RE: Gun control

RE: Gun control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 5:09:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws Yeah, I respect anyone's right to their opinion, but have to remember that guns and the willingness to own and use them are what give people the ability to exercise their rights. The ugly truth of reality is that you have to be ready to be just as brutal as the people who would deprive you of your rights for their own selfish purposes. We have a biased media that doesn't exactly jump to report the net saving of human life wherever concealed carry is voted in, but will jump to report any accidental shooting that supports their agenda. How can you ever compile the statistic "The Number of People Who Weren't Murdered Thanks to Concealed Carry"? I believe it's Switzerland where members of the military are required to take their full auto weapons home with them on leave, where more than half the homes have full auto weapons in them, and where the crime rate is almost zero. Another tidbit you won't hear on the evening news. substobbws: I would agree that the media seems biased against private ownership of guns....have you noticed who owns the majority of the media in the U.S,? thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 5:12:20 AM)
fast reply to no one in particular: The three most overrated things in America: Teenage pussy Mack Trucks Automatic weapons All three try to make up for a lack of talent with an overabundance of enthusiasm. thompson

substobbws -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 5:21:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx fast reply to no one in particular: The three most overrated things in America: Teenage pussy Mack Trucks Automatic weapons All three try to make up for a lack of talent with an overabundance of enthusiasm. thompson Why do they put a bulldog on the front of a Mack truck? (joke)

thompsonx -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 6:14:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx fast reply to no one in particular: The three most overrated things in America: Teenage pussy Mack Trucks Automatic weapons All three try to make up for a lack of talent with an overabundance of enthusiasm. thompson Why do they put a bulldog on the front of a Mack truck? (joke) substobbws: It was always my experience with them that about every two hundred miles the engine would just stop. When I would pull over to the side of the road that lil dawg would hop down from the hood and go take a leak. When he got back on the hood the truck would start and run just fine. thompson

captainblack -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 6:37:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn General, etc ... My favorite part of this quarterly CollarMe topic, is that my state will never pass a strict gun control law, and if the federal government passes one, people will ignore it. The police might get upset, but they are far too busy worrying about the darkness of window tint on my car. Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread. We still have ten pages to go before we hit quota, and as of yet, nobody has mentioned penis size as it relates to gun ownership ... and we can't do without that, now can we? I have guns, I have a penis, my penis has a size. I am glad I can help with this very important part of the thread. CB

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 7:45:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael quote: Until you can iliminate ignorance,we have to err on the side of children. Oh what evil stems from that sentiment. I take it you oppose sites like this and anything else of an adult nature on the internet, after all "we must err on the side of children". We shouldn't allow BDSM books to be sold in bookstores because "we must err on the side of children" Rapists use penisis to rape women, we should cut off penises to prevent rape. I mean "we must err on the side of children" People like you really REALLY scare me. I say that as a left wing liberal with socialist leanings that would terrify many here. Don`t be ridiculous.My comment was in regards to whether kids and guns are good idea,especially hand guns.They`re not.I wasn`t calling for a law or restrictions.I was saying that we have to err on the side of safety,when it comes to kids handling guns.That`s all,hot head. Your slippery slope argument is bogus.When there is a question,we always err on the side of children`s safety.Cut someone`s dick off,lol,give me a break.......... In the case of seat belts,as an adult,you can scoff all you want,and risk a ticket.But with a child in the car,you better strap them in(car child seat,seat belt,etc)or your ass is grass if they should get hurt.The laws to protect kids, supersede your right to be a scoff law.As the adult ,your responsibility to keep them safe is greater then your rights. Are you going to suggest that making a law like that one(to protect kids),is somehow infringing on your rights? Just look at these kids.How much you wanna bet their parents got them the pistol? http://www.videovat.com/videos/468/gun-safety-shoots-foot.aspx I'm seriously doubting the authenticity of that video. He asks "Whose handgun is this?" and then the rest of it just seems set it up for the ending. After saying "It's allright, dude." He 'accidentally' pulls the trigger on a double action? Do you realize how hard that would be to do accidentally? If you tried to lift that gun up out of your pocket by only the trigger, the weight of the gun wouldn't be enough to do it. You would have to SQUEEZE the trigger. What would the ground look like all around his foot? Stuff would still be falling out of the air and there'd be a dust cloud. I believe you're falling for something. I wouldn't be surprised if that was an air pistol. Gun control laws might work IF you had a time machine and could go back to the day the first gun was invented. I think this is the difference between idealism and realism. Gun control laws might "feel good" to you, but they won't solve the problem. If you can't remove them from society, I don't think there's a substitute for demonstrating to children exactly what a gun can do so they know when they come across one. I think just hearing and feeling the concussion from one going off does a lot to get the point across. At least by invoking children, and assuming that you would want whatever would provide the best net saving of human life, you must be coming around to supporting more concealed carry laws being voted in! Nope,that was real. The guy,who was a DEA agent,had the vid leaked to Youtube by his co-workers,while this guy was truing to restore his good name.He ended up leaving the agency. Now there`s guy,who was trained,and trained some more. Still,even with all his training,he fucks up.Thank god that shoot didn`t rickashay of the masonry floor into the crowd of kids. A sworn officer of the law,certified and bona fide,and still he makes a bad mistake.Mis-fires,forgotten rounds in the chamber,fuck ups happen all the time.Anyone here who owns,knows that. To say you`re not taking an extra risk around children,when handling guns is silly.To down play that risk is even sillier. It`s funny how people go postal,for just suggesting that they be careful with their children and guns.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 8:00:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf 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. Guess it is just toilet paper. I follow the constitution.I don`t add things that aren`t there,or ignore other parts. I see "keep and bare arms",not keep and bare firearms.The Founding Fathers could have used the word "firearm",but chose not to. Why is that? They had guns.and knew how deadly they were.They worded that document very carefully.What the constitution doesn`t say,is as important,as what it does say. I`m expressing an opinion,here.bush ,...has actually harmed our constitution.And you suggest that treat it like toilet paper. I thought better of you,Orian.You have more class than that.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 8:23:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Owner59, that would be Kennesaw, Georgia and their burglary rates dropped dramatically too. Never anything about a burglar being shot either. Just knowing the 65 year old grandma was likely to have a shotgun, probably convined them to drive a few miles away to another town. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Cuffkinks The old saying is true..."When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The government needs to work on creating stiffer penalties for those who use guns illegally, rather than constantly try to create new laws that make it even more difficult for a normal, law-abiding citizen to obtain a permit to own/carry a gun. The guy who uses a gun to commit a crime is not the guy who is going to go to a gun safety course, get properly trained in firearm safety, apply for a permit and wait for it to be sent to him. Granted, there are other situations...Crimes of passion...etc, where someone might use a legal firearm to harm someone, but those cases are far fewer than those cases where a legal firearm has been used to protect oneself, loved ones, and/or property. I have My permit and I carry. I'm glad I carry. I will continue to carry until (God forbid) the anti-gun nuts get enough control of government that guns are outlawed. Then I will reluctantly turn in My weapons. Afterall, I'm not a criminal. Great,... let`s pass a law,like that nutty southern town,that every household have a gun in it.Only this time, we`ll go a step farther(better, in the eyes of an NRAer) and require an auto-matic grenade launcher, in every household. Cuffkinks: " I have My permit and I carry. I'm glad I carry. I will continue to carry until (God forbid) the anti-gun nuts get enough control of government that guns are outlawed. Then I will reluctantly turn in My weapons. Afterall, I'm not a criminal." Why are the NRAers so paranoid about the gov. taking their guns?No one has ever taken that right away,only regulated it,as it says in the Constitution. Thing is,most guns don`t protect people.You`re more likely to shot a friend or family member,then a perp. And there are plenty of people,w/ out criminal records,who abuse their gun rights.A couple years ago,someone shot off the lower jaw and tongue off my neighbor`s dog.It limped back home and had to be put down.God help the "gun nut" who did that,if I ever find him. Not saying you or anyone here would do that.But I`m pretty sure the guy who did, was a "pro gun nut"(to para-phrase Cuffkinks). OMG,could you imagine being "required" by law,to have a firearm in your home. Now that`s nutty,and sounds like the heavy hand of government to me. Just think about it.You buy a home,pay your taxes and obey the law.One day,the government forces you to keep a gun(insane,I know).Imagine that weapon being handled by your 8 year old,because the parent wasn`t careful,on any given day. Boom! Your 4 year old, was just split in half,by the gun you were made to keep.Who`s liable if that happens,the town?The nuts who forced the parents to keep the weapon? What`s the penalty for not complying?A ticket,a fine,jail time or community service?(give me a fucking break)

Alumbrado -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 8:23:33 AM)
quote: Why is that? Because they had just been through a war, and knew that 'arms' is the overarching term which meant any and every sort of weapon, including military weapons. "ARM: "weapon," 1300, from O.Fr. armes (pl.), from L. arma "weapons," lit. "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE base ar- "fit, join." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms,* etc.) is 1330; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. The verb meaning "to furnish with weapons" is from 1205." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=arms&searchmode=none

theMadWelder -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 8:27:35 AM)
To all that are in this thread This is just a small mention to the father of the modern gun Joseph Manton

ChallengeMe -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 8:33:26 AM)
This nation was founded solidly on one principal above all others...the government must be forced to fear and respect the governed people, instead of the other way around. Now, the constitution was not written by morons, no matter what we might like to think. It is very very clear when it says "the people", "the states", "the federal government" "the army" "naval forces" et-cetera. The 2nd does not say "the army", it does not say "the states" it does not even say that "the militia" are allowed to keep and bear arms. Just like the first amendment applies not to the state censorship bureau, but to individual citizens, the second also specifically states that the people have the right. And the people who wrote the constitution sepcifically stated time and time again, that armies of professional soldiers were poison to democracy.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 8:34:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: Why is that? Because they had just been through a war, and knew that 'arms' is the overarching term which meant any and every sort of weapon, including military weapons. "ARM: "weapon," 1300, from O.Fr. armes (pl.), from L. arma "weapons," lit. "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE base ar- "fit, join." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms,* etc.) is 1330; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. The verb meaning "to furnish with weapons" is from 1205." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=arms&searchmode=none Every weapon? Is that how the NRA nuts ,figure they can own cannons,rockets,grenade launchers,and full auto-matic machine guns? That`s a loose interpretation,which some people would take as the right to own ACPs,tanks,mortars, and Howitzers. What about TOW missiles,Claymores and land minds ? The gun "luvers" here,who want an armed camp in every city and every town,ought`a go to Iraq,and see what that`s like. There`s plenty of RPGs and satchel bombs to play with.No shortage of opportunities to play out your "shoot`m up" fantasies. The founding fathers knew full well about wars,and their consquences.If they wanted a complete right to own a fire arm,they would have said it.But they didn`t.They were a lot smarter than us. They also didn`t want a bunch of armed nuts, going around and causing trouble,there for, "a well regulated militia" was used to convey that government would control the citicen soldiers. This is from a NewsMax article.NewsMax,btw,is a total right-wing,gun loving,NRA supporting web site. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/1/202757.shtml James Madison, the master builder of the U.S. Constitution, noted in 1795: "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Likewise, in 1793, Alexander Hamilton, among the Founding Fathers one of the staunchest proponents for the executive branch, explained: "It is the providence and duty of the Executive to preserve to the Nation the blessings of peace. The Legislature alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the Nation in a state of War." In an informative essay discussing the morality of war, William Norman Grigg also cites a 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson in which James Madison pointed out: "The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature." Grigg warns that "allowing the executive to decide unilaterally 'the question of war' will be tantamount to ... potentially setting the stage for 'continued warfare,' a condition in which liberty cannot long survive." (1)

Alumbrado -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 8:44:03 AM)
No, that is a direct take from an etymology source. Here are some others: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms The answer to your question is plain and simple... It may not however, be what you wanted to hear, in which case, feel free to tune it out and substitute whichever spin you have been told to follow.

GhitaAmati -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 9:24:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again.A gun in your home is more likely to be used against a friend or family member(on purpose or by mistake),than on a perp. Yup....add that in there with the guy who heard that most auto accidents happen within a few miles of home....so he moved.

Alumbrado -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 9:26:22 AM)
[sm=lol.gif]

GhitaAmati -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 9:26:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captainblack Well most New Yorkers, including cops just have the wrong attitude about guns....they think guns kill. They fail to recognize that a gun is just a tool....much as a drill, a hammer, a baseball bat, or a single tail. All the afore mentioned can kill if the person on the "handle end" wants to kill with them. Because of this poor attitude they are afraid to teach proper gun safety to their kids. I suppose you could look at this as evolution at work. Not too long ago my Sir got into an argument with a lady on the side of "guns kill people". He took his pistol out of the glove compartment, unloaded the weapon and removed the slide. Laid all peices down on the tailgate of his truck. Stood there, pointed his finger at the weapon and shouted "kill". Needless to say, nothing happened.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 9:55:58 AM)
i think a law should be passed that before you own a gun you need to go through a class a two week course. that way you know responsibility.. A lot of people are careless.. you should only have one gun loaded for home protection or for quick loading. the rest the shells and the guns should never be close to each other... when i had mine they where locked in a gun safe with gun locks on each ot her items i had.. only thing i had for home protection was my 44 dragoon i loved it was like a cannon going off ROFL only thing i have now is my colt peace maker.. it only takes one bullet to kill.. i have to laugh these people with a 9MM pistols they have two or three.. i just guess it comes down to common sense responsibility.. (If I can not drop you in one.. Then there is no point in having a gun

ChallengeMe -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 10:00:09 AM)
"quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again.A gun in your home is more likely to be used against a friend or family member(on purpose or by mistake),than on a perp." ah, yes. That report. The one harped on oh so often...the report that fails to mention that the friend or family member the gun in the home is used on is typically trying to rape, murder, or otherwise attack the person who uses the gun on the "friend or family member" It also only counts times the gun was actually fired and hit the target, and neglects the times the gun was used in defense without injuring anyone. Statistics don't lie, people who quote statistics, however, lie up a storm.

Alumbrado -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 10:26:30 AM)
Imagine how bad they would be if they had guns [;)]

luckydog1 -> RE: Gun control (8/10/2007 10:38:48 AM)
Owner 59 seems to think that the Constitution gives the right to "Bare arms"....it says Bear. I assume that Owner 59 thinks the 2nd amendmant give peopel the right to wear short sleeve t shirts, exposing (bearing) thier arms. What an interesting reading of the Constitution. Owner59, what could you possibly think the 2nd amendmant means? Other than the right of people to keep and bear weopons?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125