Gun control....seriously?

  • 176 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for 0mega3FattyAcid
0mega3FattyAcid

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 0mega3FattyAcid
Member since 2010 • 149 Posts

I have flipped through the last 5 pages of the OT section and have seen every topic but this one. I thought there would definitely be a topic like this since the news of the Chiefs Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide incident.

During the Dallas/Philly game yesterday, an NBC reporter used halftime to pretty much explain how a ban on guns would have prevented this incident, and prevent many murder/homicides to come.

I really don't care either way, but many people's arguments for anti-gun ban was the fact that if Belcher wouldn't have had a gun, he would have stabbed, strangled, hung, ran over with a car etc...I think that's ****.

My take on it is that if there were no guns, Belcher and his girlfriend would still be alive today. Most stabbings, hangings, running over with cars, andchokings take a lot more time, thought and not so easy in a "heat of the moment" episode. With guns, just point and click. It's over. Gun crimes are a lot less intimate. With a knife, you have to get up close and in the persons face. Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea.

Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides.

<3

Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27197 Posts
POW POWPOW
Avatar image for konvikt_17
konvikt_17

22378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 konvikt_17
Member since 2008 • 22378 Posts

stupid idea

Avatar image for Yusuke420
Yusuke420

2770

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#4 Yusuke420
Member since 2012 • 2770 Posts

I agree wholeheartedly, but Bob Costas opened a can of worms that is better left closed.

Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27197 Posts

stupid idea

konvikt_17
You mean doopid, doopid. ;p
Avatar image for 0mega3FattyAcid
0mega3FattyAcid

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 0mega3FattyAcid
Member since 2010 • 149 Posts

konvick, you're embarrassing me in front of my friends...stoppppp

Avatar image for dodgerblue13
dodgerblue13

20846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 dodgerblue13
Member since 2004 • 20846 Posts
Bob Costas is a tool and just stole Jason Whitlock's column because Whitlock is man enough to say that and put his name on it.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

no the best possible solution is to give everyone guns because then theyll just shoot at bad guys and stuff

what could go wrong?

Avatar image for 0mega3FattyAcid
0mega3FattyAcid

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 0mega3FattyAcid
Member since 2010 • 149 Posts

I really couldn't care either way....but i think it's just a stupid arguement by dumb as **** rednecks who would rather have a family circle jerk to a picture of their sister driving a 4x4 naked through a field of pbr than think rationally

Avatar image for thegerg
thegerg

18446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 thegerg
Member since 2010 • 18446 Posts

I have flipped through the last 5 pages of the OT section and have seen every topic but this one. I thought there would definitely be a topic like this since the news of the Chiefs Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide incident.

During the Dallas/Philly game yesterday, an NBC reporter used halftime to pretty much explain how a ban on guns would have prevented this incident, and prevent many murder/homicides to come.

I really don't care either way, but many people's arguments for anti-gun ban was the fact that if Belcher wouldn't have had a gun, he would have stabbed, strangled, hung, ran over with a car etc...I think that's ****.

My take on it is that if there were no guns, Belcher and his girlfriend would still be alive today. Most stabbings, hangings, running over with cars, andchokings take a lot more time, thought and not so easy in a "heat of the moment" episode. With guns, just point and click. It's over. Gun crimes are a lot less intimate. With a knife, you have to get up close and in the persons face. Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea.

Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides.

<3

0mega3FattyAcid

"Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides."

While this may be arguable, keep in mind that banning guns doesn't mean that there will be no guns.

"Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea."

Just as any time between picking up the gun and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea. What's ypur point?

Avatar image for ZX81plus3
ZX81plus3

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 ZX81plus3
Member since 2012 • 181 Posts
Gun Control is a really good idea. Coupled up with National Health Insurance a random act of violence is transformed from a bullet to the head to a free meal in hospital due to a few bruises.
Avatar image for konvikt_17
konvikt_17

22378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 konvikt_17
Member since 2008 • 22378 Posts

banning guns outright, would just leave civilians without guns, meanwhile all the gangs and robber etc. would still have guns.

a ban on guns, doesnt magically make all guns just disappear. it just leaves people defenseless from gangs and robbers and such.

Guns are a double edged sword.

Avatar image for 0mega3FattyAcid
0mega3FattyAcid

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 0mega3FattyAcid
Member since 2010 • 149 Posts

[QUOTE="0mega3FattyAcid"]

I have flipped through the last 5 pages of the OT section and have seen every topic but this one. I thought there would definitely be a topic like this since the news of the Chiefs Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide incident.

During the Dallas/Philly game yesterday, an NBC reporter used halftime to pretty much explain how a ban on guns would have prevented this incident, and prevent many murder/homicides to come.

I really don't care either way, but many people's arguments for anti-gun ban was the fact that if Belcher wouldn't have had a gun, he would have stabbed, strangled, hung, ran over with a car etc...I think that's ****.

My take on it is that if there were no guns, Belcher and his girlfriend would still be alive today. Most stabbings, hangings, running over with cars, andchokings take a lot more time, thought and not so easy in a "heat of the moment" episode. With guns, just point and click. It's over. Gun crimes are a lot less intimate. With a knife, you have to get up close and in the persons face. Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea.

Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides.

<3

thegerg

"Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides."

While this may be arguable, keep in mind that banning guns doesn't mean that there will be no guns.

"Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea."

Just as any time between picking up the gun and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea. What's ypur point?

My point is...what's easier? Taking out a knife, walking into the next room, getting close enough to a person you have some kind of relation with, thrusting a blade into their skin (or slicing), feeling the blood run down your hand, possible multiple stabbings if you didnt do the job...better finish it if they aren't dead. possible squirtage. Gross.

Or getting a gun, walking into the next room and firing it into the victim? Mind you, a gun is not an "intimate" weapon, most homicides studied have proven that attackers more than likely will not fire at close range. Most gun related homicides are many feet away.

Avatar image for -RocBoys9489-
-RocBoys9489-

6336

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 -RocBoys9489-
Member since 2008 • 6336 Posts
The day we give up our right to bear arms is the day this country's citizens bend over to their government. Hell. No.
Avatar image for 0mega3FattyAcid
0mega3FattyAcid

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 0mega3FattyAcid
Member since 2010 • 149 Posts

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="0mega3FattyAcid"]

I have flipped through the last 5 pages of the OT section and have seen every topic but this one. I thought there would definitely be a topic like this since the news of the Chiefs Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide incident.

During the Dallas/Philly game yesterday, an NBC reporter used halftime to pretty much explain how a ban on guns would have prevented this incident, and prevent many murder/homicides to come.

I really don't care either way, but many people's arguments for anti-gun ban was the fact that if Belcher wouldn't have had a gun, he would have stabbed, strangled, hung, ran over with a car etc...I think that's ****.

My take on it is that if there were no guns, Belcher and his girlfriend would still be alive today. Most stabbings, hangings, running over with cars, andchokings take a lot more time, thought and not so easy in a "heat of the moment" episode. With guns, just point and click. It's over. Gun crimes are a lot less intimate. With a knife, you have to get up close and in the persons face. Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea.

Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides.

<3

0mega3FattyAcid

"Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides."

While this may be arguable, keep in mind that banning guns doesn't mean that there will be no guns.

"Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea."

Just as any time between picking up the gun and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea. What's ypur point?

My point is...what's easier? Taking out a knife, walking into the next room, getting close enough to a person you have some kind of relation with, thrusting a blade into their skin (or slicing), feeling the blood run down your hand, possible multiple stabbings if you didnt do the job...better finish it if they aren't dead. possible squirtage. Gross.

Or getting a gun, walking into the next room and firing it into the victim? Mind you, a gun is not an "intimate" weapon, most homicides studied have proven that attackers more than likely will not fire at close range. Most gun related homicides are many feet away.

I'm just saying that Suzie Homemaker who is upset that her husband TIVO'd Cool Runnings over her Extreme Makeover will probably think twice over stabbing her husband, over firing a gun at him in the heat of the moment

Avatar image for redstorm72
redstorm72

4646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#16 redstorm72
Member since 2008 • 4646 Posts

banning guns outright, would just leave civilians without guns, meanwhile all the gangs and robber etc. would still have guns.

a ban on guns, doesnt magically make all guns just disappear. it just leaves people defenseless from gangs and robbers and such.

Guns are a double edged sword.

konvikt_17

It's true, just look at all the countries with heavy gun restrictions like Canada and Western Europe. They are hell scapes ruled by gun packing super gangs taking advantage of defenseless citizens. If if only we had given everyone a gun like the U.S. we could have been as gang and gun crime free as them! Why didn't we listen?!?!

Avatar image for ZX81plus3
ZX81plus3

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 ZX81plus3
Member since 2012 • 181 Posts

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

banning guns outright, would just leave civilians without guns, meanwhile all the gangs and robber etc. would still have guns.

a ban on guns, doesnt magically make all guns just disappear. it just leaves people defenseless from gangs and robbers and such.

Guns are a double edged sword.

redstorm72

It's true, just look at all the countries with heavy gun restrictions like Canada and Western Europe. They are hell scapes ruled by gun packing super gangs taking advantage of defenseless citizens. If if only we had given everyone a gun like the U.S. we could have been as gang and gun crime free as them! Why didn't we listen?!?!

Yeah the roving gangs with guns are a real problem here in the UK.
Avatar image for thegerg
thegerg

18446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 thegerg
Member since 2010 • 18446 Posts

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="0mega3FattyAcid"]

I have flipped through the last 5 pages of the OT section and have seen every topic but this one. I thought there would definitely be a topic like this since the news of the Chiefs Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide incident.

During the Dallas/Philly game yesterday, an NBC reporter used halftime to pretty much explain how a ban on guns would have prevented this incident, and prevent many murder/homicides to come.

I really don't care either way, but many people's arguments for anti-gun ban was the fact that if Belcher wouldn't have had a gun, he would have stabbed, strangled, hung, ran over with a car etc...I think that's ****.

My take on it is that if there were no guns, Belcher and his girlfriend would still be alive today. Most stabbings, hangings, running over with cars, andchokings take a lot more time, thought and not so easy in a "heat of the moment" episode. With guns, just point and click. It's over. Gun crimes are a lot less intimate. With a knife, you have to get up close and in the persons face. Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea.

Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides.

<3

0mega3FattyAcid

"Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides."

While this may be arguable, keep in mind that banning guns doesn't mean that there will be no guns.

"Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea."

Just as any time between picking up the gun and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea. What's ypur point?

My point is...what's easier? Taking out a knife, walking into the next room, getting close enough to a person you have some kind of relation with, thrusting a blade into their skin (or slicing), feeling the blood run down your hand, possible multiple stabbings if you didnt do the job...better finish it if they aren't dead. possible squirtage. Gross.

Or getting a gun, walking into the next room and firing it into the victim? Mind you, a gun is not an "intimate" weapon, most homicides studied have proven that attackers more than likely will not fire at close range. Most gun related homicides are many feet away.

Pointing a knife at someone and thrusting isn't much more difficult than pointing a gun and squeezing the trigger. Certainly one is easier in some ways, but let's not condemn one tool (gun) while giving another (knife) a free pass. They both have their purposes, and can both be used unlawfully.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts
POW POWPOWKiIIyou
Waka?
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#20 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

I am a gun owner and have a state concealed carry license and am a member of the NRA, so I'm obviously pro gun. However unlike many of my fellow NRA members I do believe in some gun control measuers, in fact most supporters of the right to bear arms do. If someone wants to own a gun they need to know the basics, I feel that hunters safety must be required for anyone looking to purchase a fire arm, as well as hand gun saftey for hand gun owners.

I also support more thorough background checks (there are loop holes, trust me) and mental health checks before a person can buy a fire arm. I go the gun range quite often, not as much as I used to but at least twice a week. I feel it's important for me to know how to use my fire arm efficently if need be, however at the gun range I often see people who should NOT be handling fire arms.

I often see wannabe gangster tough guys who think guns make them "cool" and other such loonies, I met one kid who was there with his older brother that thought he knew everything about guns because he plays COD, I'm being serious. People like that have no business around guns, period. But I don't like the anti-gun crowd, all of their arguments are irrational and no one is going to take my guns away from me.

Besides it's the criminals that love gun control the most, they get their guns off the black market, they will always have guns. By banning guns or enforcing strict control laws, all your doing is making it harder for innocent people to protect themselves and making it easier for criminals to hurt people.

Avatar image for DJ419
DJ419

1016

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 DJ419
Member since 2005 • 1016 Posts

Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides.

0mega3FattyAcid

You are correct, if there were no guns. There would be no gun violence. However, in what Disney inspired universe could you possibly see where guns would suddenly dissappear from the face of the Earth in the event of an outright gun ban? Gun control affects nobody, except law abiding citizens.

Avatar image for 0mega3FattyAcid
0mega3FattyAcid

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 0mega3FattyAcid
Member since 2010 • 149 Posts

[QUOTE="0mega3FattyAcid"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] "Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides."

While this may be arguable, keep in mind that banning guns doesn't mean that there will be no guns.

"Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea."

Just as any time between picking up the gun and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea. What's ypur point?

thegerg

My point is...what's easier? Taking out a knife, walking into the next room, getting close enough to a person you have some kind of relation with, thrusting a blade into their skin (or slicing), feeling the blood run down your hand, possible multiple stabbings if you didnt do the job...better finish it if they aren't dead. possible squirtage. Gross.

Or getting a gun, walking into the next room and firing it into the victim? Mind you, a gun is not an "intimate" weapon, most homicides studied have proven that attackers more than likely will not fire at close range. Most gun related homicides are many feet away.

Pointing a knife at someone and thrusting isn't much more difficult than pointing a gun and squeezing the trigger. Certainly one is easier in some ways, but let's not condemn one tool (gun) while giving another (knife) a free pass. They both have their purposes, and can both be used unlawfully.

No free passes given. Anything can be used unlawfully, pencils, tampons, food processors whatever. However, knives serve many purposes...cutting food, doing ninja ****, cleaning out that black stuff under your nails....

With guns...well...um...all I have is that guns are used for killing. Have anything else to add to the list?

Avatar image for thegerg
thegerg

18446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 thegerg
Member since 2010 • 18446 Posts

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="0mega3FattyAcid"]

My point is...what's easier? Taking out a knife, walking into the next room, getting close enough to a person you have some kind of relation with, thrusting a blade into their skin (or slicing), feeling the blood run down your hand, possible multiple stabbings if you didnt do the job...better finish it if they aren't dead. possible squirtage. Gross.

Or getting a gun, walking into the next room and firing it into the victim? Mind you, a gun is not an "intimate" weapon, most homicides studied have proven that attackers more than likely will not fire at close range. Most gun related homicides are many feet away.

0mega3FattyAcid

Pointing a knife at someone and thrusting isn't much more difficult than pointing a gun and squeezing the trigger. Certainly one is easier in some ways, but let's not condemn one tool (gun) while giving another (knife) a free pass. They both have their purposes, and can both be used unlawfully.

No free passes given. Anything can be used unlawfully, pencils, tampons, food processors whatever. However, knives serve many purposes...cutting food, doing ninja ****, cleaning out that black stuff under your nails....

With guns...well...um...all I have is that guns are used for killing. Have anything else to add to the list?

Yes. Target shooting and collecting. Even if all they did was kill, that isn't necessarily unlawful. Rat poison, for example, is only used to kill. Yet, no reasonable person would argue that it should be illegal.
Avatar image for Slayer_of_Bugs
Slayer_of_Bugs

123

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 Slayer_of_Bugs
Member since 2012 • 123 Posts
Have you read the constitution? 2nd amendment.
Avatar image for konvikt_17
konvikt_17

22378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 konvikt_17
Member since 2008 • 22378 Posts

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

banning guns outright, would just leave civilians without guns, meanwhile all the gangs and robber etc. would still have guns.

a ban on guns, doesnt magically make all guns just disappear. it just leaves people defenseless from gangs and robbers and such.

Guns are a double edged sword.

redstorm72

It's true, just look at all the countries with heavy gun restrictions like Canada and Western Europe. They are hell scapes ruled by gun packing super gangs taking advantage of defenseless citizens. If if only we had given everyone a gun like the U.S. we could have been as gang and gun crime free as them! Why didn't we listen?!?!

not everywhere is like canada and such.

do this in heavy populated cities and the effects would be different. probly.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts
Have you read the constitution? 2nd amendment. Slayer_of_Bugs
I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that submachine guns or assault rifles would be invented; that doctrine is too old to use as a defense.
Avatar image for 0mega3FattyAcid
0mega3FattyAcid

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 0mega3FattyAcid
Member since 2010 • 149 Posts

I am a gun owner and have a state concealed carry license and am a member of the NRA, so I'm obviously pro gun. However unlike many of my fellow NRA members I do believe in some gun control measuers, in fact most supporters of the right to bear arms do. If someone wants to own a gun they need to know the basics, I feel that hunters safety must be required for anyone looking to purchase a fire arm, as well as hand gun saftey for hand gun owners.

I also support more thorough background checks (there are loop holes, trust me) and mental health checks before a person can buy a fire arm. I go the gun range quite often, not as much as I used to but at least twice a week. I feel it's important for me to know how to use my fire arm efficently if need be, however at the gun range I often see people who should NOT be handling fire arms.

I often see wannabe gangster tough guys who think guns make them "cool" and other such loonies, I met one kid who was there with his older brother that thought he knew everything about guns because he plays COD, I'm being serious. People like that have no business around guns, period. But I don't like the anti-gun crowd, all of their arguments are irrational and no one is going to take my guns away from me.

Besides it's the criminals that love gun control the most, they get their guns off the black market, they will always have guns. By banning guns or enforcing strict control laws, all your doing is making it harder for innocent people to protect themselves and making it easier for criminals to hurt people.

ShadowMoses900

Totally agree. Just to make things clear, i'm all for people posessing guns. Makes no difference to me. I was just pointing out the arguement that pro-2nd amendment people were saying about if Belcher didn't have a gun, he would have stabbed his girlfriend or found some other method so they would have been dead anyways. And THAT I don't agree with. At the end of the statement on Sunday Night Football, it was mentioned that if Belcher didn't have a gun, him and his girlfriend would still be alive. THAT I agree with.

Avatar image for thegerg
thegerg

18446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 thegerg
Member since 2010 • 18446 Posts
[QUOTE="Slayer_of_Bugs"]Have you read the constitution? 2nd amendment. Fightingfan
I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that submachine guns or assault rifles would be invented; that doctrine is too old to use as a defense.

No, it's not. It is used as a defense everyday.
Avatar image for thegerg
thegerg

18446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 thegerg
Member since 2010 • 18446 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I am a gun owner and have a state concealed carry license and am a member of the NRA, so I'm obviously pro gun. However unlike many of my fellow NRA members I do believe in some gun control measuers, in fact most supporters of the right to bear arms do. If someone wants to own a gun they need to know the basics, I feel that hunters safety must be required for anyone looking to purchase a fire arm, as well as hand gun saftey for hand gun owners.

I also support more thorough background checks (there are loop holes, trust me) and mental health checks before a person can buy a fire arm. I go the gun range quite often, not as much as I used to but at least twice a week. I feel it's important for me to know how to use my fire arm efficently if need be, however at the gun range I often see people who should NOT be handling fire arms.

I often see wannabe gangster tough guys who think guns make them "cool" and other such loonies, I met one kid who was there with his older brother that thought he knew everything about guns because he plays COD, I'm being serious. People like that have no business around guns, period. But I don't like the anti-gun crowd, all of their arguments are irrational and no one is going to take my guns away from me.

Besides it's the criminals that love gun control the most, they get their guns off the black market, they will always have guns. By banning guns or enforcing strict control laws, all your doing is making it harder for innocent people to protect themselves and making it easier for criminals to hurt people.

0mega3FattyAcid

Totally agree. Just to make things clear, i'm all for people posessing guns. Makes no difference to me. I was just pointing out the arguement that pro-2nd amendment people were saying about if Belcher didn't have a gun, he would have stabbed his girlfriend or found some other method so they would have been dead anyways. And THAT I don't agree with. At the end of the statement on Sunday Night Football, it was mentioned that if Belcher didn't have a gun, him and his girlfriend would still be alive. THAT I agree with.

It's silly to try to make some kind os absolute statement either way.
Avatar image for DJ419
DJ419

1016

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 DJ419
Member since 2005 • 1016 Posts

[QUOTE="Slayer_of_Bugs"]Have you read the constitution? 2nd amendment. Fightingfan
I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that submachine guns or assault rifles would be invented; that doctrine is too old to use as a defense.

Why do you think the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment? Please enlighten us. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't for hunting or target shooting.

Avatar image for Socialist696
Socialist696

558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#31 Socialist696
Member since 2012 • 558 Posts

I have flipped through the last 5 pages of the OT section and have seen every topic but this one. I thought there would definitely be a topic like this since the news of the Chiefs Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide incident.

During the Dallas/Philly game yesterday, an NBC reporter used halftime to pretty much explain how a ban on guns would have prevented this incident, and prevent many murder/homicides to come.

I really don't care either way, but many people's arguments for anti-gun ban was the fact that if Belcher wouldn't have had a gun, he would have stabbed, strangled, hung, ran over with a car etc...I think that's ****.

My take on it is that if there were no guns, Belcher and his girlfriend would still be alive today. Most stabbings, hangings, running over with cars, andchokings take a lot more time, thought and not so easy in a "heat of the moment" episode. With guns, just point and click. It's over. Gun crimes are a lot less intimate. With a knife, you have to get up close and in the persons face. Any time between picking up the knife and walking into the next room to where your victim is can be a deterrence, a redefining moment to where one might cool off or decide maybe homicide is a bad idea.

Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides.

<3

0mega3FattyAcid
Gun control won't stop homicides or suicides, and it certainly won't stop people from getting ahold of firearms. Homicides can be done with a pencil if the would-be murderer was motivated enough, and you can kill yourself in a variety of ways that are just as painless as a slug to the head. So, bottom line is no gun controls would not reduce homicides or suicides, it will just reduce the ease of performing a quick and efficient one.
Avatar image for redstorm72
redstorm72

4646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#32 redstorm72
Member since 2008 • 4646 Posts

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

banning guns outright, would just leave civilians without guns, meanwhile all the gangs and robber etc. would still have guns.

a ban on guns, doesnt magically make all guns just disappear. it just leaves people defenseless from gangs and robbers and such.

Guns are a double edged sword.

konvikt_17

It's true, just look at all the countries with heavy gun restrictions like Canada and Western Europe. They are hell scapes ruled by gun packing super gangs taking advantage of defenseless citizens. If if only we had given everyone a gun like the U.S. we could have been as gang and gun crime free as them! Why didn't we listen?!?!

not everywhere is like canada and such.

do this in heavy populated cities and the effects would be different. probly.

There are many heavily populated cities in Canada and Western Europe and few come close to their American counterparts in terms of gun crime. Point is, every modern nation with heavy gun restrictions has a significantly lower gun crime rate than the U.S. (unless you include Russia as a modern nation). Dismiss this fact if you want, but the writing is on the wall.

Avatar image for Socialist696
Socialist696

558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 Socialist696
Member since 2012 • 558 Posts
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Slayer_of_Bugs"]Have you read the constitution? 2nd amendment. thegerg
I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that submachine guns or assault rifles would be invented; that doctrine is too old to use as a defense.

No, it's not. It is used as a defense everyday.

The founding fathers amended firearm ownership because at the time during the wars with Britain, America did not have a efficient standing army to combat the British so they wanted to have the improved ability of a full time militia in the form of the general populace. Even today, if another foreign country was to attempt to invade America they wouldn't just be facing or armed forces, but our armed civilians as well.
Avatar image for DJ419
DJ419

1016

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 DJ419
Member since 2005 • 1016 Posts

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

It's true, just look at all the countries with heavy gun restrictions like Canada and Western Europe. They are hell scapes ruled by gun packing super gangs taking advantage of defenseless citizens. If if only we had given everyone a gun like the U.S. we could have been as gang and gun crime free as them! Why didn't we listen?!?!

redstorm72

not everywhere is like canada and such.

do this in heavy populated cities and the effects would be different. probly.

Point is, every modern nation with heavy gun restrictions has a significantly lower gun crime rate than the U.S.

[Citation Needed]

I have yet to see a single study that takes into account guns per citizens.

Avatar image for Vickman178
Vickman178

866

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 Vickman178
Member since 2011 • 866 Posts

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

banning guns outright, would just leave civilians without guns, meanwhile all the gangs and robber etc. would still have guns.

a ban on guns, doesnt magically make all guns just disappear. it just leaves people defenseless from gangs and robbers and such.

Guns are a double edged sword.

konvikt_17

It's true, just look at all the countries with heavy gun restrictions like Canada and Western Europe. They are hell scapes ruled by gun packing super gangs taking advantage of defenseless citizens. If if only we had given everyone a gun like the U.S. we could have been as gang and gun crime free as them! Why didn't we listen?!?!

not everywhere is like canada and such.

do this in heavy populated cities and the effects would be different. probly.

I live in Canada, alll you have to do to get a gun is take a 2 day course on gun safety to get your non-restricted license then send your test results in, they background check you and then you get a card like a license card which is called your PAL (kinda ironic that my gun license is called my pal...) Also there is a seperate course and license for handguns and other guns considered "restricted". There use to be a long gun registry that was put into place in 2001 but it was abolished this year.

I have my gun license and own a gun, in fact its easier to get a gun license then it is a drivers license. But no way guns should be banned outirght that would be ridiculous and wouldn't solve anything.

Most people I know own a gun, nobody ever talks about it though. Its something kept private unless you go to a range and chat with people (who are actuallly all very nice people by the way!)

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#36 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I am a gun owner and have a state concealed carry license and am a member of the NRA, so I'm obviously pro gun. However unlike many of my fellow NRA members I do believe in some gun control measuers, in fact most supporters of the right to bear arms do. If someone wants to own a gun they need to know the basics, I feel that hunters safety must be required for anyone looking to purchase a fire arm, as well as hand gun saftey for hand gun owners.

I also support more thorough background checks (there are loop holes, trust me) and mental health checks before a person can buy a fire arm. I go the gun range quite often, not as much as I used to but at least twice a week. I feel it's important for me to know how to use my fire arm efficently if need be, however at the gun range I often see people who should NOT be handling fire arms.

I often see wannabe gangster tough guys who think guns make them "cool" and other such loonies, I met one kid who was there with his older brother that thought he knew everything about guns because he plays COD, I'm being serious. People like that have no business around guns, period. But I don't like the anti-gun crowd, all of their arguments are irrational and no one is going to take my guns away from me.

Besides it's the criminals that love gun control the most, they get their guns off the black market, they will always have guns. By banning guns or enforcing strict control laws, all your doing is making it harder for innocent people to protect themselves and making it easier for criminals to hurt people.

0mega3FattyAcid

Totally agree. Just to make things clear, i'm all for people posessing guns. Makes no difference to me. I was just pointing out the arguement that pro-2nd amendment people were saying about if Belcher didn't have a gun, he would have stabbed his girlfriend or found some other method so they would have been dead anyways. And THAT I don't agree with. At the end of the statement on Sunday Night Football, it was mentioned that if Belcher didn't have a gun, him and his girlfriend would still be alive. THAT I agree with.

While it is true he could have used a different weapon, it would have probably been more difficult. What people don't understand is when it comes to self defense and just combat in general, it's not like the movies at all. It's a "balance of power" so to speak, and unconciously you want to tip that balance in your favor and a gun does that completely.

If you have a gun and the other person doesn't, you have the power of that situation.With a knife the assailant would have not gotten very far I don't think, he could have gotten taken down or tackled at the least, but I don't know much about the situation.

The thing that bothers me though from anti-gun people is some of them stereotype repsonsible gun owners like myself as dumb red necks and other such nonsense. I feel safer with a gun and I know how to use one effectively, I have never been in hand cuffs and I have zero criminal record of any kind.

I am a law abiding citizen and not any where close to being a "dumb red neck", I wish they would respect my right to bear arms.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Slayer_of_Bugs"]Have you read the constitution? 2nd amendment. DJ419

I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that submachine guns or assault rifles would be invented; that doctrine is too old to use as a defense.

Why do you think the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment? Please enlighten us. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't for hunting or target shooting.

My point being it took 3mins to reload a weapon, and even if you fired you probably missed; now compare that to today where if you have a grandfathered fully automatic Tommy Gun with a drum round(100 shots) could easily kill people at a much alarming rate.

Read Socialist post if you don't know why the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't what they used to be, and I doubt the founding fathers had any idea something like the Mp40 would even be created.

Avatar image for konvikt_17
konvikt_17

22378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 konvikt_17
Member since 2008 • 22378 Posts

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

It's true, just look at all the countries with heavy gun restrictions like Canada and Western Europe. They are hell scapes ruled by gun packing super gangs taking advantage of defenseless citizens. If if only we had given everyone a gun like the U.S. we could have been as gang and gun crime free as them! Why didn't we listen?!?!

redstorm72

not everywhere is like canada and such.

do this in heavy populated cities and the effects would be different. probly.

There are many heavily populated cities in Canada and Western Europe and few come close to their American counterparts in terms of gun crime. Point is, every modern nation with heavy gun restrictions has a significantly lower gun crime rate than the U.S. (unless you include Russia as a modern nation). Dismiss this fact if you want, but the writing is on the wall.

wasnt trying to dismiss the fact, i had actually not known much about it. gun control and such is not my strong suit.

i just believe that an outright ban on guns would not be the best thing to do. there are crazy people out there(no matter where it is) and i think you should be allowed to own a gun as protection.

Avatar image for 0mega3FattyAcid
0mega3FattyAcid

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 0mega3FattyAcid
Member since 2010 • 149 Posts

[QUOTE="0mega3FattyAcid"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I am a gun owner and have a state concealed carry license and am a member of the NRA, so I'm obviously pro gun. However unlike many of my fellow NRA members I do believe in some gun control measuers, in fact most supporters of the right to bear arms do. If someone wants to own a gun they need to know the basics, I feel that hunters safety must be required for anyone looking to purchase a fire arm, as well as hand gun saftey for hand gun owners.

I also support more thorough background checks (there are loop holes, trust me) and mental health checks before a person can buy a fire arm. I go the gun range quite often, not as much as I used to but at least twice a week. I feel it's important for me to know how to use my fire arm efficently if need be, however at the gun range I often see people who should NOT be handling fire arms.

I often see wannabe gangster tough guys who think guns make them "cool" and other such loonies, I met one kid who was there with his older brother that thought he knew everything about guns because he plays COD, I'm being serious. People like that have no business around guns, period. But I don't like the anti-gun crowd, all of their arguments are irrational and no one is going to take my guns away from me.

Besides it's the criminals that love gun control the most, they get their guns off the black market, they will always have guns. By banning guns or enforcing strict control laws, all your doing is making it harder for innocent people to protect themselves and making it easier for criminals to hurt people.

ShadowMoses900

Totally agree. Just to make things clear, i'm all for people posessing guns. Makes no difference to me. I was just pointing out the arguement that pro-2nd amendment people were saying about if Belcher didn't have a gun, he would have stabbed his girlfriend or found some other method so they would have been dead anyways. And THAT I don't agree with. At the end of the statement on Sunday Night Football, it was mentioned that if Belcher didn't have a gun, him and his girlfriend would still be alive. THAT I agree with.

While it is true he could have used a different weapon, it would have probably been more difficult. What people don't understand is when it comes to self defense and just combat in general, it's not like the movies at all. It's a "balance of power" so to speak, and unconciously you want to tip that balance in your favor and a gun does that completely.

If you have a gun and the other person doesn't, you have the power of that situation.With a knife the assailant would have not gotten very far I don't think, he could have gotten taken down or tackled at the least, but I don't know much about the situation.

The thing that bothers me though from anti-gun people is some of them stereotype repsonsible gun owners like myself as dumb red necks and other such nonsense. I feel safer with a gun and I know how to use one effectively, I have never been in hand cuffs and I have zero criminal record of any kind.

I am a law abiding citizen and not any where close to being a "dumb red neck", I wish they would respect my right to bear arms.

Yeah, he could have used another weapon...but for the sake of arguing, it is a lot less likely for someone in the heat of passion to use an "intimate" weapon, rather than a gun. I took a criminal homicide class back in college and spent half a semester on this subject....and for the life of me cannot remember if more homicides are pre-mediated or in the heat of passion. But if more are in the heat of passion, I can probably say that a gun would be the easiest and fastest way to achieve your goal if you were thinking irrationally.

Avatar image for Socijalisticka
Socijalisticka

1555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 Socijalisticka
Member since 2011 • 1555 Posts

but muh freedums to killing spree an life sentence with insanty plee, its wat the fouding dads wud want.

Avatar image for rastotm
rastotm

1380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 rastotm
Member since 2011 • 1380 Posts

The weapon is barely relevant when a murderer has a true intent of killing, but there are many cases when murdering someone was not the intent. Guns seem far more problematic and accident prone than other weapons this area. The problem with guns is that wielding guns makes people more inclined to assume that someone else is wielding a gun, a basic cognitive effect that seems to leave many victims. One could claim that gun legislation contributes to this effect, because gun legislation results in many guns spread among normal citizens which makes the aforementioned assumption feel as a serious threat. In the end, a potential attacker who assumes that the victim has a gun, may be more inclined to shoot. The famous 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument isn't entirely true.

Avatar image for thegerg
thegerg

18446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 thegerg
Member since 2010 • 18446 Posts

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that submachine guns or assault rifles would be invented; that doctrine is too old to use as a defense.Fightingfan

Why do you think the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment? Please enlighten us. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't for hunting or target shooting.

My point being it took 3mins to reload a weapon, and even if you fired you probably missed; now compare that to today where if you have a grandfathered fully automatic Tommy Gun with a drum round(100 shots) could easily kill people at a much alarming rate.

Read Socialist post if you don't know why the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't what they used to be, and I doubt the founding fathers had any idea something like the Mp40 would even be created.

One could argue that when they wrote the 1st Amendment they couldn't have envisioned the internet or television. All I'm saying is that neither one of those arguments really supports getting rid of the protections those Amendments provide.
Avatar image for Socialist696
Socialist696

558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#43 Socialist696
Member since 2012 • 558 Posts

but muh freedums to killing spree an life sentence with insanty plee, its wat the fouding dads wud want.

Socijalisticka
Kill one man, you're a murderer. Kill many, you're a conqueror. LOL
Avatar image for thegerg
thegerg

18446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 thegerg
Member since 2010 • 18446 Posts

but muh freedums to killing spree an life sentence with insanty plee, its wat the fouding dads wud want.

Socijalisticka
What?
Avatar image for DJ419
DJ419

1016

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 DJ419
Member since 2005 • 1016 Posts

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that submachine guns or assault rifles would be invented; that doctrine is too old to use as a defense.Fightingfan

Why do you think the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment? Please enlighten us. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't for hunting or target shooting.

My point being it took 3mins to reload a weapon, and even if you fired you probably missed; now compare that to today where if you have a grandfathered fully automatic Tommy Gun with a drum round(100 shots) could easily kill people at a much alarming rate.

Read Socialist post if you don't know why the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't what they used to be, and I doubt the founding fathers had any idea something like the Mp40 would even be created.

"My point being it took 3mins to reload a weapon"

Everyone during that time had the same firearms.

The founding fathers created the 2nd amendment for the event that if another American revolution were to happen. The citizens would be armed and ready.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the light of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panels mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough" - Alex Kozinski

Avatar image for redstorm72
redstorm72

4646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#46 redstorm72
Member since 2008 • 4646 Posts

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

not everywhere is like canada and such.

do this in heavy populated cities and the effects would be different. probly.

konvikt_17

There are many heavily populated cities in Canada and Western Europe and few come close to their American counterparts in terms of gun crime. Point is, every modern nation with heavy gun restrictions has a significantly lower gun crime rate than the U.S. (unless you include Russia as a modern nation). Dismiss this fact if you want, but the writing is on the wall.

wasnt trying to dismiss the fact, i had actually not known much about it. gun control and such is not my strong suit.

i just believe that an outright ban on guns would not be the best thing to do. there are crazy people out there(no matter where it is) and i think you should be allowed to own a gun as protection.

I don't completly disagree with you. Most nations, even those with heavy gun restrictions, allow for gun ownership, you just need to jump through more hoops and you are limited in the types of gun you can purchase. For example, my father owns over a dozen hunting rifles. That being said, the ease of access to handguns and assualt rifles (even if they are only semi-automatic) in the States does little to add to the protection of your home and family in my opinion. Also, this isn't specifically targeted at you, but I am so tired of hearing people bring up the "right to bear arms" as a justification for allowing access to excessivly dangerous weapons. There are already restrictions on fire arm sales in the U.S. (ie, you can't buy a grenade launcher or a fully automatic light machine gun with a 100 round magazine) so why is it suddenly breaching your "rights" to impose further restrictions?

Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

Why do you think the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment? Please enlighten us. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't for hunting or target shooting.

thegerg

My point being it took 3mins to reload a weapon, and even if you fired you probably missed; now compare that to today where if you have a grandfathered fully automatic Tommy Gun with a drum round(100 shots) could easily kill people at a much alarming rate.

Read Socialist post if you don't know why the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't what they used to be, and I doubt the founding fathers had any idea something like the Mp40 would even be created.

One could argue that when they wrote the 1st Amendment they couldn't have envisioned the internet or television. All I'm saying is that neither one of those arguments really supports getting rid of the protections those Amendments provide.

I'm not saying get rid of guns, they're simply something that needs to be heavily regulated.

I want America to adopted the Japanese way; to have a gun you have to evaluated by a psychologist, have to pass a shooting exam(like a driving test) and your license, psych, and gun knowledge is tested every three years if you wish to continue owning/using a firearm.

*You also can't be a drug addict

Avatar image for -RocBoys9489-
-RocBoys9489-

6336

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 -RocBoys9489-
Member since 2008 • 6336 Posts

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

Why do you think the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment? Please enlighten us. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't for hunting or target shooting.

DJ419

My point being it took 3mins to reload a weapon, and even if you fired you probably missed; now compare that to today where if you have a grandfathered fully automatic Tommy Gun with a drum round(100 shots) could easily kill people at a much alarming rate.

Read Socialist post if you don't know why the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't what they used to be, and I doubt the founding fathers had any idea something like the Mp40 would even be created.

"My point being it took 3mins to reload a weapon"

Everyone during that time had the same firearms.

The founding fathers created the 2nd amendment for the event that if another American revolution were to happen. The citizens would be armed and ready.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failedwhere the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the light of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panels mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough" - Alex Kozinski

Exactly, like I said above, giving up your right to bear arms = bending over to your government to do whatever the **** they want.
Avatar image for thegerg
thegerg

18446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 thegerg
Member since 2010 • 18446 Posts
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

My point being it took 3mins to reload a weapon, and even if you fired you probably missed; now compare that to today where if you have a grandfathered fully automatic Tommy Gun with a drum round(100 shots) could easily kill people at a much alarming rate.

Read Socialist post if you don't know why the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't what they used to be, and I doubt the founding fathers had any idea something like the Mp40 would even be created.

Fightingfan
One could argue that when they wrote the 1st Amendment they couldn't have envisioned the internet or television. All I'm saying is that neither one of those arguments really supports getting rid of the protections those Amendments provide.

I'm not saying get rid of guns, they're simply something that needs to be heavily regulated. I want America to adopted the Japanese way; to have a gun you have to evaluated by a psychologist, have to pass a shoot test(like a driving test) and your license, psych, and ability on gun know how is tested every three years.

That's not a horrible idea.
Avatar image for -RocBoys9489-
-RocBoys9489-

6336

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 -RocBoys9489-
Member since 2008 • 6336 Posts

And I rather have people be killed by guns every year in order to keep the 2nd amendment. Sorry, bad **** happens everyday, get over it. And it's not like most of these people even buy their guns legally anyway i.e. drugs.