Gun control???

Gun control??? (Full Version)

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

Message

MasterRenegade77 -> Gun control??? (7/30/2006 10:16:20 AM)
Gun Control Gun Control Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about... ------------------------------ In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. ------------------------------ It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: • Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent • Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent • Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! • In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans....before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 10:35:10 AM)
Oh no... not again! I would happily provide you with facts and views from those who want to compromise and allow those who wish to hold a gun the right to do so, while complying with gun safety rules..... but it is pointless. Those who are fixated on having a gun without any compromise, do not understand anything beyond having a gun without compromise. We have done the gun debate again and again. I haven't changed my view. When it comes up, it comes up... but what's the point in continuously starting threads that beg for conflict? I value freedom, and choose to spread the word of freedom for all citizens, not just gun owners... thank you very much.

pahunkboy -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 10:40:06 AM)
the heck with a gun- i want a penis!!!

Termyn8or -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 10:51:30 AM)
I'm sorry I can't find the exact URL right now, but on jpfo.org there is a very well written article by a psychiatrist about those who believe that guns should be taken away. All I can remember right now is "thewriter,,,". The author states that the disarming crowd is projecting their own inconfidence in their self control upon others. That they feel that since they are in doubt as to their self control being sufficient for them to safely carry a firearm is deemed reason that nobody should. They think everbody is the same as them, and people would be shooting each other over parking places and the like. The author goes on to say that it is possible that the person is probably a hothead, and deems himself unsuited to carry a deadly weapon, and therefore this applies to everybody. He also offers up a comprehensive plan to derail the lunacy and to help such a person to see reason. He explains that there are many ways in which NOT to confront their views, that this will only setup a "defense mechanism" in their mind, shutting them off from common sense, or any dissenting opinion for that matter. He warns to be careful if you indeed want to convince them of anything. I'll try to find the link, it is very good reading. On the lighter side, many cities that want people to turn in their guns offer incentives, money or what have you. Well one city offered a free psychological counselling session for the remittance of a firearm. My punchline : Nothing could be more appropriate ! T

popeye1250 -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 11:07:22 AM)
Who owns Australia, "the People" or "The Government"? Funny, they never try to take away the First Amendment or the Sixth or Seventh or the Eighth. Some seem to think it's "ok" to suspend the Second Amendment though. Ever hear of "The Domino Theory?"

CrappyDom -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 1:46:12 PM)
MistressLorelei, I understand what you mean and I say that while being a bleeding heart long haired liberal who likes guns. The "problem" with controlling guns is some people think they can seperate good guns from the bad ones. Funny thing is "assualt weapons" are LOW powered and not high powered. Handguns can effortlessly be made out of the most "safe" and "sporting" guns effortlessly by sawing off the barrel and stock. Oddly enough, assault weapons in general cannot be turned easily into concealable weapons. The average deer rifle shoots farther, is more accurate, and is more deadly than most military sniper rifles. In other words 90% of what flows out of Diane Feinsteins and Schumer's mouths about guns are pure lies. Crime and violence isn't caused by guns, it is caused by injustice. Banning or controlling guns to stop crime is like trying to ban hankerchiefs as a way of stopping bird flu. I say that as someone who believes Bush should be tried for war crimes and if I were a better person, I would be vegan so I am no knuckle dragging right winger.

KenDckey -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 3:19:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy the heck with a gun- i want a penis!!! ROFL You apparently never were in the Army. Ever hear the expression "This is my rifle, This is my gun. This is for killing, this is for fun." LOL They also call some crew served weapons Guns (machine guns, Howitzers, etc). Why in the world would anyone want to control my gun? I am a Dom. Me, I hate anti-gun laws for the most part. I like to get laid.

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 3:47:13 PM)
Britain established gun control er...let's say very early, before the USA was a twinkling in the eye. Result....Tony Blair. Maybe gun control is a bad idea after all.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 5:33:25 PM)
I do know this: in the UK , a gun control bill was introduced just after the first world war because the authorites feared trouble due to the social deprivation that those people who had survived the horrors of the war, were then having to endure. Maybe there is something in this citizens with gun, subjects without, after all. Having said that, the level of gun crime in the US appears ridiculous, to an outsider.

irishbynature -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 5:47:12 PM)
Well, my 2 cents I think the 2nd admendment should remain as is, as should our Constitution....you take away one right, then---others might be next. Warmly, Irish

Dauric -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 6:07:20 PM)
Defending citizens is in a continum from total police state to total anarchy. Neither extreme is preferable. $0.02 Dauric.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 6:10:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom MistressLorelei, I understand what you mean and I say that while being a bleeding heart long haired liberal who likes guns. The "problem" with controlling guns is some people think they can seperate good guns from the bad ones. Funny thing is "assualt weapons" are LOW powered and not high powered. Handguns can effortlessly be made out of the most "safe" and "sporting" guns effortlessly by sawing off the barrel and stock. Oddly enough, assault weapons in general cannot be turned easily into concealable weapons. The average deer rifle shoots farther, is more accurate, and is more deadly than most military sniper rifles. In other words 90% of what flows out of Diane Feinsteins and Schumer's mouths about guns are pure lies. Crime and violence isn't caused by guns, it is caused by injustice. Banning or controlling guns to stop crime is like trying to ban hankerchiefs as a way of stopping bird flu. I say that as someone who believes Bush should be tried for war crimes and if I were a better person, I would be vegan so I am no knuckle dragging right winger. I don't care for guns, but agree that people should have the right to bear arms if they want to. What I do hope for is gun safety. Registration of all guns, the same way you would register a car which could be tracked in case it is stolen/used for criminal purposes. Also, I think a background check to make sure guns are not being sold to known criminals should be mandatory. If you want to be a hunter after getting out of jail for criminal charges... then don't commit the criminal acts to begin with. Also, I think a 48 hour waiting period can save some lives. I have no problem with waiting that long for those who wish to have an abortion. What's the harm, except gun shows would be out of business. My main problem with all of this 'gun stuff', is that most (not all, but the vast majority), who want to make sure their rights to own a gun without gun safety laws, are the same ones who want to make sure that I don't have the right to get an abortion, or live in a community where criminals can buy guns, or where my child won't get shot by her 5 year old friend while playing at his house. I am all for everyone doing whatever in the hell they please... as long as what they are doing is not harming everyone else. Are anyone's rights less important than someone else's? Seems that if we are all to have freedom, there has to be some give and take... or as I have said before, none of us have any freedom at all.

Kagesuta -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 7:35:49 PM)
Guns. Pfeh. I say that everyone on the planet just agrees to stop using guns all at once (and pinky-swear on it, so we don't have criminals or certain countries trying to get ahead of everybody else), and go back to using swords, maces, polearms, etc. If you want to break into somebody's house, you better hope you're better-trained than them, and that they don't have a ballista pointed at you from their bedroom window. Come to think of it, I would like to see the poofy-sleeved shirts come back, too. Can that be part of the deal?

MistressLorelei -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 7:46:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kagesuta Guns. Pfeh. I say that everyone on the planet just agrees to stop using guns all at once (and pinky-swear on it, so we don't have criminals or certain countries trying to get ahead of everybody else), and go back to using swords, maces, polearms, etc. If you want to break into somebody's house, you better hope you're better-trained than them, and that they don't have a ballista pointed at you from their bedroom window. Come to think of it, I would like to see the poofy-sleeved shirts come back, too. Can that be part of the deal? I would love for everyone to decide to do this, but hey, it just ain't gonna happen. On the lighter side, I'm all for the poofy sleeves too. I'll take a guy in poofy sleeves and a big sword any day over a guy who hides behind a firearm.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 8:12:12 PM)
(Fast Reply) I am a firm believer in gun control. Without it, one tends to miss one's intended target.

Kagesuta -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 8:30:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei On the lighter side, I'm all for the poofy sleeves too. I'll take a guy in poofy sleeves and a big sword any day over a guy who hides behind a firearm. Ahh... It's comments like these that reaffirm my purpose in existing. Thank you.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 8:31:50 PM)
Gun Control - a 5 inch group at 500 yards with a mediocre scope. (I need the scope these days - my distance vision isn't what it was when I was younger.)

caitlyn -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 8:36:44 PM)
I think those opposed to any form of gun control, feel that it will be a first step towards a gun ban. Moloch mentioned New Orleans once in a prior debate, and me being me, I decided to do a small bit of research. [;)] Sure enough, right off the New Orleans Police Department website, there is a statement from the Superintendent of Police, P. Edwin Compass III, discussing confiscation of firearms, and saying that they would start with those that were registered. As it turned out, they ended up confiscating primarily permitted weapons. More than two-thirds of the confiscated weapons were registered weapons, in a city that claims that less than ten percent of all weapons are registered. There was a pretty substantial period of time, where criminals roamed New Orleans with guns, while honest citizens that did what they were supposed to do as a gun owner, were left unarmed. My views used to mirror yours nearly exactly. After doing this small bit of research, I'm starting to clearly see the point of those that oppose any sort of regulation. Then again, I live in Houston and am a pretty good shot ... as anyone that tried to fuck with me will find out. [;)]

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 8:44:22 PM)
This is just my opinion about gun control. It seems over the long run gun control would slowly deplete the total supply of guns in circulation and eventually reduce gun related deaths. Of course there will always be smuggling, etc... but the scale of gun use by all parties would eventually drop. So, just looking at it that way would make you think it was a good thing. But when the government goes bad, Reference the list of countries the OP gave. It would seem the death toll and destruction rises way above the level prevented by gun control, because the threat from the population is limited. However, if one out of three people have one or more guns and everyone knows someone that would loan them a gun in worst case scenario, it would take some pretty big balls to try to enslave a whole country by direct force of arms. In the US I have no fear of a military coup for example, it wouldn't last, because you'd have to control 300 million gun toting pissed off people. But no guns, it's just a matter of time, before the wrong people get put in the right situation, and what is the populace to do? Vote? LOL, bullets don't hold political affiliations. No, sorry, I would feel uneasy if I wasn't confident the US citizens could take out the government if necessary, without guns, you don't have that choice.

Termyn8or -> RE: Gun control??? (7/30/2006 9:43:11 PM)
Wake up folks, and start the right argument. I f I go over the ten paragraph limit, shoot me if you can. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, COMMA the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. With the comma in that position in the sentence I derive that it means "because". The People must have guns BECAUSE the government must have guns. That is what it says. The founders of this country did not write this so people had the ability to defend themselves against common thieves, they wrote this so that, in their own words, that we the People could excercise our Right to alter or abolish the government. Protection for one's home and person were not at issue, they specifically intended that we the People alter or abolish this government when it no longer served the needs of the People. it is in their own words, and it doesn't get much plainer. Got it ? T

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125