I love this video - wish I lived in USA - watched it twicesfarrar33 wrote:
I am personally in favor of a better gun law...
I play basketball and i played at this gym not more than a month ago,
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.a … yid=112876
That kinda scares me.
Edit: Hes a 19 year old sophmore, haahahhahahahahahah
I play basketball and i played at this gym not more than a month ago,
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.a … yid=112876
That kinda scares me.
Edit: Hes a 19 year old sophmore, haahahhahahahahahah
Last edited by HURLEY (2007-02-18 09:45:23)
I got this email forward right after I read this post, so I thought I would share, lol...
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the
others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control
them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the
others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control
them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
You know what I find funny about that statement? People trade liberty for security every day. It's called the law.HITNRUNXX wrote:
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
Not to the degree of other countries... We don't have all information filtered by the government for our "security." We don't allow police to ransack anyones house they want because that person might be dangerous. (although "Homeland Security" is sure making some mighty jumps in that direction) We aren't allowed to throw people in jail because they MIGHT commit a crime, or are related to someone who committed a crime, or once went to school with someone who committed a crime... We don't kill people because they worship a religion that might cause civil unrest when it spreads... We have a lot more liberty than many countries, and we probably have a higher crime rate and less security than a lot of those countries... But is it a trade you would be willing to make?Bubbalo wrote:
You know what I find funny about that statement? People trade liberty for security every day. It's called the law.HITNRUNXX wrote:
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
Holy hell I agree with you on something. Although I find all those other points pretty funny as well.Bubbalo wrote:
You know what I find funny about that statement? People trade liberty for security every day. It's called the law.HITNRUNXX wrote:
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
I like that one, it sounds like a good bumper sticker.HITNRUNXX wrote:
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
HITNRUNXX: But the point of the statement is that i makes no distinction between levels of surrender.
I understand that, and I didn't write it. I just thought it was humorous and relevant, so I posted it. I agree with most of it, but yeah, I totally understand what you mean. But I also say there has to be a "level of surrender" somewhere that is a line. If it looks like that line will be crossed, then something needs to be done about it.Bubbalo wrote:
HITNRUNXX: But the point of the statement is that i makes no distinction between levels of surrender.
Every number has probably been made into a bumper sticker at one point or another.DesertFox423 wrote:
I like that one, it sounds like a good bumper sticker.HITNRUNXX wrote:
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
But there are levels between order and anarchy. The complete dominance of one over the other (for our species) would be dystopic.Bubbalo wrote:
HITNRUNXX: But the point of the statement is that i makes no distinction between levels of surrender.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-02-20 07:17:52)
No.HITNRUNXX wrote:
I got this email forward right after I read this post, so I thought I would share, lol...
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
Unfortunately the right to have a gun in your hand ensures the criminal has one in his.HITNRUNXX wrote:
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
In the US, probably people would.HITNRUNXX wrote:
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
pencils have more use in society and are much harder to use to kill people.HITNRUNXX wrote:
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
Ahmadinejad isn't asking to make nukes, how 'free' of him.HITNRUNXX wrote:
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
Erm, yes you can.HITNRUNXX wrote:
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
See Bubbalo's postHITNRUNXX wrote:
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
also (c) 1975, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913, 1919, 1920, 1933, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and 1992.HITNRUNXX wrote:
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
See massive list of ammendments aboveHITNRUNXX wrote:
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The armed civilian populaces of the entireity of Europe couldn't stop Germany. in the early 1900s, against the US govenment you've got no chance.HITNRUNXX wrote:
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the
others.
far more Muslims killed no one yesterday, doesn't stop everyone hating them does it.HITNRUNXX wrote:
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
points 6 and 20 say they are inanimate tools therefore they cannot have enemies.HITNRUNXX wrote:
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
Compare US and UK homicide rates.HITNRUNXX wrote:
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
see aboveHITNRUNXX wrote:
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
Pay more taxes and get a better police forceHITNRUNXX wrote:
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
I have no idea what that meansHITNRUNXX wrote:
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Criminals love lack of gun control, it makes getting a gun far easier.HITNRUNXX wrote:
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
Betcha arson rates would go down if matches were banned. Pity matcher are actually quite useful to society.HITNRUNXX wrote:
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
Only citizens afraid of the government try to get guns.HITNRUNXX wrote:
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
No, in fact you have plenty of rights if you fight for them or not.HITNRUNXX wrote:
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
Why not do both?HITNRUNXX wrote:
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
Quick, someone call amnesty international, almost all of Europe is living in slavery!HITNRUNXX wrote:
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
The American revolution would never have happened without the French either. The French revolution pretty much occured without civilian owned firearms. They all did the sensible thing of leaving them in the hands of the military till they needed them then nicked em. They fought off a much larger and more determined anti-revolution army too.HITNRUNXX wrote:
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
So if more than 50% of the people want to get rid of guns then you fully support them?HITNRUNXX wrote:
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
not quite. something that will always be true is that the criminal will have a much easier time obtaining a gun than the law-abiding citizen will, no matter how heavy-handed gun control laws get. thus, there will always be more criminals with guns than normal citizens.PureFodder wrote:
Unfortunately the right to have a gun in your hand ensures the criminal has one in his.
governments should be afraid of their citizens, not the other way around.PureFodder wrote:
Only citizens afraid of the government try to get guns.
cripes. i hope i remain blissfully ignorant of my rights, so that if/when they are taken from me i don't realize it.PureFodder wrote:
No, in fact you have plenty of rights if you fight for them or not.
so what you suggest is that we submit our guns to the authorities, then steal them back when the need arises?PureFodder wrote:
The American revolution would never have happened without the French either. The French revolution pretty much occured without civilian owned firearms. They all did the sensible thing of leaving them in the hands of the military till they needed them then nicked em. They fought off a much larger and more determined anti-revolution army too.
PureFodder wrote:
HITNRUNXX wrote:
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
Yeah, pretty much... When you look at is as a nation instead of an individual...PureFodder wrote:
No.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Nope, as I stated earlier in this thread, criminals don't usually plan out the shootout at the OK Corrall... Most crime happens without a lot of forethought. Most burglaries of the home do not involve firearms. I see a lot of baseball bats though for some reason.PureFodder wrote:
Unfortunately the right to have a gun in your hand ensures the criminal has one in his.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
You're probably right there.PureFodder wrote:
In the US, probably people would.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
Yup, but the idea is that the guns aren't causing the problems. It is the people who use them for crime. They should crack down a lot harder on people who use guns in crimes rather than people who use guns for hunting, home-defense, etc...PureFodder wrote:
pencils have more use in society and are much harder to use to kill people.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
Sounds like he has freedom to do whatever he wants...PureFodder wrote:
Ahmadinejad isn't asking to make nukes, how 'free' of him.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
Not really... You know how often "But I didn't know I was breaking a law..." is said in court? It still never works.PureFodder wrote:
Erm, yes you can.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
Did, and replied to it. Line. Draw.PureFodder wrote:
See Bubbalo's post
HITNRUNXX wrote:
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
Yeah, I actually thought the same thing when I read that one, lol...PureFodder wrote:
also (c) 1975, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913, 1919, 1920, 1933, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and 1992.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Were those amendments to the right that actually says "shall not be infringed" or to other rights?PureFodder wrote:
See massive list of ammendments above
HITNRUNXX wrote:
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the
others.
Here you are horribly mistaken... Just ask the soldiers in Iraq fighting untrained, self-armed, regular old everyday citizens... They haven't exactly been steamrolled overthere. And they are a small percentage of the population in a country with a much smaller population than the US... The citizens of the United States would do just fine if they had to.PureFodder wrote:
The armed civilian populaces of the entireity of Europe couldn't stop Germany. in the early 1900s, against the US govenment you've got no chance.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
I only don't hate them... I do wish they would stop killing people... With or without guns... Just like I wish everyone else in the world would do...PureFodder wrote:
far more Muslims killed no one yesterday, doesn't stop everyone hating them does it.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
Again, it was meant to be a HUMOROUS list, not a thesis...PureFodder wrote:
points 6 and 20 say they are inanimate tools therefore they cannot have enemies.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
Feel free... I have done enough research for this thread...PureFodder wrote:
Compare US and UK homicide rates.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
Yes, see above, and make sure you don't include self-defense in your numbers...PureFodder wrote:
see above
HITNRUNXX wrote:
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
A budget like the military still couldn't ensure the safety of the entire nation... Or else they would...PureFodder wrote:
Pay more taxes and get a better police force
HITNRUNXX wrote:
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Me neither friend... Me neither...PureFodder wrote:
I have no idea what that means
HITNRUNXX wrote:
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
Again, most crimes aren't planned out... Most criminals don't have guns... Most crime is opportunistic...PureFodder wrote:
Criminals love lack of gun control, it makes getting a gun far easier.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
Doubt it... They would just use a lighter... Or a torch, or 2 sticks rubbing together, or electricity, or whatever else they might have laying around handy...PureFodder wrote:
Betcha arson rates would go down if matches were banned. Pity matcher are actually quite useful to society.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
Wow, that is horribly ignorant... Maybe people afraid of criminals with baseball bats try to get guns? Or people who enjoy hunting?PureFodder wrote:
Only citizens afraid of the government try to get guns.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
To the individual, I agree... To the nation, I do not... Almost all rights are make up from conflict.PureFodder wrote:
No, in fact you have plenty of rights if you fight for them or not.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
I think they should focus less on the overall "control", and more on the abuses...PureFodder wrote:
Why not do both?
HITNRUNXX wrote:
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
I agree that this one was overboard...PureFodder wrote:
Quick, someone call amnesty international, almost all of Europe is living in slavery!
HITNRUNXX wrote:
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Yeah, I bet they all were thinking "Gee we were so sensible in leaving the guns with the government..." And you notice that they STILL had guns after they stole them, right? They didn't just say "Eh, guns are illegal... Lets use rocks instead!"PureFodder wrote:
The American revolution would never have happened without the French either. The French revolution pretty much occured without civilian owned firearms. They all did the sensible thing of leaving them in the hands of the military till they needed them then nicked em. They fought off a much larger and more determined anti-revolution army too.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
Actually, yeah... If it went before a vote of the public, and the majority of the United States voted to ban all firearms, I would happily turn over my one antique .22 caliber rifle that my great grandfather passed down to me... Good luck with that campaign.PureFodder wrote:
So if more than 50% of the people want to get rid of guns then you fully support them?
Agreed. The hardest part of a free society is finding the line between freedom and security.HITNRUNXX wrote:
I understand that, and I didn't write it. I just thought it was humorous and relevant, so I posted it. I agree with most of it, but yeah, I totally understand what you mean. But I also say there has to be a "level of surrender" somewhere that is a line. If it looks like that line will be crossed, then something needs to be done about it.Bubbalo wrote:
HITNRUNXX: But the point of the statement is that i makes no distinction between levels of surrender.
That's my point.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
But there are levels between order and anarchy. The complete dominance of one over the other (for our species) would be dystopic.
I'd like the blood to dry before we start asking why this shooting happened.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Of course, I didn't make any comment to show respect for the victims and their families. Just posted it.Kmarion wrote:
I'd like the blood to dry before we start asking why this shooting happened.
Ok, I didnt know if you saw this thread or not.sergeriver wrote:
Of course, I didn't make any comment to show respect for the victims and their families. Just posted it.Kmarion wrote:
I'd like the blood to dry before we start asking why this shooting happened.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Isn't it obvious? Guns are allowed. Ilegalize guns and things of this magnitude wouldn't happen so often.
I saw it after posting in this thread, but anyway I didn't open a new one.Kmarion wrote:
Ok, I didnt know if you saw this thread or not.sergeriver wrote:
Of course, I didn't make any comment to show respect for the victims and their families. Just posted it.Kmarion wrote:
I'd like the blood to dry before we start asking why this shooting happened.
It is illegal to murder people. Didn't help though, did it? Bombs are illegal. How many bombs did the Columbine kids have with them when they went on their rampage? Saying "Nope, that's illegal" doesn't automatically make all problems go away. And as for "So often" this was the largest shooting at a school in US history, and almost the largest shooting in US history. The largest shooting at a school in US history PRIOR to this was over 40 years ago.snuten_i_sjoholmen wrote:
Isn't it obvious? Guns are allowed. Ilegalize guns and things of this magnitude wouldn't happen so often.
Isn't it obvious? Things of this magnitude DON'T happen so often.
They happen more often than in another countries with guns restrictions.HITNRUNXX wrote:
It is illegal to murder people. Didn't help though, did it? Bombs are illegal. How many bombs did the Columbine kids have with them when they went on their rampage? Saying "Nope, that's illegal" doesn't automatically make all problems go away. And as for "So often" this was the largest shooting at a school in US history, and almost the largest shooting in US history. The largest shooting at a school in US history PRIOR to this was over 40 years ago.snuten_i_sjoholmen wrote:
Isn't it obvious? Guns are allowed. Ilegalize guns and things of this magnitude wouldn't happen so often.
Isn't it obvious? Things of this magnitude DON'T happen so often.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-04-16 11:15:06)
Violent video games are causing it.
Hello again SergePug wrote:
Common? 0.0027%sergeriver wrote:
Armed Man Kills 5 at Mall in Utah
This episode and the one in Philadelphia, took the lives of 8 people.
Why do these shootings happen so often in the US? Would they happen without the Right to Bear Arms? Is it safe a civilian carrying a gun? I'm asking, not making a judgement. I want to know your opinion about these cases, because they happen frequently.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … per-capita
Or well reported?
Hi, buddy.Pug wrote:
Hello again SergePug wrote:
Common? 0.0027%sergeriver wrote:
Armed Man Kills 5 at Mall in Utah
This episode and the one in Philadelphia, took the lives of 8 people.
Why do these shootings happen so often in the US? Would they happen without the Right to Bear Arms? Is it safe a civilian carrying a gun? I'm asking, not making a judgement. I want to know your opinion about these cases, because they happen frequently.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … per-capita
Or well reported?