Gun Issues page 42

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by gunshooter4570:

That’s right, and guns are for our defence,

And offense.

and when the government bans small things, soon they will start banning muxh larger things.

As you can see from the rampant banning of guns this past century after fully-automatics were declared illegal.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by gunshooter4570:

If you ban the guns,

Just a heads up beforehand, no rational person here or in most places in the U.S are actually trying to ban all forms of guns.

it will be just one more step for our government toward the line of socialism.

Oh great, more people who don’t know what socialism is.

Anyway, if you ban guns from American citizens the killing will not decrease, the people that kill others are usually the people that ignore the laws. BANNING GUNS WILL NOT STOP THE KILLING.

Well obviously, people are going to find other ways to kill each other. Just not with guns.

No Tenco not all guns, just those they deem with there tiny little minds to be scary looking. You know the ones, hand grips, plastic stocks that might adjust to a persons arm reach, removable magazines, etc. Of course this is just to start. Since these are semi-auto firearms, it must make semi-auto shotguns, rifles, and handguns super dangerous too. It’s just a start, a foot in the door. wake up buddy.

We know what socialism is. we just don’t accept fifty different definitions of it to water it down and making it seem more acceptable.

Yes, murder is not just the domain of firearms. In fact, they aren’t the main instrument used. People who want to kill, will kill.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by gunshooter4570:

That’s right, and guns are for our defence,

99% of people do not go on the offense with their firearms.

These are the people you put your trust in? The ones with the ability to own firearms? Yet you think civilians are not capable?

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atfs-milwaukee-sting-operation-marred-by-mistakes-failures-mu8akpj-188952581.html?abc=Ct5vpWpS

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Oh gee look, SCOTUS admitted that firearms regulation is permissible in that D.C. vs Heller decision the gun nuts like to throw around.
So the Court didn’t just say “HEY GUNS FOR EVERYBODY NO RESTRICTIONS!!!”, huh? Crazy.

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment right. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

We know what socialism is.

Which is exactly why you constantly misuse and misunderstand it.

we just don’t accept fifty different definitions of it to water it down and making it seem more acceptable.

Like right here.

Originally posted by jhco50:

99% of people do not go on the offense with their firearms.

So when people hunt they almost always shoot in self-defense? Okay, I know that deer can go really ape-shit on someone, but I don’t think they actively seek out to provoke it first.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Oh gee look, SCOTUS admitted that firearms regulation is permissible in that D.C. vs Heller decision the gun nuts like to throw around.
So the Court didn’t just say “HEY GUNS FOR EVERYBODY NO RESTRICTIONS!!!”, huh? Crazy.

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment “right”. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

Oh look, by your own quote it says it leaves questions of constitutionality that will be looked at later. It discusses whether or not a state can make regulations against the 2nd Amendment. You don’t’ have to be a lawyer to understand what that quote says.

Tell me softest, do you think it will stop with gun control like you are suggesting? You know better than that. So let’s say they manage to take our guns, the 2nd Amendment Right. What will they go after next, now that they have broken our Bill of Rights? Your wonderful freedom of speech? A speedy trial? How about freedom to be safe in your home and possessions? What are you willing to give up, because if they break the Bill of Rights they will clean house of all of our freedoms. Government is not our friend anymore.

What is it you think our government wants? They sure as hell don’t care about your freedoms. Or is it you can’t handle freedom and need a nanny government to guide you in all you do?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

We know what socialism is.

Which is exactly why you constantly misuse and misunderstand it.

we just don’t accept fifty different definitions of it to water it down and making it seem more acceptable.

Like right here.

Originally posted by jhco50:

99% of people do not go on the offense with their firearms.

So when people hunt they almost always shoot in self-defense? Okay, I know that deer can go really ape-shit on someone, but I don’t think they actively seek out to provoke it first.

Of course Tenco. We should be defining socialism to fit your ideas instead of what it is. How many definitions does it have?

Ahhhhh, clever Tenco.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by softest_voice:

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Oh gee look, SCOTUS admitted that firearms regulation is permissible in that D.C. vs Heller decision the gun nuts like to throw around.
So the Court didn’t just say “HEY GUNS FOR EVERYBODY NO RESTRICTIONS!!!”, huh? Crazy.

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment “right”. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.


Oh look, by your own quote it says it leaves questions of constitutionality that will be looked at later. It discusses whether or not a state can make regulations against the 2nd Amendment. You don’t’ have to be a lawyer to understand what that quote says.


Tell me softest, do you think it will stop with gun control like you are suggesting? You know better than that. So let’s say they manage to take our guns, the 2nd Amendment Right. What will they go after next, now that they have broken our Bill of Rights? Your wonderful freedom of speech? A speedy trial? How about freedom to be safe in your home and possessions? What are you willing to give up, because if they break the Bill of Rights they will clean house of all of our freedoms. Government is not our friend anymore.


What is it you think our government wants? They sure as hell don’t care about your freedoms. Or is it you can’t handle freedom and need a nanny government to guide you in all you do?

lol. look up here in canada. We dont have a right to guns, but we’re doing allright. This hole debate looks funny from up here, as you americans seem to tie guns to freedom. guns are made to kill things. buy a super-shotgun-taser thing if your you need to defend yourself.
And btw, no one could commit all those mass murders with a baseball-bat. non projectile based weapons are not as efficient or deadly, especially when you want to kil as many peuple as fast as possible 

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

MW, I fully understand yer concern…I really do.
This crap is highly analogous to being in Middle Eastern cities and having fucking-ass suicide bombers blow yer asses off.

BUT, for here in the U.S., how many more drunk-driving deaths to innocents are there going to be fore booze sales restrictions are enforced?

OR, more specifically…the already strong legal controls on repeat offenders.
AND, let’s make them even stronger….eh?
I’m not gonna look up the number of such deaths & injuries…
BUT, I’m gonna make a very safe bet that they are much, MUCH higher than the gun incidents ya’re touting.

SO, bottom line….while I’m a strong advocate of protecting gun RIGHTS via sensible, reasonable, rational CONTROLS,,,I say let’s NOT go overboard w/ silly “knee-jerking-off”.
Let’s keep in mind the many other “stoooopid-human-tricks” that are equally as bad or worse and do some due diligence on what a COMPREHENSIVE effort at making our societies much safer might be and do what is necessary to “make it so”.

I think my head just exploded…I might…..I think….I think I might actually agree with u here, Karma…

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sanii:

A canuk, or as they call them in Arizona, snowbirds. You may be fine with your situation, but those that are out in the Northern parts of you country may not agree with you. I gather you are from the city and have no need for a firearm. I am humored by your super-shotgun-taser thngy. We don’t have then in the lower 48. They sound like quite a weapon.

I hope you aren’t suggesting only a firearm can commit mass murders? Why, with my limited knowledge, I could more than likely build a device that could take out a city block. Just saying.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:

A canuk, or as they call them in Arizona, snowbirds.

Wait I thought that was something from the Mayan calendar.

I gather you are from the city and have no need for a firearm.

I would assume that that’s actually one of the places you would greater need for a gun. Well, maybe for the area with the stereotypical New York City mob.

I would am humored by your super-shotgun-taser thngy. We don’t have then in the lower 48. They sound like quite a weapon.

And just think what would happen if there was more research and money put into making tasers more effective until they start to enter into the public conscious as a viable method of self-defense.

I hope you aren’t suggesting only a firearm can commit mass murders?

I thought it was pretty obvious that he wasn’t saying that, just that it’s really easy for someone to do it with a big enough gun.

Why, with my limited knowledge, I could more than likely build a device that could take out a city block. Just saying.

And I’m pretty sure that most ways of doing that would be illegal (and I would assume buying the all of ingredients nessesary at a store would raise a few red flags, but hey, I could be wrong and some people are actually more pasifisitc than I thought), which is not always the with guns, because you can legally get a gun and theoretically raise no alarms, but then go on a spree afterwards.

And to stop people from replying, no, I’m not saying this will or is the likely scenario, it just could (Seriously, I’m still surprised that people can’t actually seem to figure that out on their own.)

 
Flag Post

A canuk, or as they call them in Arizona, snowbirds. You may be fine with your situation, but those that are out in the Northern parts of you country may not agree with you. I gather you are from the city and have no need for a firearm. I would am humored by your super-shotgun-taser thngy. We don’t have then in the lower 48. They sound like quite a weapon.

The Northern parts are largely uninhabited and barely make any money, who cares what they think. That said, people really seem to think in Canada there is some sort of denial of guns. You don’t have the right to arm yourself with whatever you please, you must also register what you have. But it is not like guns, as a mass, are unavailable. I know a number of people who have guns. Hunting isn’t exactly rare around here.

Why, with my limited knowledge, I could more than likely build a device that could take out a city block.

Nevertheless, most deranged sprees don’t involve a great deal of explosives, or particularly successful explosives. There is a psychology at work here, one that concealed remote explosives doesn’t fulfill. The american concept of deranged martyrdom remains tied not just to amassing a body count but intrinsically to guns too. I would suggest the level of personal interactivity, and that one can go down at the scene fighting to the last.

Guns are certainly capable of mass murders, and remain the chosen implement to fulfill that.

Also, I am little skeptical of most would be bombers proficiency.

 
Flag Post

I just find, those who want these gun laws can’t seem to analyze the real reasons behind the push for them, or what the final outcome our leaders want. This isn’t about crime, nor is it about safety of our people, it’s about control.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/22/violence-not-real-target-war-guns/

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2495/ny_democrat_pleads_with_republican_not_to_share_document_proposing_confiscation_of_guns

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:

I just find, those who want these gun laws can’t seem to analyze the real reasons behind the push for them, or what the final outcome our leaders want. This isn’t about crime, nor is it about safety of our people, it’s about control.

Because everything a politician does has to have an ulterior motive?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by ColtArmy:

I just find, those who want these gun laws can’t seem to analyze the real reasons behind the push for them, or what the final outcome our leaders want. This isn’t about crime, nor is it about safety of our people, it’s about control.

Because everything a politician does has to have an ulterior motive?

…..of all people, I would have expected you to agree with that…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sanii:
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by softest_voice:

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Oh gee look, SCOTUS admitted that firearms regulation is permissible in that D.C. vs Heller decision the gun nuts like to throw around.
So the Court didn’t just say “HEY GUNS FOR EVERYBODY NO RESTRICTIONS!!!”, huh? Crazy.

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment “right”. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.


Oh look, by your own quote it says it leaves questions of constitutionality that will be looked at later. It discusses whether or not a state can make regulations against the 2nd Amendment. You don’t’ have to be a lawyer to understand what that quote says.


Tell me softest, do you think it will stop with gun control like you are suggesting? You know better than that. So let’s say they manage to take our guns, the 2nd Amendment Right. What will they go after next, now that they have broken our Bill of Rights? Your wonderful freedom of speech? A speedy trial? How about freedom to be safe in your home and possessions? What are you willing to give up, because if they break the Bill of Rights they will clean house of all of our freedoms. Government is not our friend anymore.


What is it you think our government wants? They sure as hell don’t care about your freedoms. Or is it you can’t handle freedom and need a nanny government to guide you in all you do?


lol. look up here in canada. We dont have a right to guns, but we’re doing allright. This hole debate looks funny from up here, as you americans seem to tie guns to freedom. guns are made to kill things. buy a super-shotgun-taser thing if your you need to defend yourself.
And btw, no one could commit all those mass murders with a baseball-bat. non projectile based weapons are not as efficient or deadly, especially when you want to kil as many peuple as fast as possible 

Tell you what…you can have your super shotgun taser thing…and I’ll have my twelve gauge backed by Castle Law. You may enter my house whenever you please…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:

…..of all people, I would have expected you to agree with that…

Why?

 
Flag Post

I just find, those who want these gun laws can’t seem to analyze the real reasons behind the push for them, or what the final outcome our leaders want. This isn’t about crime, nor is it about safety of our people, it’s about control.

So you’re suggesting that the Canadian government is out to “seize control” of the Canadian people? I’d wish them good luck with a country a tenth our size that wanted them. But this is the Canadian government we’re talking about. Frankly I am not that worried about some crypto facist take over. In fact, the danger of that I would have to suggest is a consequence of, and I stress, constant militarism. Something abundantly clear in the US.

If you’re really so scared of your government taking over I’d highly suggest considering why the people of such a mentality are in office, firstly. Secondly, why you are pouring such a massive amount of money into financing their would be military overlords. Culture control, first and foremost is the answer to such a problem. The problem with your us against them militia men is that they breed their enemies, and vice versa. The worship of the barrel of the gun creates these bizarre phantoms.

If you want to talk control and resisting your government, don’t pay taxes, don’t go to work. Can push the whole shit house over in a night.

 
Flag Post

Ung, as you know, I am a long time gun-owner and have been in this community for many years. I have had plenty of chances to talk to the people in Canada who are like me. You don’t have it near as good as you say you do. They are not happy and have been fighting the same fight as we in the US have. How many billions of dollars did your country waste on gun control before the backed down a little? Y Our gun community are not as lucky as we are, as we have our bill of rights and they don’t. Our bill of rights have been pretty much been written in stone for 250 years, whereas yours are not.

I wasn’t scared of my government until Kennedy was killed. I then realized no one is really safe in our country anymore. People can easily just vanish, never to be heard of again. Our military experiments on our soldiers and have experimented on civilians in the past. I’m not going to go looking for the references, but this is fact. Our nuclear tests in Nevada is a good example of experimentation by our military.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CN_CANADA_VANCOUVER_STABBING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-01-17-31-12

You know, I wonder the same thing. Why do we elect these people we are up against at the moment. As far as financing overlords in other countries, we have no choice. We lost the taxation battle long ago. Not paying taxes has been tried and all are in prison now. I’m not sure about the work thing, it would probably work if the people could do it.

 
Flag Post

Wow! Obamacare saving us money!

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family

All of these things I have argued and you people have disbelieved are popping up in the strangest places.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55742445-68/shooting-atlanta-police-says.html.csp

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/169000-americans-drop-out-labor-force-january-unemployment-ticks

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100426559

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272166/Big-brother-log-drinking-habits-waist-size.html#axzz2JhXYhdJ3

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by ColtArmy:

I just find, those who want these gun laws can’t seem to analyze the real reasons behind the push for them, or what the final outcome our leaders want. This isn’t about crime, nor is it about safety of our people, it’s about control.

Because everything a politician does has to have an ulterior motive?

Pretty much.

 
Flag Post

How many billions of dollars did your country waste on gun control before the backed down a little?

Not nearly enough to effect my standard of living. So, not that much? It was a waste, which is frustrating. But do I worry about a military coup enacted by my government? Nope. I’m far more concerned about my self righteous neighbours.

I wasn’t scared of my government until Kennedy was killed. I then realized no one is really safe in our country anymore. People can easily just vanish, never to be heard of again. Our military experiments on our soldiers and have experimented on civilians in the past. I’m not going to go looking for the references, but this is fact. Our nuclear tests in Nevada is a good example of experimentation by our military.

The sole purpose of the modern president is to ritually slaughter. It’s the white lamb, the blank check. A face to distract, and then, replace. So, I find it less then moving when they kick it. I’m not sure how private arms prevent presidential assassinations however. The same goes with military experiments. I truly believe a skeptical, vigilant society armed with modern communication is a far better safe guard then a side arm. These people weren’t kidnapped at gun point, they were simpletons they thought they could dupe.

As for the Vancouver incident, I would point out that it was a stabbing (no gun) and that nobody died. Coulda been better, coulda been worse. I am not sure if knife attacks really provide justification for deregulating, what exactly? Carrying law? Handgun regulation? Assault Rifle regulation?

You know, I wonder the same thing. Why do we elect these people we are up against at the moment. As far as financing overlords in other countries, we have no choice. We lost the taxation battle long ago. Not paying taxes has been tried and all are in prison now. I’m not sure about the work thing, it would probably work if the people could do it.

Comes down to numbers. Can’t arrest everybody. Certainly can’t afford to when no one is working or paying taxes either.