In Illinios?Elamdri wrote:
I don't need a gun, I'd like a gun. I live right on the edge of the bad part of Peoria. There's a mugging here about once a month at least.Superslim wrote:
Where do you live that you need a gun?Elamdri wrote:
Hey, anyone on here who owns a gun, I'm turning 21 next year and I wanna get a firearm, my neighborhood is not very safe and I'm gonna be here another 2 years minimum. What I wanna know is
A) Whats the process for getting a Firearms License.
B) I've never shot a gun before, whats a good place to go practice.
C) Whats a good first gun?
Poll
What do you think about guns in the US?
| They should be allowed freely in the US. (2nd amm.) | 28% | 28% - 51 | ||||
| They should be controlled.(registered) | 31% | 31% - 56 | ||||
| They should be controlled like automatic weapons are. | 12% | 12% - 23 | ||||
| They should be banned. | 11% | 11% - 20 | ||||
| I don't give a shit, I don't live there. | 15% | 15% - 27 | ||||
| Total: 177 | ||||||
isnt it ironic when theres a so called liquid bomb once in history US forbids the whole world to take water,babymilk or perfume on board.
But when theres so many death by guns in their own country,and some psychoschooltour once every year there ,they have such a tough time making a law that makes sense.
I dont wanna hammer on US,or say boo, but you should definatly scratch behind ur ears
But when theres so many death by guns in their own country,and some psychoschooltour once every year there ,they have such a tough time making a law that makes sense.
I dont wanna hammer on US,or say boo, but you should definatly scratch behind ur ears
Last edited by |DL|Krokkieboy (2007-04-23 22:46:41)
Yesblisteringsilence wrote:
In Illinios?Elamdri wrote:
I don't need a gun, I'd like a gun. I live right on the edge of the bad part of Peoria. There's a mugging here about once a month at least.Superslim wrote:
Where do you live that you need a gun?
How about just removing those that aren't completely necessary? How about making the thing in the constitution where it says "all men are equal" into a "all humans are equal"?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Like the first amendment.konfusion wrote:
I am sick of the "2nd Amendment" argument - Amendments can be added and removed.
-konfusion
"I don't give a shit, I don't live there."
The only thing i get pissed at is when they claim they work as a tool of defence, which they dont.
The only thing i get pissed at is when they claim they work as a tool of defence, which they dont.
Gun control activists are picking away at .50, and will presumably work their way down calibers. The sweet spot for me is .45, but I'd still like a S&W Model 500 before they're banned.blisteringsilence wrote:
Nothing larger than .50 caliber. Any larger that that is not considered a "sporting" caliber. Not that there are weapons available that fire a larger round.... it's kind of pointless in a rifle.Pubic wrote:
Out of curiosity, are there calibre restrictions for guns in the US?
A) Depends on the state and the nature of the license. Check with IL's government website for details.Elamdri wrote:
Hey, anyone on here who owns a gun, I'm turning 21 next year and I wanna get a firearm, my neighborhood is not very safe and I'm gonna be here another 2 years minimum. What I wanna know is
A) Whats the process for getting a Firearms License.
B) I've never shot a gun before, whats a good place to go practice.
C) Whats a good first gun?
B) Any firing range within reasonable driving distance. Indoor ranges leave a bad taste in your mouth after awhile, even if they're well-ventilated, but if you can't find an outdoor range, well...anyway, find one that offers professional instruction.
C) I'd suggest visiting a firing range that loans out handguns for practice. Play around with .22's, .38's and .45's. I'm partial to the 1911A1 myself, but a .38 revolver is idea for toting around.
You'd sort of hit a snag with the abortion issue there.konfusion wrote:
How about just removing those that aren't completely necessary? How about making the thing in the constitution where it says "all men are equal" into a "all humans are equal"?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Like the first amendment.konfusion wrote:
I am sick of the "2nd Amendment" argument - Amendments can be added and removed.
-konfusion
Hand in jacket on gun. Violent antagonist mistakenly presents opportunity to defend oneself. Decision made that you don't want to die. Fire through coat pocket at violent antagonist. Dial the police. Sounds like defense to me. Same principle as breaking their ribs with a Chuck Norris roundhouse, only less-lethal. I've never had to use any form of a blade or firearm in a fight (nor had one used against me), because none I've been in have been that serious. But we all know how predictable life is, don't we?Vilham wrote:
"I don't give a shit, I don't live there."
The only thing i get pissed at is when they claim they work as a tool of defence, which they dont.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-24 01:42:46)
And who, exactly, gets to decide? You?konfusion wrote:
How about just removing those that aren't completely necessary? How about making the thing in the constitution where it says "all men are equal" into a "all humans are equal"?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Like the first amendment.konfusion wrote:
I am sick of the "2nd Amendment" argument - Amendments can be added and removed.
-konfusion
Keep dreaming kiddo. Our beloved amendments aren't going anywhere. Yes, it is possible to add or repeal an amendment. It requires the approval of 75% of the states. That's 38 of them. And I guarantee that you'll have more than 13 states vote against approving an amendment that repeals the 2nd. Like, say:
Texas, Missouri, Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Nevada. Just off the top of my head.
Hell, the only places that amendment might pass would be the PDRC and a few states in the northeast. A VERY few states. Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire would undoubtedly vote against it. Maybe even New York. It'd pass in Mass, but most likey not in Conn.
Moreover, it would be the kiss of death for every politician that sponsored it. NO ONE would survive that. You'd be unelectable in a general election of the US, and unconfirmable for any position screened by the senate. Not to mention, you might piss some crazy off enough he beats you to death with a live chicken.
Konfusion, if you don't like it, don't live here.
You are both in luck and screwed. You have a great state association that will be happy to provide you with all the information you need. You are also in a state who's laws are controlled in large part by reps from Chicago, a decidely antigun town.Elamdri wrote:
Yesblisteringsilence wrote:
In Illinios?Elamdri wrote:
I don't need a gun, I'd like a gun. I live right on the edge of the bad part of Peoria. There's a mugging here about once a month at least.
So, check out this page for info: http://isra.org/
To find a range, check out this site: http://www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/find … p?State=IL
Call the local ranges to see what they have as far as rental guns.
For your first firearm, it all depends on what you are going to do. For home defense, you can't beat a Remington Marine Magnum, an 870 synthetic with an 18" barrel, or a benelli M3.
If you want a pistol, I believe strongly in the .40 S&W round. Fine pistols are manufactured by Sig Sauer, Glock, Smith and Wesson, and Taurus.
please, enlighten all of us as to what is, by your standards of course, "a tool of defence".Vilham wrote:
"I don't give a shit, I don't live there."
The only thing i get pissed at is when they claim they work as a tool of defence, which they dont.
i for one would love to know.
I think they should be registered. One of my friends hand shakes and he has a concealed permit or what ever and I make his ass leave his gun in his truck everytime he comes over lols. I so do not trust him with a loaded gun.
Guns aren't a tool of defense? If someone attacked me with a knife, and I had a gun, and I shot him to the point where he couldn't attack me, didn't I just defend myself?Parker wrote:
please, enlighten all of us as to what is, by your standards of course, "a tool of defence".Vilham wrote:
"I don't give a shit, I don't live there."
The only thing i get pissed at is when they claim they work as a tool of defence, which they dont.
i for one would love to know.
Now, if you are trying to get the point across that someone might/probably would still attack/rob you, knowing you had a gun, then yeah, you are probably right.
They should be allowed, and heavily regulated. All weapons with a capacity to kill numerous people quickly should be. Realistically, guns are not leaving American society any time soon.
I want GPS in guns. Starting with handguns.
edit: Also, the poll is a little too ambiguous - I am not 'for' or 'against' guns (as I do not own and advocate (or condemn) the purchase/use of them) but I am 'for' personal rights, and I believe guns should be 'controlled' (but not the way the US currently 'controls' them.
But I do LOVE to go to the shooting range
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-24 13:06:44)
I was responding to a sarcastic comment using sarcasm... Should have used sarcasm brackets.blisteringsilence wrote:
And who, exactly, gets to decide? You?konfusion wrote:
How about just removing those that aren't completely necessary? How about making the thing in the constitution where it says "all men are equal" into a "all humans are equal"?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Like the first amendment.
-konfusion
Oh, and I resent being called kiddo.
-konfusion
You made a juvenile comment. Sarcasm is the retreat of a weak mind. Take your lumps and move on.konfusion wrote:
I was responding to a sarcastic comment using sarcasm... Should have used sarcasm brackets.blisteringsilence wrote:
And who, exactly, gets to decide? You?konfusion wrote:
How about just removing those that aren't completely necessary? How about making the thing in the constitution where it says "all men are equal" into a "all humans are equal"?
-konfusion
Oh, and I resent being called kiddo.
-konfusion
p.s. - The whole "all men are created equal" is not in the constitution. It's in the declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
What I find funny is that fireworks are illegal but guns are legal. I mean cmon....
If you want to take this to a personal level, PM me. I do not regard sarcasm as juvenile. Although you are entitled to your opinion, please either express them in a more diplomatic way, or not at all.blisteringsilence wrote:
You made a juvenile comment. Sarcasm is the retreat of a weak mind. Take your lumps and move on.konfusion wrote:
I was responding to a sarcastic comment using sarcasm... Should have used sarcasm brackets.blisteringsilence wrote:
And who, exactly, gets to decide? You?
Oh, and I resent being called kiddo.
-konfusion
p.s. - The whole "all men are created equal" is not in the constitution. It's in the declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-konfusion
Dunno about you, but fireworks aren't illegal where I live either. Now, if it's big enough to be classified as a destructive device, then (ironically) it would fall into the same classification as an automatic weapon, and be heavily regulated.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I find funny is that fireworks are illegal but guns are legal. I mean cmon....
Sarcasm is the refuge of a weak mind - John Knowleskonfusion wrote:
If you want to take this to a personal level, PM me. I do not regard sarcasm as juvenile. Although you are entitled to your opinion, please either express them in a more diplomatic way, or not at all.
-konfusion
I have no desire to attack you personally. I made a comment, in response to your comment. At no point did I express my IDEAS in a way that could be considered undiplomatic or impolitic. I did not call you a moron, I did not question your parentage, and I did not attack you personally. I simply implied, through said comment, that your response was juvenile.
Could it have been interpeted as denegrating? Perhaps. But this is the internet. Thicken up ye skin, and trudge forward. If I were to be offended by every bad thing that is said about me on the internet, I wouldn't have time to live.
Guns are not the problem here. It is the attitude toward guns. We should be more like Switzerland, who teachs the citizens proper gun handling and safety.
Now this I agree with wholeheartedly. I truely believe that the safe handling of a firearm should be taught in PE classes with everything else. Hell, here in the south, it often is. I have, on occassion, gone to some local schools to guest instruct trap and skeet classes.Obey_m0rph3us wrote:
Guns are not the problem here. It is the attitude toward guns. We should be more like Switzerland, who teachs the citizens proper gun handling and safety.
i wish my school would have had firearms instruction...that would have been a definite plus.
thought i must say when i was a cub scout i shot a .22 bolt action and learned tons of stuff on that range.
thought i must say when i was a cub scout i shot a .22 bolt action and learned tons of stuff on that range.
Heh, you Southerners. Try getting these goddamn hippies up in the North to teach guns in PE. Bleeding hearts would whine about how we're equipping kids to be killers. Even though all women are equipped to be prostitutes, but that doesn't mean that they all are.
Well, what about in the ghetto areas of the US? You want to teach them to use guns too? I don't know if I would want my kids to learn gun safety in school. I would rather teach them myself. Then again, most of the stuff a person 'learns' in school I would rather teach myself too.Obey_m0rph3us wrote:
Heh, you Southerners. Try getting these goddamn hippies up in the North to teach guns in PE. Bleeding hearts would whine about how we're equipping kids to be killers. Even though all women are equipped to be prostitutes, but that doesn't mean that they all are.
I don't agree that we would be equipping kids to be killers, I think the possibility of an accident would be too high.
I could see how and why it is taught in more rural areas, and that makes sense, I just don't know about in a large city...
We never got to go shoot or handle any guns but we did have a firearms safety class and a hunter education class in the seventh grade. It was taught for one hour a day for a week. I still use what I learned to this day.
What some people don't understand is that our rights are not granted to us by the constitution. The rights that we have in the USA are rights that we had before the constitution was around and the constitution only protects those rights from being taken away.
The argument that we should use the guns of the time the constitution was written is just about like saying the first amendment doesn't protect the Internet since it wasn't around at the time.
Haven't seen a thing on the news about it but the supreme court just ruled that Washington D.C.'s handgun ban is unconstitutional and the law requiring all long guns to be locked up and stored away from the ammo is also unconstitutional since even removing the gun from storage to protect one self would be breaking the law. The supreme court said this was a violation of the second amendment. This battle isn't over as I am sure the city will appeal but it looks like the residents of D.C. may be able to finally carry a gun for self defense.
Something else that really pisses me off is people that don't think the laws are tough enough. If the courts would enforce half the laws on the books when it comes to guns most criminals would be locked up for most of their life if they used a gun to commit a crime, but instead the courts let them plea bargin down to only spend maybe ten or twenty years in jail and they get out in half that time with good behavior.
What some people don't understand is that our rights are not granted to us by the constitution. The rights that we have in the USA are rights that we had before the constitution was around and the constitution only protects those rights from being taken away.
The argument that we should use the guns of the time the constitution was written is just about like saying the first amendment doesn't protect the Internet since it wasn't around at the time.
Haven't seen a thing on the news about it but the supreme court just ruled that Washington D.C.'s handgun ban is unconstitutional and the law requiring all long guns to be locked up and stored away from the ammo is also unconstitutional since even removing the gun from storage to protect one self would be breaking the law. The supreme court said this was a violation of the second amendment. This battle isn't over as I am sure the city will appeal but it looks like the residents of D.C. may be able to finally carry a gun for self defense.
Something else that really pisses me off is people that don't think the laws are tough enough. If the courts would enforce half the laws on the books when it comes to guns most criminals would be locked up for most of their life if they used a gun to commit a crime, but instead the courts let them plea bargin down to only spend maybe ten or twenty years in jail and they get out in half that time with good behavior.
Last edited by JG1567JG (2007-04-24 15:04:35)
guns should be allowed, but with stipulations. the background checks need to be more accurate and up to date. no one really needs a full auto weapon, don't get me wrong, they are fun as hell to shoot, but it is WAY to expensive!!
just one mugging in a month?? i live by Flint, MI. on average 3 murders per month. anyway back to my favorite subject. the most important things to consider when purchasing a handgun..blisteringsilence wrote:
In Illinios?Elamdri wrote:
I don't need a gun, I'd like a gun. I live right on the edge of the bad part of Peoria. There's a mugging here about once a month at least.Superslim wrote:
Where do you live that you need a gun?
1) make sure it fits good, is it comfortable to hold
2) recoil, make sure that you can manage the recoil for follow up shots
3) quality, you get what you pay for.
some of the calibers that i would recommend are .40 s&w, .45 acp, maybe even a .38 special +p
gun makers that i trust with my life: smith and wesson, h & k, sig sauer and springield armory. personally i don't glocks but they are suppposed to be a good weapon also.
I realy am surprised at how speaking to a wall is similar to speaking to you guys. This has been done so many times now. If you have a gun the criminal WILL have a gun, thus having a gun is no defence as the criminal will have the gun pointed at you before you can draw your gun you will be shot. It realy isnt complicated, if you cant understand that even as a human being i have little hope for our race.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Guns aren't a tool of defense? If someone attacked me with a knife, and I had a gun, and I shot him to the point where he couldn't attack me, didn't I just defend myself?Parker wrote:
please, enlighten all of us as to what is, by your standards of course, "a tool of defence".Vilham wrote:
"I don't give a shit, I don't live there."
The only thing i get pissed at is when they claim they work as a tool of defence, which they dont.
i for one would love to know.
Now, if you are trying to get the point across that someone might/probably would still attack/rob you, knowing you had a gun, then yeah, you are probably right.
They should be allowed, and heavily regulated. All weapons with a capacity to kill numerous people quickly should be. Realistically, guns are not leaving American society any time soon.
I want GPS in guns. Starting with handguns.
edit: Also, the poll is a little too ambiguous - I am not 'for' or 'against' guns (as I do not own and advocate (or condemn) the purchase/use of them) but I am 'for' personal rights, and I believe guns should be 'controlled' (but not the way the US currently 'controls' them.
But I do LOVE to go to the shooting range
1) Not all criminals carry guns.Vilham wrote:
I realy am surprised at how speaking to a wall is similar to speaking to you guys. This has been done so many times now. If you have a gun the criminal WILL have a gun, thus having a gun is no defence as the criminal will have the gun pointed at you before you can draw your gun you will be shot. It realy isnt complicated, if you cant understand that even as a human being i have little hope for our race.Parker wrote:
please, enlighten all of us as to what is, by your standards of course, "a tool of defence".Vilham wrote:
"I don't give a shit, I don't live there."
The only thing i get pissed at is when they claim they work as a tool of defence, which they dont.
i for one would love to know.
2)Criminals that do carry guns might not carry them all the time.
3) If guns were illegal, the criminals that did carry guns probably would still.
Is that sound logic?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-24 15:57:42)