Ban the guns

[Scoobnfl]

bad publicity?

nope it was Janet the Facist Reno.

 

[Foxtrot]

nope it was Janet the Facist Reno.

Are you sure it wasn't just all in Scoob the dumbass nfl's head? Not meaning to offend you, just showing you how dumb you look when you post such meaningless statements.

 

[Pogrom]

note to self: stay away from idaho

Drop us a line if you're ever in Aus.

Plenty of welcome down here mate.

And as for everybody having guns - how do you determine that people can handle them responsibly?

I know there are many gun owners who do handle guns responsibly, lock them away and don't store them loaded etc. My grandmother is one of them.

But if there are no laws about guns, and no restrictions about carrying them around anywhere, sooner or later someone who shouldn't will get their hands on a gun.

Would they have been able to get a gun even with the laws? Posibly, but it sure as hell would have been harder.

 

[MilkMan12]

MilkMan12, Đynast...

What realy gets me is that people think it is the law that allows us our rights. That's simply not the case. Our rights come from God, not men -or laws/Gov'ts set up by men. And if you don't beleive in a God, then call our rights "natural human rights". Our(US) founders called them "self-evident".

You don NOT ask permition to have or excersize a right. When you have to ask permition to excersize something, it is not a right, but a privilege...that can be given or taken from you.

"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..." -From the Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

"By their creator...", not "By the will of the majority..." or "By the whims of government..." or "By the law..."

You don't restict someones rights, period. You can punish them if they abuse their rights, and not before.

That's what is so absolutely wrong about BackGround Checks, permits, FOID cards, or "suspect lists" when buying a firearm. You don't have to prove yourself, or ask permition to be GRANTED rights that you already have. Messures like these treats our rights as if they were privileges, and also goes against "innocent until proven guilty".

"I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: 'Freedom of assembly' and 'freedom of speech' and so forth. Of course, they don't allow them to have those things, but they're in there in the constitution. But I began to wonder about the other constitutions -- everyone has one -- and our own, and why so much emphasis on ours. And then I found out, and the answer was very simple -- that's why you don't notice it at first. But it is so great that it tells the entire difference. All those other constitutions are documents that say, 'We, the government, allow the people the following rights,' and our Constitution says 'We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights.' We give our permission to government to do the things that it does. And that's the whole story of the difference--why we're unique in the world and why no matter what our troubles may be, we're going to overcome." -Ronald Reagan

When it comes to rights, they can't be denide by law or majority. If they could, then people could vote to exterminate a portion of the population they found "undesirable", or deny certain groups the right to speech, or firearms.


C.H.

Very good point indeed...one problem though. This is not a country run by God, nor does it follow any of Gods commands. It does borrow from certain morals within all different religions however we are in UNCLE SAMS HOUSE and when we stay in HIS house, HE makes the rules. Luckily, our uncle same here, here likes us to have a say in them. America aint no free ride pal. So if America wants to take away your "God given right" to do whatever in the hell you want then respect it or get the hell out of our country lol. And I dont say it like that to be mean just to prove my point. You stay at someones house, you pay them rent, and if they say no dogs in the house, you dont say "well God says I can do whatever the **** I want". Get what Im saying? The guy doesnt want a dog in the house for a reason. The US does background checks for a reason, to try to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. And they godamn well have a right to protect themselves from anything. No matter what God says. Our freedom has its limits. Cant yell FIRE in the middle of a crowded theatre. So in essence, your wayyyyy off. And it seems like a majority of the people in this country agree with that. Otherwise, it would be totally different.

 

[ChareltonHest]

You stay at someones house, you pay them rent, and if they say no dogs in the house, you dont say "well God says I can do whatever the **** I want". Get what Im saying?

I get what you are saying: No one can defy the law because they say God told them to. That is not what I am saying.

This country's supreme law of land is the ideals our founders wrote up in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That means this Gov't must obey them as well...especialy the Gov't must obey them. The right-to-keep-and-bear-arms is a restriction ON GOV'T...the BORs was created to put into writing what the Gov't has no authority to do. Our founders said from the begining that people have certain rights that no one can infinge upon, and then put it in writing, spelling out what the Gov't cannot do.

It is this Gov't that is violating the law here and infringing on our rights. This is the Constitution's house, not Uncle Sams.

Our freedom has its limits. Cant yell FIRE in the middle of a crowded theatre.

I was hoping somebody bring up the faulty "No yelling fire in a theater" example.

What you describe is a restriction on ACTION, not the right itself. You have the right to have the ability to yell FIRE, but not the right to start a false panic. Just as you have the right to have the ability to go on a shooting spree, but you don't have the right to murder.

"A man who is not free to choose to act wrongly is not free at all."

Do we command everyone have their vocal cords cut at childbirth, or that everyone keep their hands cuffed behind their back because they MIGHT yell "FIRE" or punch somebody? No, we must wait until they abuse their right, before we punish them. We can't have a system that screens people to decide who isn't worthy to have a right; that is a recipie for tyrany as it will basicly give one group the ability to decide who has rights and who doesn't. It will be used for Power.

I do not have to prove myself to anyone before being able to excersize a right. I don't need to pass test in order to be able to speak my mind, or get a liceanse to write an article; I don't have to go through a "Background Check" in order to buy a gun, or have a permit in order to own one . It doesn't work that way. It is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof is on the accusers whether or not I can have my freedom restricted: Such as if I abuse my rights(I kill someone or start a panic in a theater), I can deprived of liberty -(I.E. I'll be injail).

You can't restrict someone's right, but you can punish them for abusing it. That's why we have laws against killing people unjustly, and laws against starting a panic through false statements.

A person has a right to bear arms, you can't deny them that, unless they abuse it. In wich case, they should be in jail. That's due process, and that's how it works.


C.H.

 

[ChareltonHest]

...know there are many gun owners who do handle guns responsibly, lock them away and don't store them loaded etc.

A gun that is locked up or unloaded will be hard to use for defence when seconds count.

But it all depends on the person how they feal it nessesary to store thier weapons. Personaly, if their are no small children around, I recomend locking away all but one weapon; since you can only use one gun at a time. lol. Though depending on how your house is aranged, you could leave 2 out in different rooms. Many different meathods.


C.H.

 

[Calanen]

Yeah you don't have enough time,to go into the gun cabinet, unlock everything and load everything if someone is kicking the door in.

Perhaps the best way is to have the pistol reasonably handy in the bedroom at night, but locked away during the day when kids might be around to get it.

Either that or have the safe in the bedroom and the bedroom a fortress, so that when someone is entering the house - you have time to open the safe and grab it.

But yes its a dilemma. No use having ammunitation locked up with the gun and having to start putting everything together if you need it. You need to get the thing very quickly. I understand that there are safes where you use fingerprint ID so they spring open fast allowing you to get your gun.

 

[ChareltonHest]

I understand that there are safes where you use fingerprint ID so they spring open fast allowing you to get your gun.

Yeah, I was thinking of that...they are small shoe-box sized safes that you can keep near your bead. Or you could get the gunboxes that look like a beadside alarm clock. lol.

But yes its a dilemma.

Biggest dilemma I can think of is if you have small children that are at the age where they are into everything, and a little to young to fully be aware of the dangers. Just use common-sense; like you would with hazardious chemicals.

Once they are past that, take them to the range and teach them respect for guns. My dad was hunting on his own at age 14.


C.H.

 

[MilkMan12]

I get what you are saying: No one can defy the law because they say God told them to. That is not what I am saying.

This country's supreme law of land is the ideals our founders wrote up in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That means this Gov't must obey them as well...especialy the Gov't must obey them. The right-to-keep-and-bear-arms is a restriction ON GOV'T...the BORs was created to put into writing what the Gov't has no authority to do. Our founders said from the begining that people have certain rights that no one can infinge upon, and then put it in writing, spelling out what the Gov't cannot do.

It is this Gov't that is violating the law here and infringing on our rights. This is the Constitution's house, not Uncle Sams.




I was hoping somebody bring up the faulty "No yelling fire in a theater" example.

What you describe is a restriction on ACTION, not the right itself. You have the right to have the ability to yell FIRE, but not the right to start a false panic. Just as you have the right to have the ability to go on a shooting spree, but you don't have the right to murder.

"A man who is not free to choose to act wrongly is not free at all."

Do we command everyone have their vocal cords cut at childbirth, or that everyone keep their hands cuffed behind their back because they MIGHT yell "FIRE" or punch somebody? No, we must wait until they abuse their right, before we punish them. We can't have a system that screens people to decide who isn't worthy to have a right; that is a recipie for tyrany as it will basicly give one group the ability to decide who has rights and who doesn't. It will be used for Power.

I do not have to prove myself to anyone before being able to excersize a right. I don't need to pass test in order to be able to speak my mind, or get a liceanse to write an article; I don't have to go through a "Background Check" in order to buy a gun, or have a permit in order to own one . It doesn't work that way. It is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof is on the accusers whether or not I can have my freedom restricted: Such as if I abuse my rights(I kill someone or start a panic in a theater), I can deprived of liberty -(I.E. I'll be injail).

You can't restrict someone's right, but you can punish them for abusing it. That's why we have laws against killing people unjustly, and laws against starting a panic through false statements.

A person has a right to bear arms, you can't deny them that, unless they abuse it. In wich case, they should be in jail. That's due process, and that's how it works.


C.H.

Great points, we are kind of agreeing with eachother here as I think guns should be legal. Also when I said Uncle Sam you know what I meant.

But you said it yourself we must abide by the consitution. Yes we do have the right to bear arms, however the way we go about retrieving these "arms" is totally up to the government. Which is why I disagree with you when you said that there should be no background checks or anything safe and stuff.

Back to the safety on guns, I think the safeties we have on them right now are fine. As they are quick to set back to ready to fire and make it safe to carry a gun in public or an really any situation where you dont need the safety off. Just like in paintball before you go out on the feild you have a barrel plug that can stop a paintball and can easily be removed in a second to be used immediately.

And to your last post I completely agree that really every person should learn how to use a gun. Along with learnign to use one you learn to respect them and see the danger in them. I used one once, and man o man I said this before and I say it again...I am never ****ing with guns...ever. I dont even think I could aim one at someone bad to threaten them because I know how devestating they are. However the age in which parents should teach their kids is totally up to them.

My solution to the dilemma is find a spot that you can easily reach but your child physicaly cant. ANd leave it unloaded with ammo near it and the safety on.

I have never shot a pistol before, and I dont even know how those safeties work which I think I should ask my dad to teach me about. I once saw my dads friends glock and it had two triggers, and if I needed to use that to save my life or someone elses I wouldnt know how to. Which I hope I will change soon.

 

[ChareltonHest]

However the age in which parents should teach their kids is totally up to them.

Absolutely.

Back to the safety on guns, I think the safeties we have on them right now are fine. As they are quick to set back to ready to fire and make it safe to carry a gun in public or an really any situation where you dont need the safety off.

Yeah, I like how it is now. Like with cars, keep it simple. I like my old 74 Chevy because it is simple; no overcomplication by computers, ect.. The more simple and independent it is, in function, the better. A revolver I shot had no safety, and that was fine with me...it depends on the gun. One thing is for sure, it is not up to Gov't to decide("set standards") on how safe a gun is.

Yes we do have the right to bear arms, however the way we go about retrieving these "arms" is totally up to the government. Which is why I disagree with you when you said that there should be no background checks or anything safe and stuff.

I am going to have to completely disagree with you on this one. "Shall not be infinged"; not to even be touched around the edges. The 2ndAmd was put in place to keep the Gov't at bay...to be able to defend ourselve even against our own Gov't should it come to that. Having Gov't decide who gets guns and who doesn't completely undermines the whole purpose.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Those that seek power, always try to convice the ones they want to control that what they are doing is for your own good, or to benifit society.(Make society safer is the latest excuse).

They say the NICS for stopping criminals...in reality, it is so the Gov't can have the authority to control what portion of society can be armed, by being able to denie a right to who it wishes.

They say Gun Registration is for stopping criminals...in reality, it will do nothing but create a list of all lawfull firearm owners so the Gov't can confiscate them. The Gov't should NEVER know or keep a list of who has purchased or who owns a firearm

"Government is not elequence, it is not reason; it is force.
Like fire, it is a fearfull servent and a terrible master." -George Washington

Don't expect Gov't to do the right thing. Gov't does what it can get away with doing. Like fire, if not restrained, it detroys.

When you give Gov't the authority to control who can have guns, in the name of "keeping guns out of the wrong hands". How will Gov't decide who's hands are the wrong hands? Look what they are doing with this authority(such as the NICS) now: Now they want anyone the Gov't decide's is "suspected of terrorism" to be barred from buying a weapon. Let me tell you something, this proves my point that Gov't's true entitions are to disarm people for the sake of power. You just can't denie a persons right, be it speech, religion, privacy, arms, right-to-trial, life, ect., on the basis of mere 'suspision'. That is tyranny.

Let me ask you something: Do you think it is ok for Gov't, on the basis of mere "suspicious" should be able to denie a person their rights? Right to bear arms? Right to speech? Right to privacy? Thrown them in jail? Shoot them?

In a tyranical Gov't, the Gov't can throw someone in jail or denie their rights on mere suspicion, and force the "accused" to prove their inoccents. In a free society, it is up to the accuser to bring evidence, and it is up to THEM to prove you guilty BEFORE you may have your rights restricted. There is the difference. Wich do you wish to live in?

Be carefull wich fruity, well-sounding catch-phrases like "keeping guns out of the wrong hands", "guns off the streat", or the infamious "for the children".

"Off-the-streats": Thranslation: Any gun in circulation, or in private hands without Gov't knowledge.

"For-the-children": Translation: Could be anything. Those with a sinister entition always try to convice us that what they are doing is for our own good, and what better-sounding phrase than "for the children's sake"?

"Kpng Gns out of the wrng hnds": Translation: Give us the authoirty to decide who has a gun and who doesn't. We don't think you need a gun, but we'll be sure to surround ourselve with bodyguards.

If you want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands", keep the criminal in jail. Any free man who is not in jail is entitled to his right-to-keep-and-bear-arms; being able to defend oneself. When using other meathods, such as the NICS, you infringe on rights & start on the path toward abusing Gov't, make it harder or the law abiding to defend themselves, and do nothing to very little to aid against crime as the criminal ignores the law in the first place.

Peace.


C.H.

 

[Pogrom]

They say Gun Registration is for stopping criminals...in reality, it will do nothing but create a list of all lawfull firearm owners so the Gov't can confiscate them.

That sounds like a more kooky and out-there conspiracy theory than many I have seen mentioned here.

Beats even the "The CIA bombed the WTC!"

You are saying the government has no right to tell people what is or isn't safe?

There is no reason for the government to confiscate guns from lawful gun owners IF IN FACT they are law abiding people.

You think people would be safer if nobody had any idea whether everybody was carrying a gun?

 

[ChareltonHest]

I have never shot a pistol before, and I dont even know how those safeties work which I think I should ask my dad to teach me about. I once saw my dads friends glock and it had two triggers, and if I needed to use that to save my life or someone elses I wouldnt know how to. Which I hope I will change soon.

Best of luck to you in that, you hope you never have to use it, but you never know...

You know, I've shot quite few guns, but I am not fully aware of the exact functions on a semi-auto pistol. I have only shot a semi-pistol a couple of times. Once at the range I saw someone shoot a Desert Eagle 44. That was fun. Kind of an impractical weapon(huge, gas-operated), but a blast. lol.

Until you can learn firsthand from a person experienced in pistol use, you could Google a lesson, or look up the NRA -they train firearm instructers.

Just remember the basic rules with any gun...(had a realy good pic, but can't find it)

1.) Treat Every Gun As If It Was Loaded
2.) Be Sure Of Your Target and What's Beyond It
3.) Never Point A Gun At Anything You Are Not Willing To Destroy
4.) Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger Until The Gun Is Lined Up on Target


Sincerely,
C.H.

 

[bliink]

you could Google a lesson,

I not recommend attempting to learn firearms effectiveness from Google.

 

[ChareltonHest]

That sounds like a more kooky and out-there conspiracy theory than many I have seen mentioned here.

There is no way that somebody, unless they are ignorant or lying through their teath, can say that Registration doesn't lead to confiscation. Registration, always, always leads to confiscation.

It has been proven time and time again that this is the case. That's why registration is set up! It has happend in New York, California, Australia, Canada, Britain, ect..

First they convice people to register their guns, promising it will never be used for confiscation. Then they decide that a gun you own is illegal after you have registered. Then they demand it be turned over or they will confiscate it.

1.) Register
2.) Ban
3.) Confiscate

There is no reason for the government to confiscate guns from lawful gun owners IF IN FACT they are law abiding people.

The REASON the Gov't would want you disarmed is for power and control; the same reason we had black disarmed in this country at one time. The same reason German gun laws were used to disarm the Jews. Same reason anyone has ever wanted someone else disarmed: To make them easy prey.

The Gov't is not your freind. Gov't has been described as a "nessesary evil" that should be restricted. That's why there are rights in place. You think "it can't happen here"(A phrase used to describe the tyrany that happend to Germany in 1940s)? Aks yourself why. Governments not restrained, are like fire. Read that G.Washington quote in my last post.

You think people would be safer if nobody had any idea whether everybody was carrying a gun?

Well no kidding! That's what I have said.

We have 2 states here, and counting, that have no regulations on carrying concealed. There is no problem with this. It aids against crime.


C.H.

 

[ChareltonHest]

I not recommend attempting to learn firearms effectiveness from Google.

I know that. It would be for learning in writing only.

If you don't know what you are doing concearning firearms, you should learn from somebody who is experienced with them -as I said in my post.


C.H.

 

[staticprimer]

CH, it is good to see that you are sensible about firearms, but for every person that actually takes the time to know and abide by gun saftey, there are hundreds if not thousands of others that do not. These are the dangerous people and unfortunately there are far too many of them out there.

Also, you mention that if the government banned civilians from owning firearms, it would make it much easier for the government to oppress us. Don't you think this thinking is a little silly? In this day in age, and in America particular, the idea of a citizen militia that can realistically protect itself from their government is quite archaic. The government, if it truly wanted to and had enough influence over the military, could supress anyone and there wouldn't be anything they could do about it. Back when the 2nd ammendment was concieved, the only real difference between a civilian with a gun and a soldier was organization. Today, the military's weaponry so far exceded what is available to the civilian population that arguing that the 2nd ammendment protects us from government oppresion is laughable.

As for my view on whether guns should be banned, I am somewhat torn. Although I believe that guns are a scourge in general, I do see the reason in arguing that they protect people in their homes. I believe that there needs to be heavy restrictions, no concealed carry, and a ban on assault rifles. Perhaps legalize assault rifles in authorized clubs or something, but there is absolutely no reason for any ordinary person to own one.

 

[Calanen]

Also, you mention that if the government banned civilians from owning firearms, it would make it much easier for the government to oppress us. Don't you think this thinking is a little silly? In this day in age, and in America particular, the idea of a citizen militia that can realistically protect itself from their government is quite archaic. The government, if it truly wanted to and had enough influence over the military, could supress anyone and there wouldn't be anything they could do about it. Back when the 2nd ammendment was concieved, the only real difference between a civilian with a gun and a soldier was organization. Today, the military's weaponry so far exceded what is available to the civilian population that arguing that the 2nd ammendment protects us from government oppresion is laughable.

I posted something similar earlier in the thread. I don't mind people owning guns to protect them and their families, because there are a number of places in the US where law enforcement just not is there to protect you.

But look at the LA riots - 2500 National Guardsmen vs all da homies in da hood..... once the Guardsmen came in, da homies ran for cover in about 8 hours.

If there was to be a resistance to the government - having guns or not is not your biggest worry. It is popular support. Once popular support goes for the government, that government cannot last for long. But thinking that the 150 million gun owners or so in the US would be able to form into some cohesive fighting force and take on the US govt - hell you wouldn't need the Army - the ATF could take em down.

 

[ChareltonHest]

I believe that there needs to be heavy restrictions, no concealed carry, and a ban on assault rifles. Perhaps legalize assault rifles in authorized clubs or something, but there is absolutely no reason for any ordinary person to own one.

Who are you to tell me I can't defend myself? I am not harming you.

First of all, there should be no restriction at all on concealed carry(I should not have to ask for something I have a right to already).
Where they have banned guns(where only criminals have them), there is better chance for crime, than where there are things like concealed carry. How many guns have saved lives compared to those that have been misused?(The mainstream media barely EVER reports the good that comes from people armed) Why would you want to make a problem with gun-violence worse?

You don't make the world safer by making yourself and those around you defenceless.

Those are the two cultures I see battling it out today: One says "Refuse to be a victim"(Stay armed, stay safe), the other says "appeal to the mercy of evil and hope for the best"(Don't resist; give the criminal what he wants).

What they taught me in concealed carry class, is that what a criminal wants the most is the easiest target. He wants to get what he's after with the least ammount of resisitence. He fears the immediate danger of an armed individual more than he does the slow-in-coming arm of the law. Criminals, when confronted with resistence such as with a gun, almost always run.

This is true of your average streat thug looking to fund his next fix, as well as of a Gov't that has grown to the point of being oppresive. Each wants to take the paths of least resistence.

Think of Gov't like you would fire. It is not reason or elequence, it force. It feals no morals, it does what it can do unless restricted...much like a criminal. A "nessary evil" as it has been described; a dog on a leash. Though you may not beleive this, each and every one of those rights outlined in the BOR has a purpose; each one will never becoming obsolete.

Tyranny does not spring up overnight, it comes slowly in baby-steps. They convice us first to give up the restraints put upon them("Give us the tools nessesary; our hands are tied"); to fray the leash. Abuse comes as they have less resistence on them. "Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutly".

If you ever research acts of genocide, even recent acts, you may notice that the people rounded up where normaly defenceless. Most where unarmed, or had been disarmed. These massacres, be they on a national scale and perpitrated by the Gov't or in a school-yard by a sphyco, have taken place in "Victim Zones" or "Gun-Free Zones" where people had little to no means of defence.

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would things have been like IF every [Soviet] police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been UNCERTAIN whether he would return alive? …IF during periods of mass arrests people had NOT simply sat there in their lairs [i.e., apartments], paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they HAD NOTHING TO LOSE and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?..."

Criminals want easy targets.

"It would be a mighty defect if all others in God’s creation were allowed to defend themselves, yet we [human beings] were not. Animals will fight for their lives. They will defend their young against much larger and stronger predators. Birds will attack cats. Some animals will attack man. In every sphere, self-defense and self-preservation are obvious and necessary."

Each human being is entitled to self-defence. Each person deserves a fighting chance.

"The 2ndAmd isn't about duck hunting anymore than the 1stAmd is about playing Scabble." As far as what weapons the "civilian" should own, it should be around the equivilent of what the Police or the average soldier has as his personal weapon. A single soldier, nor officer, could by his own discresion, call in an airstrike or decide to nuke a target. Obviously, nukes could not be considered "arms".

If I may, I would stongly like to recomend something to those who may ask the question "What Good Can A Handgun Do Against An Army?". The following article I have found to be excellent in its explainations, for those would take the time to read it thoroughly and think about it:

http://www.doubleought.com/1pistol.html


C.H.

 

[ChareltonHest]

But thinking that the 150 million gun owners or so in the US would be able to form into some cohesive fighting force and take on the US govt - hell you wouldn't need the Army - the ATF could take em down.

BS. 150million gun owners, many with military backgrounds, against the terroristic ATF thugs? The ATF would not stand a chance.

If there was to be a resistance to the government - having guns or not is not your biggest worry. It is popular support. Once popular support goes for the government, that government cannot last for long.

There are many factors to consider. 150million gun owners is a force to be recond with. Even if only 1million resisted. It's not like they are going to stand in the middle of the street and say "Here we are come fight!" Look what only 2 individuals ("The DCSnipers") did to the DC area. TWO GUYS. What would 1million gun owners be able to accomplish?


C.H.

 

[ChareltonHest]

Guys, I'd like to come to a close here; I don't want to go on posting forever.

I posted some links, you can check them out if you are curious. I had my say. My $.02.


C.H.

 

[ALEXDJ]

ALEXDJ,

I'm from Idaho where a person can get an AR-15, AK-47clone, handgun, shotgun, whatever from looking in the calissifed section of the News Paper, go to the person's house and buy it from them with no paperwork -just as it should be at gun-stores, but unfortunatly they have to go through restrictions. Almost everyone I know owns a gun, and many of them have been shooting and handling them since they were 10 years old.

We have very low crime. And no "blood flowing in the streats" (anti-gun propagand terms).

We have a very strong "Gun-Culture". And despite some of the misleading info you have probably heard, it is not the gun-culture that encourages violence, but the opposite: To detere violence. To teach that every man has a responsability to defend his life, family, and country. The "antis"(Anti-gun people) constantly teach that only certain elete branching of socitey is "qualified" enough have certain rights. They teach that only police are "expert" enough to handle weapons. This is a very false idea. I know children that can handle a fireaem better than some cops.

BTW, every time a new state goes from no-concealed-carry to concealed-carry(Concealed Carry: People carrying concealed handguns), the leftist anti-gun whiners go off on a enotional bitching spree about how we'll have "cowboy-like shootings over parking spaces", and "blood flowing in the streats".

Has it happend? No. Those states that have gone to cealed carry help prevent against crime. In fact 2 states here have finaly decided they have no authority to have restrictions on a person's right-to-bear-arms, and are now recognizing it: No permit needed at all to carry. I hoope the rest of the nation follows their example.

The places in the US where we have high gun-crime are places with heavy restrictions on firearms, or where they have banned them all together(Washington DC).

And as far as school shootings go: You notice that these massacres happen in Victim-Disarmed-Zones(We call them "gun-free" zones), where people are defenceless...except of course for the killers. At Columbine, the police took a long while to get into the building; it was all over by then. The 2 school-shootings in US history that were stopped early was because somebody had a gun and confronted them! I think it was Mosses Lake where the prinicpal retreived a shotgun from his car and stopped further bloodshead. Many more could have been killed while wating for the police arive.

Also, this kid that shot up the school in Red Lake...he used a Policeman's gun; you know, a police-man -those special class citizens that are more equal than others and should only have guns?

The anti-gun blooddancers are making fools of themselves trying to capitalize on this massacre.

Back a few decades ago, students kept their rifles and shotguns, often used for hunting and plinking, in thei cars on school grouds! This was back in the day where everbody taught their kids the value of guns, and that they where to be respected and used for defence.

Tools aren't the problem. If you want to look for the problem anywhere in the world when it comes to high-crime, think of things such as poverty, social and cultural chages, demographics, ect..

Check out that site I linked to: http://www.a-human-right.com


C.H.

good point, let me ask you one thing, do you go to church?

 

[ALEXDJ]

A gun that is locked up or unloaded will be hard to use for defence when seconds count.

But it all depends on the person how they feal it nessesary to store thier weapons. Personaly, if their are no small children around, I recomend locking away all but one weapon; since you can only use one gun at a time. lol. Though depending on how your house is aranged, you could leave 2 out in different rooms. Many different meathods.


C.H.

man, typical american point of view, some "bad" person is going to break into your home when you all warm and coazy in your bed and stab you in the back for no reason, yey, spread the freedom to be afraid

remember fear is #1 evil of this world

 

[ALEXDJ]

http://www.escape-co.com/ban_guns.htm
http://www.goodbyeguns.org/myth1.html

kinda funny

 

[GhostFox]

typical american point of view, some "bad" person is going to break into your home when you all warm and coazy in your bed and stab you in the back for no reason

Are you saying violent crime is a myth?

 

[ALEXDJ]

Are you saying violent crime is a myth?

i'm saying that most americans are scared shitless of them, but don't even realize that they have much greater chance of dieing in an auto accident, or that their stupid SUV eat up all the gas and produce 3 times as much pollution, which eventually will kill the whole planet

Americana-stupida-phobia

paranoid morans (not all, but majority)

 

[GhostFox]

paranoid morans

Do you have scientific evidence to back this up, or is this just supported by some myth you heard somewhere in the media? I've been to the US many times and I haven't encountered any paranoid 'morans' as you so eloquently put it.

that their stupid SUV eat up all the gas and produce 3 times as much pollution, which eventually will kill the whole planet

Who's paranoid now?

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

ALEXDJ you have a very naive view. Simply getting rid of guns will not help, but hurt the situation. Criminals will always have guns, legal or illegal (and currently mostly illegal). If you take away the ability of defense from responsible citizens, yet do not signifcantly decrease the ability of criminals of obtaining weapons, there will be more violent crimes. Yes the USA has a problem with crime, but that is a societal problem, not access to firearms.

And your saying fear of violent crime is not valid!?! Aren't we having massive amounts of crime? Better to be safe than have your wife raped, property stolen, than murdered (extreme case I know).

 

[staticprimer]

paranoid morans (not all, but majority)

morans... heh

 

[Scoobnfl]

Are you sure it wasn't just all in Scoob the dumbass nfl's head? Not meaning to offend you, just showing you how dumb you look when you post such meaningless statements.

or could it be how dumb you look when you don't know what you're talking about.

the final assault on WACO where 90+ people were murdered by the federal govt. was ordered by Janet Reno.

 

[Kebean PFC]

ALEXD,
All your "gun ban" links are so over-the-top its funny. I think they are meant to be funny. That is sarcastic writing. Sheesh, and you fell for it?

Maybe you live in a safe area, and you feel the police will be there for you. I don't have that luxury. And if it came right down to it, i know i would want a gun in my hand.

As i said previously, most of the anti-gun people have never fired a firearm of any kind before. I find shooting to be enjoyable, and if you are good at it, it can be a source of pride.

 

[MilkMan12]

http://www.escape-co.com/ban_guns.htm
http://www.goodbyeguns.org/myth1.html

kinda funny

Alex, dude that first website is a joke for sure. IT basically said women should instead of defending themselves allow themselves to get raped. That helps my side of the argument.

Wait for the cops to come and do paperwork? By then you would be dead. He says that in most cases they dont USE the gun (which should be a good thing) and that they just threatened the bad guy with it. So why need the gun? Thats what the website said, and I dunno what the solution to that is...in those cases I dont think they would have mscared the bad guys away with a godamn stick or pepper spray even. Cmon alex...your really not helpin your side.

Alex your really bad at this...please stop. You have been proven to be hyprocritcal, and made fun of yourself by believing that joke website. You couldnt see the sarcasm? WAIT FOR THE COPS TO DO A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, DONT KILL THE GUY ABOUT TO KILL U, BETTER U THAN HIM...lol.

.004% CMON PEOPLE, THATS ALOT, ITS LIKE IF GUNS WERE BANNED THAT .004% OF CRIMINALS WHO LEGALLY GET THEIR GUNS WONT FIND OTHER ILLEGAL WAYS OF GETTING THEM

Dude I really dont want to be mean but...man o man...

 

[Calanen]

man, typical american point of view, some "bad" person is going to break into your home when you all warm and coazy in your bed and stab you in the back for no reason, yey, spread the freedom to be afraid

remember fear is #1 evil of this world

On your view it would be spread the freedom for a person to die in their bedrooms, killed by an attacker, because its better that a few people die defenceless than it is for any person to defend themselves with a gun.

I have posted time and time again - in this thread and others. There are 700,000 -1 million defensive gun uses in the US a year. That means, 700,000 - 1 million people would be dead or injured if they did not have their guns to protect them. The amount in Canada is roughly 50,000 - 70,000.

That is way more people saved by guns, than die by guns.

 

[ALEXDJ]

ALEXD,
All your "gun ban" links are so over-the-top its funny. I think they are meant to be funny. That is sarcastic writing. Sheesh, and you fell for it?

Maybe you live in a safe area, and you feel the police will be there for you. I don't have that luxury. And if it came right down to it, i know i would want a gun in my hand.

As i said previously, most of the anti-gun people have never fired a firearm of any kind before. I find shooting to be enjoyable, and if you are good at it, it can be a source of pride.

that's why i wrote "kinda funny"

 

[ALEXDJ]

Criminals will always have guns, legal or illegal (and currently mostly illegal).

yeah, but ask yourself how criminals get their weapons?

some one with a clean record buys them and the criminals pay for it + buyers tax
it's acually a big bussiness in some states

 

[ALEXDJ]

Suppose a person breaks into your house at night and attacks you with a knife. Now, according to the right-wing point of view, you would be justified in shooting him with the gun you keep hidden under your pillow.

However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person's breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man's life? The answer is: you can't.

In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.

point:
don't fix the problem, prevent it
better economy, less crime
better education, less crime
however, gov. always puts war before education
that ain't right

privention is better than cure

 

[ALEXDJ]

how do i insert a pic from my desktop/

 

[MilkMan12]

Suppose a person breaks into your house at night and attacks you with a knife. Now, according to the right-wing point of view, you would be justified in shooting him with the gun you keep hidden under your pillow.

However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person's breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man's life? The answer is: you can't.

In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.

point:
don't fix the problem, prevent it
better economy, less crime
better education, less crime
however, gov. always puts war before education
that ain't right

privention is better than cure

Oh so because hes a minority or was made fun of in school, its better you die then him right? I get what your saying. Your really bad at arguing your point! The common murderer murders INNOCENT PEOPLE and not in SELF DEFENSE. If a poor guy was looking for food and broke into your house for food who would break in THREATENING YOU WITH A KNIFE?! CMON!

ALSO its against the law to shoot someone without telling them to stop and warning them that you will shoot if they dont. UNLESS they are already physicaly attacking you.

Alex stop while your ahead...read my other post about the websites I dont want to reexplain to you how bad you are at this

 

[GhostFox]

However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person's breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man's life? The answer is: you can't.

In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.

You have a serious mental problem. As long as someone is threatening your life they forfit the right to their own, no matter how sad their hard-luck story is. And that isn't a right wing viewpoint, only a sane one.

 

[Calanen]

yeah, but ask yourself how criminals get their weapons?

some one with a clean record buys them and the criminals pay for it + buyers tax
it's acually a big bussiness in some states

Same way criminals get their heroin? From legal heroin growers?

 

[Calanen]

ALSO its against the law to shoot someone without telling them to stop and warning them that you will shoot if they dont. UNLESS they are already physicaly attacking you

Not in California. If someone is violently entering your home, ie kicking the door in and they are not the police with a warrant, you may use lethal force to stop them, provided a reasonable person would believe that there life was in danger. Someone violently kicking the door in would make most people believe this I think.

Some states say that you must retreat and only use force when you cannot retreat any further. I think this is ridiculous myself - and fortunately so does California.

Here is the link summary of Calis laws. Relevant pages are on page 29 and 30.

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf

So you do not need to fire warning shots, retreat, offer the burglar a coffee.....