Gun Issues page 68

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
..return America to those golden years of far-right conservative paradise….where we have prayer in school

Nothing wrong with that, IMO, as long as it’s not forced on anybody. It actually rather irritates me when they remove “under God” from the pledge of allegiance and other stuff like that. I’m not that old, but I grew up pledging it in a public school with no problem.

Well, there is “prayer-IN-school”…and then, there is a form of “prayer-BY-the-school”. I obvously should have mede the disctinction. I guess the usual concept of the term didn’t work.

First, I want it made clear that I have NO PROBLEM w/ ppl praying ON THEIR OWN in school or anywhere that school authority prevails…..as long as it falls under the same guidelines of beind disruptive as any other form of such activity.

I even highly support the see you at the flagpole
However, this should be for STUDENTS ONLY.
This story brings up some “banging-of-religious-ideology head” against that Wall of Separation.
Please note that the school officials were found not guility because of an overt INTENT to violate the “agreement”.

I just as firmly believe that teachers & school admin have NO PLACE AT ALL in joining the students “at the flagpole”. Nor, should “the school” be involved in offering up a “blessing” that is clearly religious in nature. Note: a "blessing " DOES NOT HAVE TO BE religious in nature. Religion doesn’t “own” that term….just as they don’t “own” the term marriage.

Just so that I can split some hairs today, I want to say that such things as saying: Ain’t it a wonderful (even “blessing” is okay) thing that we are able to have such a great meal in a wonderful setting. I have no problem w/ a prelude to a school event including a “moment-of-silence” w/ the distinct understanding that such is an opportunity for each individual to stop for a moment & give some serious reflection on the parameters involved that put them there at that time.

As far as the “under God” goes:
It wasn’t in the original oath.
It was added during a very dark, hateful-of-atheism, similar to the Spanish Inqusition time:
MaCcarthism
“To be clear, God was added to the Pledge and as a motto in the 1950s not because of a strong devotion to religion but out of a desire to find and punish atheists.”

I feel strongly that “In God We Trust” should be removed from our money,,,
that the “Congressional Chaplin”: find another job somewhere else,,,
that the Wall of Separation be high, thick & strong.

I’m going to give ya all a personal, anecdotal bit of disgusting hypocrisy in this area of thinly veiled “state-supported” religion.

The DOT (dept. of transportation) will buy land as close to highway overpasses as possible so they can “borrow” the dirt to make the ramps for the bridges. Often, these “borrow pits” will fill w/ water. One of them near where I & the wife once lived was about a mile around it. We like to walk our dogs around it….for the most part, it was quasi-rural. The DOT did no maintenance on the land….they didn’t even bother to remove all the trash that was dumped their,,,truckloads of it.

Because the wife didn’t much like walking in thin but knee-deep grass, I would use my riding mower (5 trips around) to make a nice walking path….plus, those who fished there appreciated it, too.

At one point, Wichita State Univ.’s water ski club wanted to use it. So, the state dug a huge trench and the students drug, hauled, threw all of the trash into it….then it was covered. The state then fenced it off so dumping was stopped. The state put in a nice parking lot. The state stocked the “lake” w/ fish and put up a sign stating the fishing rules.

The state also added my & wife’s names as the volunteers who picked up the trash & otherwise maintained the area. I even moved many surplus landscape plants (from my yard & those of others) & bought some too big to transplant (trees, etc.).

Things went along fine for a couple of years.
THEN, I had the fucking gall to mow a 100 foot diameter peace symbol in a large area at the south end of the lake area where it could easily be seen from the elevated overpass next to it.

I was called up by a state “official” and told that I would have to cease mowing the symbol because they had complaints about it. I didn’t know the nature of the complaints. They could have been that it was seen as being religious or merely the conservatism of our area objecting to an old “hippy” symbol (ala jhco).

Regardless, it was the religoius angle that the state DOT official used to make me cease to maintain it. And, they—for the first time EVER—sent a mower out to the area and eradicated it.
Needless to say, I told them to stick that sign (I & wife’s name) up their asses & maintain what they owned…..and to apply like sentiment to all other areas of govt. also being similarly “violated”.
.

Originally posted by thecartm:

I would continue arguing, but I don’t think anything is going to change the world on a forum.

Thank you.

 
Flag Post

I would continue arguing, but I don’t think anything is going to change the world on a forum.

Thank you.

Not sure if being dick or really glad I’m stopping.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thecartm:


I would continue arguing, but I don’t think anything is going to change the world on a forum.

Thank you.

Not sure if being dick or really glad I’m stopping.

Exactly!
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Definitely working for Koreans.

I don’t know if tenco was being his occasional mirthfully pithy self, but a huge majority of the Chinese women I see actually ARE fairly small-breasted. I’m certainly not a medical doctor, but I would imagine a breast so lacking in glands might not be all that capable of milk production.

You would think, but that seems to be as mistakenly correlated as dolphins were to being called fish.

Brownback does NOT believe in evolution.

I assume that’s because he thinks evolution is the layman’s theory, and it states that most animals have up to three stages and when they reach the right level they evolve. No, wait, he wouldn’t have played Pokemon because he still thinks it teaches Satanism, or something.

He is a very “fundamentalist” Christian who really isn’t very Christian….like DUH.

How exactly do you do that?

 
Flag Post

I dont understand how people could be against making guns harder to buy.

Its not like this will mean your guns will be illegal or anything. It just means that in the future, if someone wants a gun, they have to pass a background check/psych exam.

If you dont support this, you support crazy people buying guns and shooting babies.

And thats terrible.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by CROWn_Royal:

I dont understand how people could be against making guns harder to buy.

Its not like this will mean your guns will be illegal or anything. It just means that in the future, if someone wants a gun, they have to pass a background check/psych exam.

If you dont support this, you support crazy people buying guns and shooting babies.

And thats terrible.

Harder to buy = Unfair to the 99.9% of non-violent gun owners.
And no one supports shooting babies.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thecartm:
Originally posted by CROWn_Royal:

I dont understand how people could be against making guns harder to buy.

Its not like this will mean your guns will be illegal or anything. It just means that in the future, if someone wants a gun, they have to pass a background check/psych exam.

If you dont support this, you support crazy people buying guns and shooting babies.

And thats terrible.

Harder to buy = Unfair to the 99.9% of non-violent gun owners.
And no one supports shooting babies.

Gun owners are not non-violent.

Why would a non-violent person want to own assault rifles???

Also, I never said they support killing babies.

I said they support giving guns to people who want to kill babies.

Totally different, bro

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by CROWn_Royal:
Originally posted by thecartm:
Originally posted by CROWn_Royal:

I dont understand how people could be against making guns harder to buy.

Its not like this will mean your guns will be illegal or anything. It just means that in the future, if someone wants a gun, they have to pass a background check/psych exam.

If you dont support this, you support crazy people buying guns and shooting babies.

And thats terrible.

Harder to buy = Unfair to the 99.9% of non-violent gun owners.
And no one supports shooting babies.

Gun owners are not non-violent.

Why would a non-violent person want to own assault rifles???

Also, I never said they support killing babies.

I said they support giving guns to people who want to kill babies.

Totally different, bro

Look. There are thousands of americans who own a gun and are non violent. That is an unacceptable stereotype. And no, they don’t support (insert random crap here).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thecartm:
Originally posted by CROWn_Royal:

I dont understand how people could be against making guns harder to buy.

Its not like this will mean your guns will be illegal or anything. It just means that in the future, if someone wants a gun, they have to pass a background check/psych exam.

If you dont support this, you support crazy people buying guns and shooting babies.

And thats terrible.

Harder to buy = Unfair to the 99.9% of non-violent gun owners.
And no one supports shooting babies.

Show me the Proof!

 
Flag Post

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

You need a license to own a gun is most states.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by CROWn_Royal:
Originally posted by thecartm:
Originally posted by CROWn_Royal:

I dont understand how people could be against making guns harder to buy.

Its not like this will mean your guns will be illegal or anything. It just means that in the future, if someone wants a gun, they have to pass a background check/psych exam.

If you dont support this, you support crazy people buying guns and shooting babies.

And thats terrible.

Harder to buy = Unfair to the 99.9% of non-violent gun owners.
And no one supports shooting babies.

Gun owners are not non-violent.

TOTAL BULLSHIT.
Deciphering the double negative = _gun owners ARE violent.
.
Why would a non-violent person want to own assault rifles???
BIG BOY TOYS.
The only difference between men & boys is the size & cost of their toys.
Haven’t ya ever seen boys throwing rocks at something?
Same thing for men throwing lead at something….cuz they can & it is fun when ya manage to hone your skill to be able to do it very often. Plus, there is the “bragging rights” of having the biggest, the baddest, the coolest, etc. Ya know, just like they do w/ cars, sounds systems, etc.
.
>Also, I never said they support killing babies.

I said they support giving guns to people who want to kill babies.

Totally different, bro

NO,
not “totally” different.
Supporting the giving of guns to ppl who want to kill babies is VERY MUCH TACITLY supporting the killing of babies.
.
Originally posted by thijser:

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

EXACTLY.
This is a stance I have long supported.
.
Originally posted by thecartm:

You need a license to own a gun is most states.

Ya probably should have stayed “quit” while ya were ahead….LOL
BUT, since ya’ve reeled yer dick out so far on this one….PROVE YOUR CLAIM.
I don’t think ya got shit.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thecartm:
Originally posted by thijser:

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

You need a license to own a gun is most states.

This is very, very false. Only four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Mass., and New Jersey) require a license for all firearms. The overwhelming majority of states don’t require a license to buy a handgun (fairly terrifying) and there are states like Alaska and Vermont that don’t require a license even for concealed carry which seems insane to me. Don’t get me wrong, I love concealed carry, but to not require a license is asinine.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

Maybe he’s thinking of permits for closed carry, or open carry. At least that wouldn’t keep him from looking like a complete idiot.

 
Flag Post

Yah, the extremists in Canada are pushing to remove licensing from guns, as well, like our American brethren. That way everyone can be as incognito as possible without anyone having a clue what their intent might be. First goes registration, then goes licensing, then we keep giving them an inch, and they will keep taking a mile. Ah well, freedom, right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by CROWn_Royal:

I dont understand how people could be against making guns harder to buy.

Its not like this will mean your guns will be illegal or anything. It just means that in the future, if someone wants a gun, they have to pass a background check/psych exam.

If you dont support this, you support crazy people buying guns and shooting babies.

And thats terrible.

You have no idea how bad our government wants to take our guns. They have tried for a hundred years and gun owners at first didn’t realize what they were doing because they were making laws a little at a time. When gun owners woke up to what our government was doing all hell broke lose. It has been a fight ever since. Yes, when ever governments wants something the people don’t, they bring it about a little at a time. Your generation know less and less about Americas past and the little things that have occurred. I’m not sure they even teach American History anymore.

And don’t use an old cliche to insult people who don’t agree with you. We do not support giving any firearms to baby killers and it is just plain stupid for you to make such a wild accusation.

Gun owners are not violent. They are everyday people who are willing to take the responsibility for personal safety upon themselves. I have explained to everyone about what and what is not an assault rifle. You are-showing your ignorance when you continue to call the firearms we own assault rifles. Why don’t you do a little research?

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

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

That has been explained several times, stop using augments that are baseless.

 
Flag Post

You people want a reason to buy and own an assault rifle hows this:
darkninja is in the military; darkninja does not get to fire his service rifle as often as you think once a year if darkninja is lucky. So darkninja builds himself an semiauto M4 replica with an M68 and everything cept the PAQ-15. This is so darkninja may actually be able to preform some what decently in the event darkninja should ever have to fire his M4 and so when its time to qual darkninja doesnt seem like a complete noob

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkninja210:

You people want a reason to buy and own an assault rifle hows this:
darkninja is in the military; darkninja does not get to fire his service rifle as often as you think once a year if darkninja is lucky. So darkninja builds himself an semiauto M4 replica with an M68 and everything cept the PAQ-15. This is so darkninja may actually be able to preform some what decently in the event darkninja should ever have to fire his M4 and so when its time to qual darkninja doesnt seem like a complete noob

I think your military has some issues if there are no was to train firing a gun apart from on leave with a home made gun. I would of thought a military would train people to shoot the weapon they are issued with and have rifle ranges etc

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by thijser:

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

That has been explained several times, stop using augments that are baseless.

OH…OH…OH,,,
the irony in that could press all the clothing in the U.S. for a whole year.
The irony in that could rebuild all the bridges in the U.S…….TWICE.

I’m with dd,,,
that is one fucked up military that requires rifle training ONLY ONCE A YEAR——IF LUCKY.
AND, doesn’t encourage free-time shooting of most any weapon they are qualified on.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by thijser:

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

That has been explained several times, stop using augments that are baseless.

As I have no complete oversight of all 68 pages can you give me a quick overview of the argument as to why you need to have a driving licence and no gun licence (as well as having your car registered ext.). Both are dangerous when misused and per hour of use I think a gun is more dangerous.

 
Flag Post

NO, not “totally” different. Supporting the giving of guns to ppl who want to kill babies is VERY MUCH TACITLY supporting the killing of babies.

Still paying your taxes though yeah? Shit gets complicated.

Well, that just make you a loser all the way around. This discussion (argument) and your brethren in Canada. Doesn’t it just irk you when a society demands their freedoms?

Well as a Canadian I do not mind a registration on firearms. As I do not believe the Canadian government would use that information to create some sort of black list high target data base of possible fascist-takeover-resisters. Rather, it would just a be a pointless list of people who follow the law, to compare with those criminals who get caught and are not following the law. A go nowhere, expensive, waste of time. So really, I’d prefer they didn’t. But it is simple practicality, not fear. I fear my government as a repressive, reactionary entity hostile to free thinking and free expression. Not however, as a would be police state ghetto. Canada’s approach to guns scares me far less then their approach to books and obscenity.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by darkninja210:

You people want a reason to buy and own an assault rifle hows this:
darkninja is in the military; darkninja does not get to fire his service rifle as often as you think once a year if darkninja is lucky. So darkninja builds himself an semiauto M4 replica with an M68 and everything cept the PAQ-15. This is so darkninja may actually be able to preform some what decently in the event darkninja should ever have to fire his M4 and so when its time to qual darkninja doesnt seem like a complete noob

I think your military has some issues if there are no was to train firing a gun apart from on leave with a home made gun. I would of thought a military would train people to shoot the weapon they are issued with and have rifle ranges etc

+We must have issues then, as I only went to the range twice while in the Air Force. Both in basic training.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by thijser:

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

That has been explained several times, stop using augments that are baseless.

As I have no complete oversight of all 68 pages can you give me a quick overview of the argument as to why you need to have a driving licence and no gun licence (as well as having your car registered ext.). Both are dangerous when misused and per hour of use I think a gun is more dangerous.

Of course. Driving is a privilege and owning a firearm is a right.