| Forum Main>>Non related>> Gun control question |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Cyrax
ID: 249578
Level: 31
Posts: 4045
Score: 2165
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:35:06
|
Armour-piercing deer hunting ammunition? This is some seriously funny shit. Wow.
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:39:43
|
"Sheriff Donnie Harrison said he was unsure whether it was legal to bring a loaded gun on state fairgrounds. However, when the state fair is held in October, it is illegal to bring a loaded gun to the fairground because of the large crowds, authorities said.
"This is state property. That's something we're looking into," Harrison told reporters. "It's early right now.""
"The original owner of the Taurus semi-automatic 9 mm handgun used in the shooting brought the firearm into the show fully loaded. This is despite the policy of searches to make sure all guns are not loaded and rendered safe before others can handle them."
This is why I said "gun free" zones are mostly to prevent gun accidents, not mass murders. 
Last Edited: Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:42:29
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5138
Score: 3547
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:40:29
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
And I believe the people talking about starting another civil war are talking about doing so because the government is TALKING about violating the second amendment. The US supreme court has already upheld the second amendment. I know congress will not allow the Ban you are talking about to be passed again. The constitution is not a flowing document to be interpreted the way that anyone feel it should be. The right to bear arms means exactly that you have the right to keep firearms. The founding father didn't put any stipulations in the amendment at all so what makes people think that they can? |
actually, the founding fathers mentioned you could have your guns if you were in a well regulated militia, and only when necessary to the security of a free state.
the supreme court apparently interpreted it differently already.
also, if you plan to start a civil war yourselves, that pretty much goes against what anyone would call a free state anyway, so good luck with that.
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Stain92
ID: 1040302
Level: 42
Posts: 611
Score: 457
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:41:01
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
And frankly anyone that doesn't live in the US shouldn't have a opinion in the matter. So a lot of these posts about how guns shouldn't be allowed rely don't mean anything.
|
Isn't freedom of expression part of your constitution as well? You Tyrant.
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:44:27
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
To be fair, if anyone can find a reported instance of someone defending themselves with a firearm, please post. |
You must live in a nice place with no crime at all if you have never seen a article about someone defending themselves or there family with a firearm. Here instead of one article I got you several [url]http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=homeowner+shoots+intruder&qpvt=homeowner+shoots+intruder&FORM=EWRE[/url] ----Clicky
|
He was talking about on Gun Appreciation Day. The NRA claims that 2000+ people are saved every day by firearms so it shouldnt be too difficult to find one on that day right?
I would also like to point out that just because someone shot an intruder doesnt mean that they saved themselves from being murdered.
Last Edited: Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:47:54
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
PrOnE2DiE
ID: 692571
Level: 45
Posts: 2390
Score: 468
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:45:12
|
By TedThomas [887131]
You seem to be missing the words that I am literally typing. Is it a reading comprehension problem or what?
I have said like 4 times now, whether it works or not is beside the point. I am pointing out how much of a retard you have to be to want to start a civil war and kill fellow Americans over a gun that they admit is nothing but a cool toy.
It is not an infringement on your second amendment rights if you can have 1000 other guns which you admit yourself can do the exact same thing and are even better in different instances.
What makes people think they can regulate what firearms people can and cant have? Oh I dont know, the supreme court who has ruled that they can maybe?
Its no more unconstitutional than saying people can own RPG ammunition. In fact you could saying banning RPGs is more unconstitutional because you cant own any weapons that can do the same thing as a RPG. |
I have not missed the point you are trying to make. And frankly you can own the weapon you are talking about you just need the right paper work behind it. And it is a Violation of the second amendment not to mention just plan dumb to ban a weapon because of the application its been used in or the way it looks.
Hackers use computers ever day to ruin peoples lives, should we ban the use of computers because people use them in the wrong way? Should we ban cell phones because idiots text and drive? Why is it that so many people want to ban a rifle because someone used it in the wrong way and the way it looks?
And just so you know Its not just the AR-15 affected by the ban they are talking about. You should read the bill as it is written before you say it should be reinstated. The ban you are talking about also limits the type of stock, Magazine, Pistol grips for long rifles, Bayonets, Muzzle flash reducers, and the list goes on and on.
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
PrOnE2DiE
ID: 692571
Level: 45
Posts: 2390
Score: 468
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:59:57
|
I would also like to point out that just because someone shot an intruder doesnt mean that they saved themselves from being murdered. |
GOD why do people like you exists? A million sperm and you were the best one? It doesn't matter weather or not a thief is going to kill you or not. Its a matter of defending yourself in a potential life threatening situation. Are you going to ask the idiot that breaks into your house if he intends to kill you? By the time you ask it you could be filling a big hole in the ground. Or watching your wife get rapped.
Last Edited: Mon Jan 21, 2013 01:00:20
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
-El-
ID: 463504
Level: 72
Posts: 1939
Score: 1032
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 01:04:51
|
By Cyrax [249578]
Armour-piercing deer hunting ammunition? This is some seriously funny shit. Wow. |
lmfao!! hahahahahaha
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
PrOnE2DiE
ID: 692571
Level: 45
Posts: 2390
Score: 468
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 01:16:45
|
By -El- [463504]
By Cyrax [249578]
Armour-piercing deer hunting ammunition? This is some seriously funny shit. Wow. |
lmfao!! hahahahahaha |
As far as I know no state allows the use of full metal jackets while hunting the type of ammo used for LEGAL hunting is decided by your states game management organization.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
BuckWyld
ID: 1009930
Level: 68
Posts: 5440
Score: 3243
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 01:33:42
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
I would also like to point out that just because someone shot an intruder doesnt mean that they saved themselves from being murdered. |
GOD why do people like you exists? A million sperm and you were the best one? It doesn't matter weather or not a thief is going to kill you or not. Its a matter of defending yourself in a potential life threatening situation. Are you going to ask the idiot that breaks into your house if he intends to kill you? By the time you ask it you could be filling a big hole in the ground. Or watching your wife get rapped.
|
I've decided to graciously stay away from these particular discussions, cause well it's utterly pointless to even try to get thru to some people. But i couldn't agree with this statement more.
Kudos to you bub for stating the blatently obvious that some STILL can't get thru there dense heads. 
Derp. "hey i know you illegially broke into my home where my wife & children sleep, & is supposed to be our safe haven, But of course it's overly excessive of me to protect our selves in an aggressive manner , cause of course you (the intruder) could be hurt or killed for allready showing aggressive persuasion By illegially entering my domicile" derp derp.
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
PrOnE2DiE
ID: 692571
Level: 45
Posts: 2390
Score: 468
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 01:35:34
|
By Stain92 [1040302]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
And frankly anyone that doesn't live in the US shouldn't have a opinion in the matter. So a lot of these posts about how guns shouldn't be allowed rely don't mean anything.
|
Isn't freedom of expression part of your constitution as well? You Tyrant. |
Freedom of speech is part of our constitution, but as you are in England and do not have a say in the matter you should rely not be talking about laws in the US as they will never effect you. Not to mention you are living in a country that has already made it virtually impossible to own/carry a firearm so you probably have no concept of what it is to a American when people talk about screwing with the constitution. Or the rights we have here in the US because of it. And yes I am a tyrant when it comes to these things 
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
CoolHandLuke
ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2584
Score: 791
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 01:46:31
|
By Spurtung [96875]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
killed by STOLEN guns...which will always be the problem since its impossible to prevent such an event from happening. |
unless, maybe, there are not that many guns to be stolen to begin with?
of course your "ak47 and 74 and i have my ar-15" will never be stolen because wishful thinking really works. |
no, they wont ever be stolen because i have them spread through-out the house (semi hidden so you would actually have to look) and if somebody was to come in i will hear an alarm go off telling me where and chances are they will run or i will come running with a loaded rifle/pistol/shotgun and then they will run. Its simple really, but i guess a anti-gun idiot such as yourself cant see only idiots have their guns stolen.
|
there's right and there's wrong, you gotta do one or the other If you do the one and your living you do the other you might be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
-El-
ID: 463504
Level: 72
Posts: 1939
Score: 1032
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 02:04:39
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
By Stain92 [1040302]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
And frankly anyone that doesn't live in the US shouldn't have a opinion in the matter. So a lot of these posts about how guns shouldn't be allowed rely don't mean anything.
|
Isn't freedom of expression part of your constitution as well? You Tyrant. |
Freedom of speech is part of our constitution, but as you are in England and do not have a say in the matter you should rely not be talking about laws in the US as they will never effect you. Not to mention you are living in a country that has already made it virtually impossible to own/carry a firearm so you probably have no concept of what it is to a American when people talk about screwing with the constitution. Or the rights we have here in the US because of it. And yes I am a tyrant when it comes to these things |
You bringing up the Constitution is hysterical.
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
-rob-
ID: 65426
Level: 81
Posts: 11447
Score: 3989
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 02:04:48
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
You seem to be missing the point that the assault weapons ban you are talking about did absolutely no good at all. It didn't stop anyone from picking up a weapon and killing. Which included many mass shootings.
And I believe the people talking about starting another civil war are talking about doing so because the government is TALKING about violating the second amendment. The US supreme court has already upheld the second amendment. I know congress will not allow the Ban you are talking about to be passed again. The constitution is not a flowing document to be interpreted the way that anyone feel it should be. The right to bear arms means exactly that you have the right to keep firearms. The founding father didn't put any stipulations in the amendment at all so what makes people think that they can?
I just cannot believe that people are ignorant enough to think more laws are the answer. They have never worked in the past they will never work in the future.
And frankly anyone that doesn't live in the US shouldn't have a opinion in the matter. So a lot of these posts about how guns shouldn't be allowed rely don't mean anything.
|
1. You're correct; the assault weapons ban in the 1990's didn't do a damn bit of good. I agree on that. I seriously doubt any new assault weapon ban would help either. There are too many assault weapons already out there.
Plus, the term "assault weapon" is silly. The difference in lethality between an AR-15 and any other semi-auto with a large magazine is way too small to matter in any serious way.
2. If you're such a well-educated American, I'm surprised you're not even familiar with the most recent Supreme Court ruling on this issue.
The Supreme Court has already ruled, with even Scalia agreeing, that some types of arms can be banned. You do realize the premise of this thread, which is that "arms" includes everything up to nuclear arms?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that stuff like bans on machine guns are perfectly legal, and it was a very conservative supreme court that ruled that.
You are correct that in the same ruling the court ruled that the militia clause is basically meaningless. All Americans have Second Amendment protections, and membership in a militia is not required.
If you're going to call yourself an American, educate yourself.
A literal interpretation of the Second Amendment would prohibit the government from banning private citizens from owning nuclear and chemical weapons. It would prohibit the government from banning private citizens from owning artillery, bombs, surface to air missiles, and any other type of "armaments," which is what arms are.
NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution are citizens limited to the right to keep and bar only "small arms."
It's not a real difficult concept to understand, so are you willfully ignorant to suit your own purposes, or just illerate?
|
  |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5138
Score: 3547
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 02:07:45
|
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By Spurtung [96875]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
killed by STOLEN guns...which will always be the problem since its impossible to prevent such an event from happening. |
unless, maybe, there are not that many guns to be stolen to begin with?
of course your "ak47 and 74 and i have my ar-15" will never be stolen because wishful thinking really works. |
no, they wont ever be stolen because i have them spread through-out the house (semi hidden so you would actually have to look) and if somebody was to come in i will hear an alarm go off telling me where and chances are they will run or i will come running with a loaded rifle/pistol/shotgun and then they will run. Its simple really, but i guess a anti-gun idiot such as yourself cant see only idiots have their guns stolen. |
good for you, to admit that you let idiots have guns legally.
and then you wonder why shit happens.
as for your semi hidden weapons spread throughout the house and your awesome response time, props to you man.
and I never did call you an idiot, did I? so I'd appreciate the same respect back at me.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Stain92
ID: 1040302
Level: 42
Posts: 611
Score: 457
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 02:09:28
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
By Stain92 [1040302]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
And frankly anyone that doesn't live in the US shouldn't have a opinion in the matter. So a lot of these posts about how guns shouldn't be allowed rely don't mean anything.
|
Isn't freedom of expression part of your constitution as well? You Tyrant. |
Freedom of speech is part of our constitution, but as you are in England and do not have a say in the matter you should rely not be talking about laws in the US as they will never effect you. Not to mention you are living in a country that has already made it virtually impossible to own/carry a firearm so you probably have no concept of what it is to a American when people talk about screwing with the constitution. Or the rights we have here in the US because of it. And yes I am a tyrant when it comes to these things |
You just wait till we get back in our boats. THEN and only then will you know the true meaning of tyranny.
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 03:46:07
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
By TedThomas [887131]
You seem to be missing the words that I am literally typing. Is it a reading comprehension problem or what?
I have said like 4 times now, whether it works or not is beside the point. I am pointing out how much of a retard you have to be to want to start a civil war and kill fellow Americans over a gun that they admit is nothing but a cool toy.
It is not an infringement on your second amendment rights if you can have 1000 other guns which you admit yourself can do the exact same thing and are even better in different instances.
What makes people think they can regulate what firearms people can and cant have? Oh I dont know, the supreme court who has ruled that they can maybe?
Its no more unconstitutional than saying people can own RPG ammunition. In fact you could saying banning RPGs is more unconstitutional because you cant own any weapons that can do the same thing as a RPG. |
I have not missed the point you are trying to make. And frankly you can own the weapon you are talking about you just need the right paper work behind it. And it is a Violation of the second amendment not to mention just plan dumb to ban a weapon because of the application its been used in or the way it looks.
Hackers use computers ever day to ruin peoples lives, should we ban the use of computers because people use them in the wrong way? Should we ban cell phones because idiots text and drive? Why is it that so many people want to ban a rifle because someone used it in the wrong way and the way it looks?
And just so you know Its not just the AR-15 affected by the ban they are talking about. You should read the bill as it is written before you say it should be reinstated. The ban you are talking about also limits the type of stock, Magazine, Pistol grips for long rifles, Bayonets, Muzzle flash reducers, and the list goes on and on.
|
You can think that its a violation of your 2nd amendment rights all you want, but it isnt and the supreme court has said it isnt. The second amendment doesnt say you can have whatever the hell gun you feel like because you like the look of it or you really want it.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 03:58:44
|
By BuckWyld [1009930]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
I would also like to point out that just because someone shot an intruder doesnt mean that they saved themselves from being murdered. |
GOD why do people like you exists? A million sperm and you were the best one? It doesn't matter weather or not a thief is going to kill you or not. Its a matter of defending yourself in a potential life threatening situation. Are you going to ask the idiot that breaks into your house if he intends to kill you? By the time you ask it you could be filling a big hole in the ground. Or watching your wife get rapped.
|
I've decided to graciously stay away from these particular discussions, cause well it's utterly pointless to even try to get thru to some people. But i couldn't agree with this statement more.
Kudos to you bub for stating the blatently obvious that some STILL can't get thru there dense heads.
Derp. "hey i know you illegially broke into my home where my wife & children sleep, & is supposed to be our safe haven, But of course it's overly excessive of me to protect our selves in an aggressive manner , cause of course you (the intruder) could be hurt or killed for allready showing aggressive persuasion By illegially entering my domicile" derp derp. |
Idiots of the same feather flock together I guess.
I didnt say that you dont have the right to shoot someone in your house, I said just because there is a news story where an intruder got shot doesnt mean that they saved their family from being slaughtered.
Last Edited: Mon Jan 21, 2013 03:59:20
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
PrOnE2DiE
ID: 692571
Level: 45
Posts: 2390
Score: 468
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 04:32:53
|
By -rob- [65426]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
You seem to be missing the point that the assault weapons ban you are talking about did absolutely no good at all. It didn't stop anyone from picking up a weapon and killing. Which included many mass shootings.
And I believe the people talking about starting another civil war are talking about doing so because the government is TALKING about violating the second amendment. The US supreme court has already upheld the second amendment. I know congress will not allow the Ban you are talking about to be passed again. The constitution is not a flowing document to be interpreted the way that anyone feel it should be. The right to bear arms means exactly that you have the right to keep firearms. The founding father didn't put any stipulations in the amendment at all so what makes people think that they can?
I just cannot believe that people are ignorant enough to think more laws are the answer. They have never worked in the past they will never work in the future.
And frankly anyone that doesn't live in the US shouldn't have a opinion in the matter. So a lot of these posts about how guns shouldn't be allowed rely don't mean anything.
|
1. You're correct; the assault weapons ban in the 1990's didn't do a damn bit of good. I agree on that. I seriously doubt any new assault weapon ban would help either. There are too many assault weapons already out there.
Plus, the term "assault weapon" is silly. The difference in lethality between an AR-15 and any other semi-auto with a large magazine is way too small to matter in any serious way.
2. If you're such a well-educated American, I'm surprised you're not even familiar with the most recent Supreme Court ruling on this issue.
The Supreme Court has already ruled, with even Scalia agreeing, that some types of arms can be banned. You do realize the premise of this thread, which is that "arms" includes everything up to nuclear arms?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that stuff like bans on machine guns are perfectly legal, and it was a very conservative supreme court that ruled that.
You are correct that in the same ruling the court ruled that the militia clause is basically meaningless. All Americans have Second Amendment protections, and membership in a militia is not required.
If you're going to call yourself an American, educate yourself.
A literal interpretation of the Second Amendment would prohibit the government from banning private citizens from owning nuclear and chemical weapons. It would prohibit the government from banning private citizens from owning artillery, bombs, surface to air missiles, and any other type of "armaments," which is what arms are.
NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution are citizens limited to the right to keep and bar only "small arms."
It's not a real difficult concept to understand, so are you willfully ignorant to suit your own purposes, or just illerate? |
First off no I didn't realize that when you started this thread that you were including bombs, machine guns(which you can own with the right paper work) artillery which if you consider a cannon artillery then lots of people have it in the US. Nuclear weapons Which you would have to a Idiot to even put into the same class of weapons as a AR-15. Chemical weapons(just insert the idiot line here)
So call me ignorant if you wish it but remember you stated that I'm correct in all the points I've made here
Don't believe me about the cannons do you?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYWcBILxgk
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
_TheCrow_
ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4724
Score: 2943
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 04:48:53
|
By TedThomas [887131]
By BuckWyld [1009930]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
I would also like to point out that just because someone shot an intruder doesnt mean that they saved themselves from being murdered. |
GOD why do people like you exists? A million sperm and you were the best one? It doesn't matter weather or not a thief is going to kill you or not. Its a matter of defending yourself in a potential life threatening situation. Are you going to ask the idiot that breaks into your house if he intends to kill you? By the time you ask it you could be filling a big hole in the ground. Or watching your wife get rapped.
|
I've decided to graciously stay away from these particular discussions, cause well it's utterly pointless to even try to get thru to some people. But i couldn't agree with this statement more.
Kudos to you bub for stating the blatently obvious that some STILL can't get thru there dense heads.
Derp. "hey i know you illegially broke into my home where my wife & children sleep, & is supposed to be our safe haven, But of course it's overly excessive of me to protect our selves in an aggressive manner , cause of course you (the intruder) could be hurt or killed for allready showing aggressive persuasion By illegially entering my domicile" derp derp. |
Idiots of the same feather flock together I guess.
I didnt say that you dont have the right to shoot someone in your house, I said just because there is a news story where an intruder got shot doesnt mean that they saved their family from being slaughtered. |
Nor does it mean they didn't. You can't attack someone for being presumptuous when no one knows what could have happened. It's not like people don't get assaulted, raped or killed in their own home. Statistics show that 38% of reported assaults and 60% of reported rapes occur in the victims home. That statistic alone should give females a reasonable excuse to shoot first and ask questions later. But as stated befor by a few people including myself, it really doesn't matter if the shooters actions saved their family from being killed... they stopped a criminal regardless. If someone breaks into my house again, I don't care if they're there to steal my TV, strangle me or f**k me in the ass, they will be shot if I am home and my only regret will be the gunshot waking my neighbors.
Harsh I know, but I care not. Call me crazy, call me paranoid, call me a gun nut... I don't care. I HAVE been robbed at gunpoint, I HAVE had my home broken into, I HAVE had my car stolen right out of my damn driveway as I slept (and the dumb drunk son of a bitch rapped it around a tree a half mile down the road) so call me whatever you want, it doesn't bother me. You may live in a safe and sheltered area and think it can't happen to you and it's ridiculous to think it would, and thats fine. By all means it's your right to be oblivious and unprotected, but many people including myself choose not to be and that is our right.
|
Me- "I received a 30 day ban, then 4 days later I noticed it became a 60 day ban. Why?
Staff- "Because I can" DIRECT QUOTE
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
PrOnE2DiE
ID: 692571
Level: 45
Posts: 2390
Score: 468
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 04:49:41
|
By TedThomas [887131]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
By TedThomas [887131]
You seem to be missing the words that I am literally typing. Is it a reading comprehension problem or what?
I have said like 4 times now, whether it works or not is beside the point. I am pointing out how much of a retard you have to be to want to start a civil war and kill fellow Americans over a gun that they admit is nothing but a cool toy.
It is not an infringement on your second amendment rights if you can have 1000 other guns which you admit yourself can do the exact same thing and are even better in different instances.
What makes people think they can regulate what firearms people can and cant have? Oh I dont know, the supreme court who has ruled that they can maybe?
Its no more unconstitutional than saying people can own RPG ammunition. In fact you could saying banning RPGs is more unconstitutional because you cant own any weapons that can do the same thing as a RPG. |
I have not missed the point you are trying to make. And frankly you can own the weapon you are talking about you just need the right paper work behind it. And it is a Violation of the second amendment not to mention just plan dumb to ban a weapon because of the application its been used in or the way it looks.
Hackers use computers ever day to ruin peoples lives, should we ban the use of computers because people use them in the wrong way? Should we ban cell phones because idiots text and drive? Why is it that so many people want to ban a rifle because someone used it in the wrong way and the way it looks?
And just so you know Its not just the AR-15 affected by the ban they are talking about. You should read the bill as it is written before you say it should be reinstated. The ban you are talking about also limits the type of stock, Magazine, Pistol grips for long rifles, Bayonets, Muzzle flash reducers, and the list goes on and on.
|
You can think that its a violation of your 2nd amendment rights all you want, but it isnt and the supreme court has said it isnt. The second amendment doesnt say you can have whatever the hell gun you feel like because you like the look of it or you really want it. |
So you think that the Constitution was written as a document of suggestions to be changed anytime that there is something in it that you don't like? What the hell gives people like you the Idea that you can tell me what I can own and not own??
Why the hell are people like you so quick to say more bans/laws about firearms are the answer when history has proven that they won't help a bit? You people don't get it do you? ITS NOT THE FIREARMS FAULT THAT IT WAS USED IN A SHOOTING. Its the dumbass that pulled the triggers fault, and no amount of gun control will ever stop it from happening again. Gun Control Laws never work and they never will.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 04:56:19
|
The thing you seem to be willfully ignoring is that those things are highly regulated. You cant just go down to walmart and buy a cannon with a 15 minute background check.
The point is, the supreme court has decided that the government has the right to regulate guns that they consider unnecessary for ordinary citizens. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 05:08:42
|
By _TheCrow_ [686314]
By TedThomas [887131]
By BuckWyld [1009930]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
I would also like to point out that just because someone shot an intruder doesnt mean that they saved themselves from being murdered. |
GOD why do people like you exists? A million sperm and you were the best one? It doesn't matter weather or not a thief is going to kill you or not. Its a matter of defending yourself in a potential life threatening situation. Are you going to ask the idiot that breaks into your house if he intends to kill you? By the time you ask it you could be filling a big hole in the ground. Or watching your wife get rapped.
|
I've decided to graciously stay away from these particular discussions, cause well it's utterly pointless to even try to get thru to some people. But i couldn't agree with this statement more.
Kudos to you bub for stating the blatently obvious that some STILL can't get thru there dense heads.
Derp. "hey i know you illegially broke into my home where my wife & children sleep, & is supposed to be our safe haven, But of course it's overly excessive of me to protect our selves in an aggressive manner , cause of course you (the intruder) could be hurt or killed for allready showing aggressive persuasion By illegially entering my domicile" derp derp. |
Idiots of the same feather flock together I guess.
I didnt say that you dont have the right to shoot someone in your house, I said just because there is a news story where an intruder got shot doesnt mean that they saved their family from being slaughtered. |
Nor does it mean they didn't. You can't attack someone for being presumptuous when no one knows what could have happened. It's not like people don't get assaulted, raped or killed in their own home. Statistics show that 38% of reported assaults and 60% of reported rapes occur in the victims home. That statistic alone should give females a reasonable excuse to shoot first and ask questions later. But as stated befor by a few people including myself, it really doesn't matter if the shooters actions saved their family from being killed... they stopped a criminal regardless. If someone breaks into my house again, I don't care if they're there to steal my TV, strangle me or f**k me in the ass, they will be shot if I am home and my only regret will be the gunshot waking my neighbors.
Harsh I know, but I care not. Call me crazy, call me paranoid, call me a gun nut... I don't care. I HAVE been robbed at gunpoint, I HAVE had my home broken into, I HAVE had my car stolen right out of my damn driveway as I slept (and the dumb drunk son of a bitch rapped it around a tree a half mile down the road) so call me whatever you want, it doesn't bother me. You may live in a safe and sheltered area and think it can't happen to you and it's ridiculous to think it would, and thats fine. By all means it's your right to be oblivious and unprotected, but many people including myself choose not to be and that is our right. |
Whats your point.
I already said that you have the right to shoot someone if they break into your house.
I was just pointing out that posting articles that someone shot an intruder isnt proof that guns "saved" all those people. You want to act like everyone who breaks into a house is also a murderer/rapist.
Last Edited: Mon Jan 21, 2013 05:09:23
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
PrOnE2DiE
ID: 692571
Level: 45
Posts: 2390
Score: 468
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 05:11:55
|
By TedThomas [887131]
The thing you seem to be willfully ignoring is that those things are highly regulated. You cant just go down to walmart and buy a cannon with a 15 minute background check.
The point is, the supreme court has decided that the government has the right to regulate guns that they consider unnecessary for ordinary citizens. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. |
The thing you don't realize is that for 30 dollars every 3 years I can order a cannon and have it shipped directly to my door step. No back ground check no nothing. Its called the right paperwork. I can own a Thompson submachine gun if I want a fully automatic one at that. Sure they cost a lot and the paperwork has to be done on them but I can still own them. And they are banned in the gun control act of 67 I think it was. But fact is you can still buy them. Don't believe me?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRdPIW8-yXs
Or how about the BAR or do you even know what that is?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnCOKxPgaA
Or a MG42???
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yefU1RtAgM
And the list goes on and on.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 05:22:32
|
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
By TedThomas [887131]
The thing you seem to be willfully ignoring is that those things are highly regulated. You cant just go down to walmart and buy a cannon with a 15 minute background check.
The point is, the supreme court has decided that the government has the right to regulate guns that they consider unnecessary for ordinary citizens. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. |
The thing you don't realize is that for 30 dollars every 3 years I can order a cannon and have it shipped directly to my door step. No back ground check no nothing. Its called the right paperwork. I can own a Thompson submachine gun if I want a fully automatic one at that. Sure they cost a lot and the paperwork has to be done on them but I can still own them. And they are banned in the gun control act of 67 I think it was. But fact is you can still buy them. Don't believe me?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRdPIW8-yXs
Or how about the BAR or do you even know what that is?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnCOKxPgaA
Or a MG42???
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yefU1RtAgM
And the list goes on and on. |
Yep, it is called proper paperwork. Which is also called regulation. The kind of regulation that doesnt exist for AR-15s and the kind of regulation you are arguing against, dumbass.
You admit yourself that a ban isnt really a ban, its more of a way to keep tighter controls on who can get them. So far you have said a ban on assault rifles just bans guns that arent useful to the average person and you would still be able to get one anyways with the proper paperwork. So how are your rights to protect yourself being infringed again exactly?
You have not yet provided ONE valid reason why its constitutional to not allow the sale things like stinger missiles at gun shops, yet it is unconstitutional to not allow the sale of AR-15 type weapons. It is obvious to anyone with the ability to look at things objectively that the government has the ability to regulate these things, you just disagree where the boundary line is.
Last Edited: Mon Jan 21, 2013 06:11:49
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
IN_COLD_BLOOD
ID: 1613784
Level: 29
Posts: 573
Score: 269
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 07:58:24
|
By TedThomas [887131]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
By TedThomas [887131]
The thing you seem to be willfully ignoring is that those things are highly regulated. You cant just go down to walmart and buy a cannon with a 15 minute background check.
The point is, the supreme court has decided that the government has the right to regulate guns that they consider unnecessary for ordinary citizens. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. |
The thing you don't realize is that for 30 dollars every 3 years I can order a cannon and have it shipped directly to my door step. No back ground check no nothing. Its called the right paperwork. I can own a Thompson submachine gun if I want a fully automatic one at that. Sure they cost a lot and the paperwork has to be done on them but I can still own them. And they are banned in the gun control act of 67 I think it was. But fact is you can still buy them. Don't believe me?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRdPIW8-yXs
Or how about the BAR or do you even know what that is?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnCOKxPgaA
Or a MG42???
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yefU1RtAgM
And the list goes on and on. |
Yep, it is called proper paperwork. Which is also called regulation. The kind of regulation that doesnt exist for AR-15s and the kind of regulation you are arguing against, dumbass.
You admit yourself that a ban isnt really a ban, its more of a way to keep tighter controls on who can get them. So far you have said a ban on assault rifles just bans guns that arent useful to the average person and you would still be able to get one anyways with the proper paperwork. So how are your rights to protect yourself being infringed again exactly?
You have not yet provided ONE valid reason why its constitutional to not allow the sale things like stinger missiles at gun shops, yet it is unconstitutional to not allow the sale of AR-15 type weapons. It is obvious to anyone with the ability to look at things objectively that the government has the ability to regulate these things, you just disagree where the boundary line is. |
well if you really wanna get technical on it, we can go to basic common sense that im starting to believe is a super power because some of you people are just f**king stupid. an AR-15 can be used for hunting - do i think it's overkill - yes, do i know anything about hunting - no, but it also doesn't take a genius to know that stinger missles are not going to be used even for hunting. Just stop talking.
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Sweetkiller
ID: 529349
Level: 33
Posts: 491
Score: 112
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 08:04:02
|
boooooooooyyyyya
|
| http://www.coolbuddy.com/Gallery_Pics/imgs/two%20girls%20making%20out.jpg |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
_TheCrow_
ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4724
Score: 2943
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 08:12:27
|
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
By TedThomas [887131]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
By TedThomas [887131]
The thing you seem to be willfully ignoring is that those things are highly regulated. You cant just go down to walmart and buy a cannon with a 15 minute background check.
The point is, the supreme court has decided that the government has the right to regulate guns that they consider unnecessary for ordinary citizens. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. |
The thing you don't realize is that for 30 dollars every 3 years I can order a cannon and have it shipped directly to my door step. No back ground check no nothing. Its called the right paperwork. I can own a Thompson submachine gun if I want a fully automatic one at that. Sure they cost a lot and the paperwork has to be done on them but I can still own them. And they are banned in the gun control act of 67 I think it was. But fact is you can still buy them. Don't believe me?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRdPIW8-yXs
Or how about the BAR or do you even know what that is?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnCOKxPgaA
Or a MG42???
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yefU1RtAgM
And the list goes on and on. |
Yep, it is called proper paperwork. Which is also called regulation. The kind of regulation that doesnt exist for AR-15s and the kind of regulation you are arguing against, dumbass.
You admit yourself that a ban isnt really a ban, its more of a way to keep tighter controls on who can get them. So far you have said a ban on assault rifles just bans guns that arent useful to the average person and you would still be able to get one anyways with the proper paperwork. So how are your rights to protect yourself being infringed again exactly?
You have not yet provided ONE valid reason why its constitutional to not allow the sale things like stinger missiles at gun shops, yet it is unconstitutional to not allow the sale of AR-15 type weapons. It is obvious to anyone with the ability to look at things objectively that the government has the ability to regulate these things, you just disagree where the boundary line is. |
well if you really wanna get technical on it, we can go to basic common sense that im starting to believe is a super power because some of you people are just f**king stupid. an AR-15 can be used for hunting - do i think it's overkill - yes, do i know anything about hunting - no, but it also doesn't take a genius to know that stinger missles are not going to be used even for hunting. Just stop talking.
|
Don't bother with it. Thats his schtick. When he can't think of somewhat reasonable debate points, he takes to using extremes and calling everyone morons and idiots. To 99.9% of people, to bare arms means to have firearms, of which missiles and explosives are not considered to be. And I have a feeling that Ted knows and agrees with that, but for the sake of wanting to look superior while debating he has taken the route of using extremes again.
|
Me- "I received a 30 day ban, then 4 days later I noticed it became a 60 day ban. Why?
Staff- "Because I can" DIRECT QUOTE
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 08:18:22
|
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
By TedThomas [887131]
By PrOnE2DiE [692571]
By TedThomas [887131]
The thing you seem to be willfully ignoring is that those things are highly regulated. You cant just go down to walmart and buy a cannon with a 15 minute background check.
The point is, the supreme court has decided that the government has the right to regulate guns that they consider unnecessary for ordinary citizens. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. |
The thing you don't realize is that for 30 dollars every 3 years I can order a cannon and have it shipped directly to my door step. No back ground check no nothing. Its called the right paperwork. I can own a Thompson submachine gun if I want a fully automatic one at that. Sure they cost a lot and the paperwork has to be done on them but I can still own them. And they are banned in the gun control act of 67 I think it was. But fact is you can still buy them. Don't believe me?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRdPIW8-yXs
Or how about the BAR or do you even know what that is?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnCOKxPgaA
Or a MG42???
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yefU1RtAgM
And the list goes on and on. |
Yep, it is called proper paperwork. Which is also called regulation. The kind of regulation that doesnt exist for AR-15s and the kind of regulation you are arguing against, dumbass.
You admit yourself that a ban isnt really a ban, its more of a way to keep tighter controls on who can get them. So far you have said a ban on assault rifles just bans guns that arent useful to the average person and you would still be able to get one anyways with the proper paperwork. So how are your rights to protect yourself being infringed again exactly?
You have not yet provided ONE valid reason why its constitutional to not allow the sale things like stinger missiles at gun shops, yet it is unconstitutional to not allow the sale of AR-15 type weapons. It is obvious to anyone with the ability to look at things objectively that the government has the ability to regulate these things, you just disagree where the boundary line is. |
well if you really wanna get technical on it, we can go to basic common sense that im starting to believe is a super power because some of you people are just f**king stupid. an AR-15 can be used for hunting - do i think it's overkill - yes, do i know anything about hunting - no, but it also doesn't take a genius to know that stinger missles are not going to be used even for hunting. Just stop talking.
|
If you want to get technical with it, you COULD hunt with claymore's if you wanted to. That doesnt mean anyone should be able to go down to the store and buy one whenever they want to.
Its pretty amazing to me that people are so stupid on this issue that they cant comprehend that the point is that it is OBVIOUS that the government has the ability to restrict "arms" if they dont see that there are any legitimate reasons for ordinary citizens to have them. You just dont agree with where they draw the line on what is or isnt legitimate gun use. Coupled with the fact that a ban isnt really a complete ban anyways because you can still get one with proper paperwork and you can still buy and sell guns manufactured before the ban, how can someone really argue that having to fill out more paperwork for a gun they dont use for anything but target practice is eroding their rights to protect themselves and/or hunt. Unless you are trying to say that the 2nd amendment doesnt really have to do with protecting you and/or your property, its really about being able to own the coolest new toy if you want to.
Last Edited: Mon Jan 21, 2013 08:27:06
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
_TheCrow_
ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4724
Score: 2943
|
Posted on Mon Jan 21, 2013 08:19:39
|
See what I mean Cold?
And no, you cannot hunt with explosives. It IS illegal. Regulations based on caliber and weapon selection differ from county to county and state to state, but in NO state is it legal to hunt or fish with explosives.
Last Edited: Mon Jan 21, 2013 08:25:42
|
Me- "I received a 30 day ban, then 4 days later I noticed it became a 60 day ban. Why?
Staff- "Because I can" DIRECT QUOTE
|
|
|
![Cyrax [249578]](http://awardimages.torn.com/249578-1693-large.png "Cyrax [249578]")
![TedThomas [887131]](http://awardimages.torn.com/887131-65195-large.png "TedThomas [887131]")
![Spurtung [96875]](http://awardimages.torn.com/96875-78074-large.png "Spurtung [96875]")
![Stain92 [1040302]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1040302-5823-large.png "Stain92 [1040302]")
![PrOnE2DiE [692571]](http://awardimages.torn.com/692571-62244-large.png "PrOnE2DiE [692571]")
![-El- [463504]](http://awardimages.torn.com/463504-30159-large.png "-El- [463504]")
![BuckWyld [1009930]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1009930-51145-large.png "BuckWyld [1009930]")
![CoolHandLuke [1582871]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1582871-7245-large.png "CoolHandLuke [1582871]")
![-rob- [65426]](http://awardimages.torn.com/65426-41753-large.png "-rob- [65426]")
![_TheCrow_ [686314]](http://awardimages.torn.com/686314-57011-large.png "_TheCrow_ [686314]")
![IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1613784-85186-large.png "IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]")
![Sweetkiller [529349]](http://awardimages.torn.com/529349-82917-large.png "Sweetkiller [529349]")
Follow @TornRPG