsible for our own protection
2. the government cannot be charged with protecting fetuses from their mothers or their mother's doctors.

That is all that needs to be said.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Drama, I am arguing specifics, we both agree that the 2nd amendment means what it seems to mean and I really don't care if one hundred times the number of firearms related deaths occured, If it says that we have a right to keep and bear then the dead are the cost of doing business in America. If it ever got too bad we could find some other solution than to confiscate everyone's firearms.

the key to this is a little known ruling by the Supreme Court that says that the government is not, repeat NOT responsible or liable for one citizen harming or killing another. Many of us liberals believe otherwise, when he reasonable of us realize that the state has no real obligation to protect one citizen from another two things become strikingly clear.

1. We alone are responsible for our own protection
2. the government cannot be charged with protecting fetuses from their mothers or their mother's doctors.

That is all that needs to be said.
Click to expand...

the "little known ruling" you reference was the case of a woman raped and murdered by a gang right in front of two cops on a stakeout. they didnt even call in uniforms to protect their "investigation" of a guy who sold weed and coke.

so yes. the government has no obligation to protect anyone, which is why we now have "lawer inforcemint offisers" instead of police,, and peace officers. Plato would be ashamed of the way his fictional "Republic" is taking shape.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
canndo said:
9/11 was a battle, the single battle terrorism ever won in their declared war on the U.S.

there was recently a poll here that asked if people were still frightened by terrorists - most said no.


I don't think it is a coincidence that the only time the American people were frightened by terrorists was when we had leaders that needed us to be fearful in order for them to accomplish their agenda. Note that this current administration has no need for that same frightened citizenry and lo and behold, we are no longer frightened.

What you are maintaing is that a loosely organized population that is armed with a vast assortment of irregular weapons from blunderbusses to mock "assault weapons" is capable of taking on the most sophisticated and powerful military ever assembled. Our country is still capable of a prolonged two theater war, and you actually believe that some ad hoc militia could take it on? The question is, would our military follow orders or refuse to fight our own citizens.

I submit that our military is well enough trained that it will follow orders first. We see evidence of that same military following orders to torture, we see that they have been used in riots (and this is only the state militia). Times have changed, your weapons won't do you a lick of good in the next revolution the gun toters are so anxious to start.
Click to expand...
i guess we agree to disagree.

Vehemently.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
M B P said:
another thing. I am talking about gun reform not prohibition. I don't believe the government should take away everyone's gun or limit the majority of people who want to own a gun from owning one. More than a few commenting have jumped to those conclusions... even after I had expressed it earlier as 'reform.'
Click to expand...
What do YOU suggest?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
What's that? I've never seen one of those before.
Click to expand...
thats the new form you have to fill out swear to and sign before the BATF will permit you the privilege of buying a firearm. after a sufficient waiting period to allow them an opportunity to refuse your request for permission to buy a gun.

thats whythe smart money buys their new guns on the low-low. the BATF can eat a dick.

those who are unfortunate enough to be too young to have acquired their firearms before the inquisition began are gonna have to wait till their gramps dies and passes down a few heaters.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
thats the new form you have to fill out swear to and sign before the BATF will permit you the privilege of buying a firearm. after a sufficient waiting period to allow them an opportunity to refuse your request for permission to buy a gun.

thats whythe smart money buys their new guns on the low-low. the BATF can eat a dick.

those who are unfortunate enough to be too young to have acquired their firearms before the inquisition began are gonna have to wait till their gramps dies and passes down a few heaters.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought. With all of the guns that I've bought over the years, I've never seen one of these, I've never had to fill out any forms, to anybody.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
That's what I thought. With all of the guns that I've bought over the years, I've never seen one of these, I've never had to fill out any forms, to anybody.
Click to expand...
shit's changed now. you cant sell a gun buy a gun or "transfer" a gun (turn over a firearm to the custody or ownership of anyone else, even your direct kin when you are dead) to anybody else without going through a gun dealer filling out the "necessary forms" (request for permission) and waiting between 7 and 14 days for the request to be authorized. in breif, the second ammendment only counts if you submit to interrogation and prove your loyalty with a penis inspection and anal swab.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Well, I've been out of the game for a couple years, so I can't argue your point but I find it hard to believe that is the case with sales of personal firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top