The quote from Reagan is all you had to put for your response.fadedsteve wrote:
But you based on the fact that you simply have an opposite opinion than them, your automatically wrong in their eyes. . . .bob_6012 wrote:
Amen, I'm just trying to get everyone against guns to go away. That's all, hype critical, maybe but I don't really care. Like I said we'll never agree but I just wish they would understand that.fadedsteve wrote:
Exactly!! I sure as hell aint buying into some liberal bullshit about gun bans PERIOD
If the colonists didnt have the ability to protect themselves(i.e. own muskets and pistols), who knows if the USA would even have been realized. . . .
Why do you think the founders (smarter men than anyone on these forums!!) put that amendment in the constitution???? TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!! You have the right as a citizen to protect yourself when the government is unable to do so. . . . that right shall NEVER be infringed upon.
See liberals dont have tolerance for opposite viewpoints. . . . They yell and scream and drown you out, and try to substantiate their opinion when FACT says they're wrong.
I see their argument, and its wrong. . . .Its wrong 50 times over!!
We Should Ban Doctors They Kill 200.000+ Per Year Cars 42.000 + Deaths Per Year , While Guns Only Kill 10100 As-per Fbi 2005 Report And California Has The Highest Murder By Gun Rate
Just trying to show that PEOPLE are responsible, not the objects.Sanjaya wrote:
As for the ban cars and booze argument, cars aren't designed with killing in mind, and they tried banning alcohol before, really didn't work.
if banning alcohol didnt work, try banning guns....Sanjaya wrote:
LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!11111111111111
Seriously, they may typically be the ones whining about it, but they're usually not the ones misusing them. If people weren't misusing them they probably wouldn't be whining.
As for the ban cars and booze argument, cars aren't designed with killing in mind, and they tried banning alcohol before, really didn't work.
Those who will give up freedom for security don't deserve to be free...
First, not even a four year old can buy a gun, that's absurd. It takes a background check to buy a gun.TigerXtrm wrote:
There is nothing wrong with regulation laws on guns. Here in Holland, the country so well known for drug abuse and paid sex, guns are extremely illegal IF you don't have a permit to have one. Get a permit and you can have as many guns as you want (or as many as your permit allows). And whether or not you get a permit is based on your personal history. If you've ever been in jail, no permit. History of violence? No permit. Ect. Ect. In other words only people who are deemed responsible enough to own a gun can have one.
Now don't throw the argument 'some states in America also require permits' at me because you know just as well as I do that even a 4 year old with a fake ID can get a permit.
You need guns for your protection? Protection against who? The other lunatics who also own a gun and got their hands on it just as easily as you did? Protection against burglars? Better make sure he doesn't fall down and hit his head when you shoot him, he might sue you.
If you think having a gun in your night drawer makes you saver then what would be the harm in having a decent permit system in place to make sure only normal people can have guns? If you are so confident that you are responsible enough to handle it then you shouldn't be opposed to a rule like this. Instead everyone is shouting that guns should be completely legal and at the same time all these idiots are wondering where kids get the weapons to commit these school shootings. The people shouting for legality are the exact reason a permit rule should be in place because deep down these people know they wouldn't pass a permit background check, along with more then half of the American population.
Tiger
Second, it would take the "local" police 20 minutes to get to my house if someone were to break in. Dead men don't sue.
Third, criminals commit crimes like stealing guns. They use these guns to commit other crimes. Deranged people get guns from criminals and shoot people.
Fourth, If it is so bad here then why do we have so many foreign people going to school and working here. If you don't like it here stay the hell out.
p.s. ever use spell check?
Last edited by redhawk454 (2007-04-17 19:17:54)
Guns cause crime like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat and flies cause garbage.
You know people (mostly everyone NOT living in America) want the Bill of Rights rewritten - mainly they want the 2nd amendment taken out
Well if these people get their way and our Bill of Rights gets hacked up then what will stop these people from ripping in up any further
Next could be our Freedom of Speech (no more burning of the flags {even though they should stop} )
then after the Freedom of Speech gets poked and manipulated then imagine what they will go after next .......
Well if these people get their way and our Bill of Rights gets hacked up then what will stop these people from ripping in up any further
Next could be our Freedom of Speech (no more burning of the flags {even though they should stop} )
then after the Freedom of Speech gets poked and manipulated then imagine what they will go after next .......
I guess you are like the blind tour guide.Invaderzim wrote:
I give up, I can't make you see sense so I wont try.
Try alot of the ones that live in the cities. Washington D.C. has the higher crime rate than the state of S. Dakota. D. C. had banned guns S. Dakota has not. Go figure.Vilham wrote:
Haha all the people I knew would take offence to that did... thanks for confirming my opinion of you guys.
Lets face it pro gun lobbies are full of red necks. How many New Yorkers, Californians etc are in pro gun lobbies?
well you have a Californian right here that is pro gun... basically the northern half of california is conservative... its from San Francisco down that is liberal.. i wish they would split cali into 2 states...redhawk454 wrote:
Try alot of the ones that live in the cities. Washington D.C. has the higher crime rate than the state of S. Dakota. D. C. had banned guns S. Dakota has not. Go figure.Vilham wrote:
Haha all the people I knew would take offence to that did... thanks for confirming my opinion of you guys.
Lets face it pro gun lobbies are full of red necks. How many New Yorkers, Californians etc are in pro gun lobbies?
they could call itSmitty5613 wrote:
.. i wish they would split cali into 2 states...
Good California and then Mexcali
actually- http://www.jeffersonstate.com/SEREMAKER wrote:
they could call itSmitty5613 wrote:
.. i wish they would split cali into 2 states...
Good California and then Mexcali
i think that would be sweet, northern cali wouldnt be run by San Fran and LA
I'm surprised there has been very little mention of guns being used as sport.
Camp Perry, an active base located in Ohio, right on Lake Erie, has been running for over 100 years. If i remember correctly, they have been holding target shooting competitions since 1903 (basically since the rifle came out). in those 100+ years, i know for fact that not one person has been shot during those matches. people have a better chance of dying from heat stroke at Camp Perry than they do of getting shot when they are at the base.
responsibility is very important when owning a gun, and there is proof to show. Camp Perry is a responsible society, and the result is the fact that not one person has ever been shot in 100 years of competitions.
Camp Perry, an active base located in Ohio, right on Lake Erie, has been running for over 100 years. If i remember correctly, they have been holding target shooting competitions since 1903 (basically since the rifle came out). in those 100+ years, i know for fact that not one person has been shot during those matches. people have a better chance of dying from heat stroke at Camp Perry than they do of getting shot when they are at the base.
responsibility is very important when owning a gun, and there is proof to show. Camp Perry is a responsible society, and the result is the fact that not one person has ever been shot in 100 years of competitions.
Duh. It's only run by the Army and is between friendly people.
The rifle came out in 1450, and was widespread in use by 1830.
I don't favor banning guns. That would be dumb. I have a much better solution. Regulate the manufacture of ammunition, and tax it so that a single bullet costs around $500-1000. This way, no one can afford enough bullets to go on a shooting spree, but can have enough for that secure sound of loading a chamber. By regulating ammunition, it would ensure that ammunition isn't distributed illegally. (And if it was, people would still pay high prices.)
I like this proposal. It allows gun control activists to have essentially no dangerous weapons around. Meanwhile, all those gun owners who hold those nine words (...the right to bear arms will not be infringed...) so dear to their heart will be satisfied. It also will make schools a lot safer, since the students who cause shootings couldn't afford their actions.
The rifle came out in 1450, and was widespread in use by 1830.
I don't favor banning guns. That would be dumb. I have a much better solution. Regulate the manufacture of ammunition, and tax it so that a single bullet costs around $500-1000. This way, no one can afford enough bullets to go on a shooting spree, but can have enough for that secure sound of loading a chamber. By regulating ammunition, it would ensure that ammunition isn't distributed illegally. (And if it was, people would still pay high prices.)
I like this proposal. It allows gun control activists to have essentially no dangerous weapons around. Meanwhile, all those gun owners who hold those nine words (...the right to bear arms will not be infringed...) so dear to their heart will be satisfied. It also will make schools a lot safer, since the students who cause shootings couldn't afford their actions.
no, i dont feel like going quial or pheasant hunting with bullets costing $500.... we should raise the price of alcohol and cigarettes, not bullets....nukchebi0 wrote:
Duh. It's only run by the Army and is between friendly people.
The rifle came out in 1450, and was widespread in use by 1830.
I don't favor banning guns. That would be dumb. I have a much better solution. Regulate the manufacture of ammunition, and tax it so that a single bullet costs around $500-1000. This way, no one can afford enough bullets to go on a shooting spree, but can have enough for that secure sound of loading a chamber. By regulating ammunition, it would ensure that ammunition isn't distributed illegally. (And if it was, people would still pay high prices.)
I like this proposal. It allows gun control activists to have essentially no dangerous weapons around. Meanwhile, all those gun owners who hold those nine words (...the right to bear arms will not be infringed...) so dear to their heart will be satisfied. It also will make schools a lot safer, since the students who cause shootings couldn't afford their actions.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
not to be a semantic asshole but:nukchebi0 wrote:
Duh. It's only run by the Army and is between friendly people.
The rifle came out in 1450, and was widespread in use by 1830.
I don't favor banning guns. That would be dumb. I have a much better solution. Regulate the manufacture of ammunition, and tax it so that a single bullet costs around $500-1000. This way, no one can afford enough bullets to go on a shooting spree, but can have enough for that secure sound of loading a chamber. By regulating ammunition, it would ensure that ammunition isn't distributed illegally. (And if it was, people would still pay high prices.)
I like this proposal. It allows gun control activists to have essentially no dangerous weapons around. Meanwhile, all those gun owners who hold those nine words (...the right to bear arms will not be infringed...) so dear to their heart will be satisfied. It also will make schools a lot safer, since the students who cause shootings couldn't afford their actions.
a. technically, a rifle is a long arm untilzing a rifled bore, otherwise it is a shotgun or musket. recreational target shooting in America wasn't widespread until the mid to late 19th century.
b. do you steal all your material from Chris Rock?
Last edited by Reciprocity (2007-04-17 20:17:40)
Rip off of Chris Rocknukchebi0 wrote:
Duh. It's only run by the Army and is between friendly people.
The rifle came out in 1450, and was widespread in use by 1830.
I don't favor banning guns. That would be dumb. I have a much better solution. Regulate the manufacture of ammunition, and tax it so that a single bullet costs around $500-1000. This way, no one can afford enough bullets to go on a shooting spree, but can have enough for that secure sound of loading a chamber. By regulating ammunition, it would ensure that ammunition isn't distributed illegally. (And if it was, people would still pay high prices.)
I like this proposal. It allows gun control activists to have essentially no dangerous weapons around. Meanwhile, all those gun owners who hold those nine words (...the right to bear arms will not be infringed...) so dear to their heart will be satisfied. It also will make schools a lot safer, since the students who cause shootings couldn't afford their actions.
^ rep beat me to it. +1 to him.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2007-04-17 20:18:48)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Lol the shooter goes to the victim I want my bullet back or something.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Rip off of Chris Rocknukchebi0 wrote:
Duh. It's only run by the Army and is between friendly people.
The rifle came out in 1450, and was widespread in use by 1830.
I don't favor banning guns. That would be dumb. I have a much better solution. Regulate the manufacture of ammunition, and tax it so that a single bullet costs around $500-1000. This way, no one can afford enough bullets to go on a shooting spree, but can have enough for that secure sound of loading a chamber. By regulating ammunition, it would ensure that ammunition isn't distributed illegally. (And if it was, people would still pay high prices.)
I like this proposal. It allows gun control activists to have essentially no dangerous weapons around. Meanwhile, all those gun owners who hold those nine words (...the right to bear arms will not be infringed...) so dear to their heart will be satisfied. It also will make schools a lot safer, since the students who cause shootings couldn't afford their actions.
Uh, no. I have never seen Chris Rock in my life.
I getting the life time membership now. I'll edit with the screenie of it.Kmarion wrote:
This is the group I would like to hear from. Out of curiosity.
http://i13.tinypic.com/3zggn61.jpg
www.nra.org/
here is the copy of the text e-mail:
Dear Daniel Brinson,
Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and
preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun
ownership.
Your credit card will be billed for $125.00* for a 5 Year Membership in the
National Rifle Association with "American Rifleman" as your magazine choice.
If you have any questions regarding your order, please email us at
[email protected]. Or you may call our Toll Free Membership Account
Information Hotline at 1-877-NRA-2000.
Thanks again for your interest in the National Rifle Association!
NRA Membership Services
*For all foreign and Canadian orders, additional fees for postage have been
applied.
Be sure to visit our website at http://www.nrahq.org!
and the money shot.. 5 YEAR BABY!
*couldn't quite afford the life time. Next year though!
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2007-04-17 21:08:52)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
wow, u dont belong here...nukchebi0 wrote:
Uh, no. I have never seen Chris Rock in my life.
If it wasnt for treatment of gunshots, half of those number of people wouldnt be needing medical treatment in the hospital in the first place....hate&discontent wrote:
i found this on google i think from 2005:
Medical malpractice is currently the third leading cause of death in the United States. Approximately 200,000 people in the United States die each year due to mistakes by medical professionals and prescription errors, according to a recent report from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). It was reported that 12,000 deaths a year result from unnecessary surgery - 7000 from medication errors in hospitals - 20,000 deaths are caused by other hospital errors - 80,000 deaths a year from hospital born infections and 106,000 deaths a year from non-error, adverse effects of medications.
hospitals kill more people that guns.
if i quoted this wrong, sorry.