Why ????????????????Random-Hero58 wrote:
We need more guns. I've been using guns since i was about 8. Also some trimming of the gun laws would be good (there is like 20,000 of them...)
our gun laws are bloated and confusing, they need to concentrate on enforcing the ones we already have instead of writing more that we can't keep up with
EXACTLY! This in itself would cut the gun crime by a considerable percentage!kr@cker wrote:
our gun laws are bloated and confusing, they need to concentrate on enforcing the ones we already have instead of writing more that we can't keep up with
Or, perhaps, streamlining them to make them easier to follow?
The gun laws Need to be fedrally enforced. States can still have due process for Pistol ownership with applications, but the gun laws should be universally enforced in ALL 51 states. This only applies to Pistols and Assault rifles IMO.
If they want to own a weapon, a powefull car, an Airplane its no ones business really if they are law abiding. How about just punishing people who actually commit crimes. Easier and cheaper for everyone that way, except the criminals.
I think those killed by previously law abiding gun owners would beg to differ..................
Maybe, id bet the guy i delt with would rethink his actions if he ever had a second chance. But a second chance he wont get. Sad day, but what is one suppose to do? Protection of family over rides Any law to me.
http://www.historicaldocuments.com/HistoricQuotes.htm
History teaches that all governments turn into tyrants and turn on their people. The USA's is right now.
History teaches that all governments turn into tyrants and turn on their people. The USA's is right now.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
pwned! congress has just pwned itselfstryyker wrote:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
bill of right, kthxcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
pwned! congress has just pwned itselfstryyker wrote:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I think if it came right down to it the military would roll right over the american people. Johnny average with his 12 guage shotgun, or whatever guns his personal arsenal includes is no match for a well trained soldier, let alone a tank or aircraft. I put more faith in the military personnel's reluctance to act upon orders that put them in conflict with the public, and the laws that prevent the military from being used against the people.stryyker wrote:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
ok i dont know about most of the morons posting here but as a gun dealer i know something about the laws to purchase a hand gun you must go thru a f.b.i back ground check that check goes back 10years if there is any question they will put a hold on that purchase for up to 5 business days thats 1 week at minum now any gun purchase in the states (u.s.) must go thru this f.b.i check unless your an individual seller then its your descretion but if the person uses the firearm to hurt or rob someone then your responsible for the action of the person you sold too. the problem is not the guns its the bad guys that arent being punished for the crime like they should be if someone uses a gun in the crime it should always be a felony and if its a second strike well then he's there from now on but well most lawers would have a fucking fit becuse they would make as much money now would they!!
USA soldiers swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, not the government.
+1 to what 11thdvs said I also work at a gun shop on the weekends and it is not that easy to get a gun. Yes I know there are a shit load of people that go out and get guns from the streets but that is a whole nother story, I work at the shop I purchase my guns from and it takes me sometimes almost a week to pass the checks. There is nothing worng with owning a gun ro guns for that matter. I own quite a few. The gun culture is something alot of us were born in to it has been a part of our lives for a while now. Every one has a right to there own opinon but agruing with us is like telling someone that you shouldln't worship god and that it is wrong to go to church. I have seen so many of these posts on this forum, and every one is the same, if you don't like guns then don't buy them, were not asking anyone to go out and buy a gun, quite frankly if you are scared to own and carrie a gun then you have no buisness owning one. But all of us gun owners will continue to own them regardless of what all of you anti-gun people say. Just my 2 cents.
And you could also make hard drugs legal and punish only those who commit crimes under influence or to get money to buy more?Horseman 77 wrote:
If they want to own a weapon, a powefull car, an Airplane its no ones business really if they are law abiding. How about just punishing people who actually commit crimes. Easier and cheaper for everyone that way, except the criminals.
Maybe hard-core capitalist society like yours that creates inequality also has high criminal rates as a byproduct. And maybe it therefore requires strict laws. I was surprised that my country has third biggest guns per capita in a world, but very few crimes committed using a gun. But most of our guns are hunting rifles, not mg's.
Most of ours are pistols and Hunting firearms also. Problem Isnt Just the capitalist(according to you) Society, Look at all countries, Every Govt or society has its poor, and very poor, yes even France. Remember the riots recently?PekkaA wrote:
And you could also make hard drugs legal and punish only those who commit crimes under influence or to get money to buy more?Horseman 77 wrote:
If they want to own a weapon, a powefull car, an Airplane its no ones business really if they are law abiding. How about just punishing people who actually commit crimes. Easier and cheaper for everyone that way, except the criminals.
Maybe hard-core capitalist society like yours that creates inequality also has high criminal rates as a byproduct. And maybe it therefore requires strict laws. I was surprised that my country has third biggest guns per capita in a world, but very few crimes committed using a gun. But most of our guns are hunting rifles, not mg's.
When the current 20,000 laws are enforced(most arnt by liberal judges) because they feel if they dont, maybe there agenda will be pushed even harder(by the anti's like Brady) by amending our rights to have private arms. Even judges have there motives. When you take the guns out of the hands of the legal citizens, you Make it even easier for the criminals to get them instead of citizens who need them for family protection. Cmon now look at england, crime has risen more, and now because they have switched to Knives(just as deadly as a gun) they want to ban Knives in peoples homes? Thats just going a bit too far in my eyes. When does it stop? Are hammers and baseball bats next? Ax's? Sorry, but once you start down that slope(taking ALL the guns out of the hands of law abiding folks, It snowballs into taking everything that could be a weapon away.
Hope someday i dont have to apply to get a hammer for work.
Personally I think everybody should be allowed at least one M1 Abrams for their own protection.
Only an Abrams? They need tactical nukes, for deterrent purposes.
That could work, but i digress, i cant have a Nuke. But theres a difference in a deterrent, than there is in a promise to Use one if aquired. Theres a difference.Bubbalo wrote:
Only an Abrams? They need tactical nukes, for deterrent purposes.
But, wait. I thought guns made people safer due to the threat of force. Clearly, then, more force makes people even safer?
Let's see how those frigging assholes at school stand up to a nuke heh... This idea could have it's merits Bubbalo...Bubbalo wrote:
Only an Abrams? They need tactical nukes, for deterrent purposes.
Headstone, why can't you have a nuke? Not enough room in the back yard for a missle silo or a launch pad? I'm sure you could rent a place.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
It is a Hard fact that " Law abiding Gun owners " commit no measurable amount of crimes and are not part of the problem.Bubbalo wrote:
I think those killed by previously law abiding gun owners would beg to differ..................
Clearly you have not been part of this debate before or you should have come across this information.
When any crime takes place punish the criminal no one else.
You act as though with proper legislation no one could carry out a bad thought. Should we ban cars so no one speeds? Should we not sell matches so no one will commit arson? Not sell Recorders so no one can pirate music? Ban ladders after a burglary takes place?
Your " pre judge - pre punish policy " should make a free man shudder.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-05 06:34:32)
Okay, here's another good one: by your logic, pre-emptive strikes ought not be made. Outlawing guns would be pre-emptively striking at assault with a firearm.
More to the point, however, is the fact that I am correct. Someone who gets a gun and is law-abiding until they shoot someone is not a criminal until that point. It is, therefore, more expensive for the victim, as they must pay for that persons freedom to have a lethal weapon with their life.
Your analogy is also lacking. The objects you list can all be used for purposes which harm noone. A gun is designed to harm. I find you accusal of a pre-judge pre-punish policy also foolish: by your logic anyone ought be able to own anything and do whatever they like with it provided they harm noone. You'd better run down to city hall, Horseman, they've pre-judged and pre-punished you by prohibiting your access to tactical nuclear weapons!
More to the point, however, is the fact that I am correct. Someone who gets a gun and is law-abiding until they shoot someone is not a criminal until that point. It is, therefore, more expensive for the victim, as they must pay for that persons freedom to have a lethal weapon with their life.
Your analogy is also lacking. The objects you list can all be used for purposes which harm noone. A gun is designed to harm. I find you accusal of a pre-judge pre-punish policy also foolish: by your logic anyone ought be able to own anything and do whatever they like with it provided they harm noone. You'd better run down to city hall, Horseman, they've pre-judged and pre-punished you by prohibiting your access to tactical nuclear weapons!