Obama a Threat to Gun Owners

[Eejit]

... have you ****ING CHECKED WHERE I COME FROM? It's in the top right of my post you ****.


Maybe you would value human life more if you'd had more experience with death.


And just because you have a right, doesn't mean doing it always is right.

 

[VirusType2]

Look, we aren't criticizing you for being willing to take someone's life if you felt the safety of you and your family was in danger. Many of us would. In fact, if one isn't willing to protect loved ones, maybe they don't deserve them.

But some guy outside trying to steal your car is not putting you in danger. You are putting yourself and your family in danger by running out there to confront them. Maybe they are armed. Maybe there is someone standing guard.

How about getting your gun, calling police, and keeping an eye on him, gathering a description of him without his knowledge from the safety of your home.

You should take someones life regretfully - even someone who you deem deserves to die; although, I can't see how you could feel that someone deserves to die for felony theft. They deserve the same rights you would expect had you been arrested for the same charge. Fair trail. Due process. A few years in jail for a first offense. A second chance to change their ways.

Let the police do their job. People almost never get far with a stolen car and stolen plates.

If you live in an area where you worry about car theft, why not pay $5 or $10 a month more on your car insurance to protect your car from theft? How much did you pay for your gun/s? $600?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

... have you ****ING CHECKED WHERE I COME FROM? It's in the top right of my post you ****.

And **** you too ya shit. I have no problem shooting somebody trying to rob me. Don't like it? Tough shit bitch. Deal with it.

You want to act like a little ****ing kid I can take it to your level as well.

Look, we aren't criticizing you for being willing to take someone's life if you felt the safety of you and your family was in danger. Many of us would. In fact, if one isn't willing to protect loved ones, maybe they don't deserve them.

Agreed.

But some guy outside trying to steal your car is not putting you in danger. You are putting yourself and your family in danger by running out there to confront them. Maybe they are armed. Maybe there is someone standing guard.

The fact that they may be armed makes it even more imperative that deadly force be authorized. Listen I'm not saying go gung ho blasting, but I am going to shoot somebody who doesnt run and either continues or appears to respond in a threatening manner.

How about getting your gun, calling police, and keeping an eye on him, gathering a description of him without his knowledge from the safety of your home.

I'm not too scared to go outside and protect my property. All that does is invite further intrusion, ESPECIALLY from a gang or criminal organization. It's seen as a soft and easy target from then on.

You should take someones life regretfully - even someone who you deem deserves to die; although, I can't see how you could feel that someone deserves to die for felony theft. They deserve the same rights you would expect had you been arrested for the same charge. Fair trail. Due process. A few years in jail for a first offense. A second chance to change their ways.

It's not about "deserving to die" or any moral righteousness. It's about preventing whats taking place from happening. The law supports lethal force to prevent it. It is worth it.

Let the police do their job. People almost never get far with a stolen car and stolen plates.

If I can do anything about it I'm not going to let it BECOME stolen in the first place.

If you live in an area where you worry about car theft, why not pay $5 or $10 a month more on your car insurance to protect your car from theft? How much did you pay for your gun/s? $600?

Yes and I'm not going to have to deal with rising insurance, hassle of acquiring a new vehicle, lost work time, etc if I simply prevent it from taking place in the beginning.

 

[Cornerstone]

Everything comes back to morality, it is what helps create laws, society, and your conscience. Besides you've proved your knowledge of legality on this subject to be fleeting and now your showing yourself to know you are in the wrong morally.

Your actions seem to be based solely off of fear and the fight or flight response which does not respond rationally or appropriately, it's just a survival instinct. Now think for a second about a big scared mammal, any mammal with a giant f'in gun. Does this seem like a good idea?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Everything comes back to morality, it is what helps create laws, society, and your conscience. Besides you've proved your knowledge of legality on this subject to be fleeting and now your showing yourself to know you are in the wrong morally.

What are you talking about? Did you even READ my post regarding Arizona law on this subject. Obviously not. I am protected legally.


House Engrossed Senate Bill

State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-seventh Legislature
Second Regular Session
2006

CHAPTER 199

SENATE BILL 1145




JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THIS TITLE ARE NOT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES DESCRIBE CONDUCT THAT, IF NOT JUSTIFIED, WOULD CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE BUT, IF JUSTIFIED, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL OR WRONGFUL CONDUCT. IF EVIDENCE OF JUSTIFICATION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 4 OF THIS TITLE IS PRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT, THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT WITH JUSTIFICATION.



13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of

arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704,

burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508,

kidnapping under section 13-1304,

manslaughter under section 13-1103,

second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105,

sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405,

sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410,

armed robbery under section 13-1904,

aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using PHYSICAL FORCE OR deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he THE PERSON is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.



FURTHER COMMENTS IN THE LAW

The legislature is alarmed by the increasing number of injuries and fatalities caused to victims of domestic violence. A person should be entitled to safe and peaceful enjoyment within the home even from residents of the same household. It is the intent of the legislature that all citizens, law enforcement personnel and the state courts be given notice that the justification in use of force provided in section 13-411, Arizona Revised Statutes, is applicable to all victims of domestic violence as defined by section 36-3001, Arizona Revised Statutes, whether such domestic violence occurs in a private or public place and whether or not the victim and the perpetrator of domestic violence are residents of the same home.




Obviously your knowledge of the law is fleeting.

 

[Cornerstone]

http://arizonaccwpermit.com/2008/06...ding-self-defense-and-the-legal-use-of-force/

Yea...

 

[Pesmerga]

Your article only reinforces what Rakurai presented as law. Self defense, like all legal proceedings, is a case by case judgment. The use of deadly force to defend yourself from deadly force or aforementioned crimes is justified in Arizona courts (and many other states). I don't see the disparity here.

I am inclined to err on the side of law rather than squabble about questions of morality. Need there be change in law, I ought to act and vote for the change.

 

[VirusType2]

Agreed.


The fact that they may be armed makes it even more imperative that deadly force be authorized. Listen I'm not saying go gung ho blasting, but I am going to shoot somebody who doesnt run and either continues or appears to respond in a threatening manner.

I'm not too scared to go outside and protect my property. All that does is invite further intrusion, ESPECIALLY from a gang or criminal organization. It's seen as a soft and easy target from then on.

it's not a matter of being scared, it's just a matter of being smart.

And I find it ridiculous that not coming outside and firing upon him is a sign of being a soft, easy target, and becoming a future repeat victim, whether they are gang affiliated or part of a crime organization. How would they even know?

You don't think it's worse to shoot a gang member or crime lord? Don't you think they would retaliate and come back to get revenge, perhaps on your entire family? And if it's a gang like you suggest, then surely they are not alone. There could be other members there in hiding, just waiting for someone to come outside, or even watching the rear of the building, etc.

If you come outside with a gun and he is armed, you are forcing the confrontation. It doesn't matter if he is in the wrong by being there attempting larceny. If the criminal is armed, you are only forcing him to defend himself.

In my opinion, even if you are armed, your best bet is to stay close to your family to protect them, and call the police.

Yes and I'm not going to have to deal with rising insurance, hassle of acquiring a new vehicle, lost work time, etc if I simply prevent it from taking place in the beginning.

Because dealing with the fact that you killed someone is easy for you and your family? No, psychological problems are very common and permanent. Little Rakurai Jr. didn't need to see you blow some dudes head off.

Not to mention the cost of a lawyer to present your case, and if you kill someone just for theft, protected under the law or not, I'm sure you will want a good lawyer.


I subscribe to the idea of keeping people honest. Don't 'invite' people to steal from you to give you an excuse to punish them. Just because you have a gun, you don't want to leave your valuables unprotected.

Keep your doors locked. Get a car alarm. Many car insurance companies will give you a discount on your insurance for each method of anti-theft you have installed. So you could be paying less right now, if that's the concern.

 

[Cornerstone]

Your article only reinforces what Rakurai presented as law. Self defense, like all legal proceedings, is a case by case judgment. The use of deadly force to defend yourself from deadly force or aforementioned crimes is justified in Arizona courts (and many other states). I don't see the disparity here.

I am inclined to err on the side of law rather than squabble about questions of morality. Need there be change in law, I ought to act and vote for the change.

You don't see a difference between use of deadly force vs. deadly force under Arizona law and as the extreme deadly vs. force as has been presented in this topic as justified?

Morality/ethics of the populace which change the values and laws mean nothing to you? You place too much faith in democracy...

 

[Eejit]

You want to act like a little ****ing kid I can take it to your level as well.

Because trying to dismiss someone's arguments as irrelevant due to them being 'sheltered' is so adult, even ignoring the fact that I doubt anyone of my age or older from N.I could be said to have a sheltered life.



What does the scouter say about his ignorance level?

 

[Pesmerga]

You don't see a difference between use of deadly force vs. deadly force under Arizona law and as the extreme deadly vs. force as has been presented in this topic as justified?

Morality/ethics of the populace which change the values and laws mean nothing to you? You place too much faith in democracy...

My belief in the US Representative democracy is that the codes by which society must abide to are always imperfect, but the people and the judicial system are responsible for making it as perfect as possible. I do not believe in singular moral definitions- there are too many opinions and ways to achieve order that choosing just one road is illogical and irrational. The people, as I, hold their own sets of beliefs and standards that influence their vote for law. I never said morality or ethics didn't apply to me, just that punishing a citizen based upon one person's morals is a little something called tyranny.

Law based on reasoning and practicality is good law. Law that creates order, safety, and public tranquility is good law. Law that upholds the Constitution and defends men's rights is good law. If I disagree with a law, I will vote against it, but I will not stand by as I watch good law disregarded in favor of "feel good morals".

Arizona law states that deadly force is justified if seen by a reasonable person to be a reasonable avenue of preventing another of committing one or more of the aforementioned crimes. It is a judge's responsibility to judge whether or not the use of force, deadly or not, was an appropriate measure. US Citizens have the right to disagree with law, and it is their right to fight against it in a lawful manner.

 

[Jintor]

...to a degree. You can only appeal so many times, after all.

 

[CptStern]

More than likely due to the fact that most violent crimes in Mexico are met with resistance and therefore result in a shooting death...

they would still be added to the crime stats so if a murder was commited in the course of a robbery it would still be recorded as robbery

and is that the only point of mine you're addressing?


btw guns are not illegal in mexico, every citizen has a right to gun ownership. the majority of gun crime is related to the drug trade yet the crime rate excluding murder is higher in the US ..again guns facilitate and perpetuate crime. in fact US guns facilitate crime in mexico because since military type weapons are banned the drug trade turns to smuggling assault weapons from the US ..same thing for canada, the number one source of illegal guns is from the US. your non existant guns laws creates crime not just in your country but also your neighbours ..but you keep thinking to yourself that your ego/penis-stroking hobby is your right because somehow your right to own killsticks supercedes everyone elses right to life

 

[Kase]

take the guns away

 

[CptStern]

actually they should relocate all gun advocates to some isolated island so that they can fight it out ..the last man standing is machine gunned before he can escape back to the mainland. the good thing is that since so many christian wackos own guns it'll be like killing two birds with one stone ..in time we can throw in fundamentalist muslims, orthodox jews and pretty much anyone who even remotely thinks their religious pov should be adopted by all

 

[Hectic Glenn]

From the article Cornerstone linked too

On the other hand, if they take a swing at you with a fist, you may be justified in using some level of force against them to ?stop the threat?. Since the force you are being threatened with is not ?lethal force? , you can only use enough force to stop the threat and can only do so if you believe that you are in danger of being injured.

If someone is breaking into your car, the example RT gave earlier, he said he'd be shooting to kill the intruder...because 'wounding' is sick apparently. Based on that description, you cannot use 'lethal force' as you are not being threatened by equal lethal force.

With this amount level of disparity between what you can and can't do, I'm surprised you are so confident you can go outside and gun some folk down for menial crimes. I'd have to be 110% sure that it is permitted, or you'll be looking at a long prison sentence for manslaughter / murder.

Also you mentioned before not everyone can afford home / possession insurance. I'm not sure if this applies to you but I fail to see how killing people with firearms is a replacement for this issue. I'm seriously hoping I wake up in a minute, this seems like a bad nightmare. Something is very wrong here. The costs of keeping guns (licenses, ammunition and the purchasing of the weapons) I assume comes to some value which would greatly contribute to protecting these items with insurance. But I guess an assault rifle is more satisfying to polish than a letter in the post.

 

[CptStern]

With this amount level of disparity between what you can and can't do, I'm surprised you are so confident you can go outside and gun some folk down for menial crimes.

but Rakurai is a chivato from meanstreets arizona ..he's been gang banging before chu was born ese ..ya gotta show who is charge or the vato locos dont respect chu. I've got my respect earner right here holmes <pulls out gun, tilts gun sideways gangster styles, kisses crucifix dangling around neck>

 

[Pesmerga]

Stern is attempting to mock you Rakurai, in case you didn't catch on.

 

[CptStern]

not really, check out his avatar ..I'm speaking to him in a language he'll understand ....holmes

 

[jverne]

I've never been convicted of a crime. I don't see how drugs or drug policy even relates to this discussion. That crime is not one of violence nor has victims.

Putting as many rounds as possible into center mass until a threat is stopped is another way of saying killing. Of course they're not going to say "trained to kill" but no one is trained to wound in an extremity, etc. You aim for center mass and pump as many rounds as quickly and accurately as possible until the target drops. If you dont think thats another way of saying killing the target you're deluding yourself.

Maybe you live in a nice neighborhood and don't have to worry about being robbed, not all of us are so lucky. Either way I showed you that at least where I live I'm legally justified in this, so there is no "have fun in jail"

Yes, if guns are outlawed I will still keep mine. I don't care what the laws say. As a claimed NRA member I'm sure you'll recognize this quote -"From my cold, dead hands."

My attitude on human life is that my family's life, wealth, property, and safety comes above an outsider's. Maybe you don't agree with that, but I do and the law supports me. I aim to keep the law that way with my vote.

just wondering...how many times have you experienced life threatening situations?

and why would you need anything more than a pistol for self defense?

it seems to me you're trying to defend the right to guns, not because of the "safety" they provide but because you like guns in general. although i'm not 100% sure.

 

[Kadayi]

Posted this somewhere in more detail in another thread, but to summarise:-

USA population 300 million, in 2004 deaths by firearms approx 29,000.

UK population 60 million, in 2004 deaths by firearms 73.

Less people in the UK are killed in a year than are killed in a day on American streets by guns. Also bear in mind that figure just relates to the deaths, double it and you get somewhere near the injury rate.

As Bill Hicks said, there's a big difference between having a gun and using it, and not having a gun and not using.

29,000 a year, that's almost 10 times the death toll of 9/11 and for that you went to War. Seriously the right to bear arms is a redundant law in a modern democracy, and the only people who think it is a good idea are gun manufacturers and sociopaths tbh.

 

[Ridge]

How many of those deaths were perpetuated by police officers and honest civilians defending themselves and others from ne'erdoers?

 

[CptStern]

How many of those deaths were perpetuated by police officers and honest civilians defending themselves and others from ne'erdoers?

dont forget uzi wielding 8 year olds, disfigured vets who cant carry on, fat naked guys on youtube, the terminally ill, the terminally broken and those who wish to terminate as many people as possible before they themselves are terminated

 

[Pesmerga]

Hey cool, I can make up statistics too.

 

[CptStern]

seems fairly accurate ..remember this is number of deaths by firearm not number of homicides ..it would include things like suicides and uzi wielding 8 year olds

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Posted this somewhere in more detail in another thread, but to summarise:-

USA population 300 million, in 2004 deaths by firearms approx 29,000.

UK population 60 million, in 2004 deaths by firearms 73.

Yet there is no connection Kadayi. You'd be a fascist or a communist to even suggest such a thing.

 

[Laivasse]

Those look like biased Liberal stats to me...

 

[Gray Fox]

Those statistics by themselves don't mean a lot. We should compare how many lives guns take vs how
many they save and for how many crimes they are used vs how many crimes they avert.

The overall question of gun ownership is off course a bit more complex as there are psychological
reason to consider as well as the enforceability of a ban etc.... But if the point is that guns harm more
people then save them we need to know those 2 or 3 things I mentioned.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

http://arizonaccwpermit.com/2008/06...ding-self-defense-and-the-legal-use-of-force/

Yea...

Arizona law is going to overcome "some guys article" any day in a court of law. I posted the exact wording of the law itself, not someones take on it. Either way, the article does nothing to dispute the law I posted.

actually they should relocate all gun advocates to some isolated island so that they can fight it out ..the last man standing is machine gunned before he can escape back to the mainland. the good thing is that since so many christian wackos own guns it'll be like killing two birds with one stone ..in time we can throw in fundamentalist muslims, orthodox jews and pretty much anyone who even remotely thinks their religious pov should be adopted by all

If I suggested relocating gun control activists to their own island place people would cry foul. Oh wait, there are already tons of nations for them to go to if they're unhappy, English speaking with similar culture. Perhaps if they are so vigilant on the issue they may enjoy emigrating?

it's not a matter of being scared, it's just a matter of being smart.

And I find it ridiculous that not coming outside and firing upon him is a sign of being a soft, easy target, and becoming a future repeat victim, whether they are gang affiliated or part of a crime organization. How would they even know?

Trust me on this, home invasions and property raids that don't meet resistence merit another run at it in a gang's mind. Assuming there's anything left worth returning for.

You don't think it's worse to shoot a gang member or crime lord? Don't you think they would retaliate and come back to get revenge, perhaps on your entire family? And if it's a gang like you suggest, then surely they are not alone. There could be other members there in hiding, just waiting for someone to come outside, or even watching the rear of the building, etc.


If you come outside with a gun and he is armed, you are forcing the confrontation. It doesn't matter if he is in the wrong by being there attempting larceny. If the criminal is armed, you are only forcing him to defend himself.

This is why in areas with gang involvement your best bet is to know one on friendly terms. It sounds terrible but I'm talking about practicality and survival here, not moral righteousness. I'm not saying "get jumped in ASAP LOL" I'm just saying know your area and have people that will watch YOUR back as well.

In my opinion, even if you are armed, your best bet is to stay close to your family to protect them, and call the police.

I'm going to call the cops AND confront them. That's just the way I am and nothing is going to change that, and the law supports me in that.

Because dealing with the fact that you killed someone is easy for you and your family? No, psychological problems are very common and permanent. Little Rakurai Jr. didn't need to see you blow some dudes head off.

Not to mention the cost of a lawyer to present your case, and if you kill someone just for theft, protected under the law or not, I'm sure you will want a good lawyer.

I never said it was easy to deal with. I'd rather kill somebody than risk them harming my family.

As far as attorneys costs-
WRONG again, Arizona law protects for this as well

13-420. Attorney fees; costs

THE COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, COMPENSATION FOR LOST INCOME AND ALL EXPENSES INCURRED BY A DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENSE OF ANY CIVIL ACTION BASED ON CONDUCT OTHERWISE JUSTIFIED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER IF THE DEFENDANT PREVAILS IN THE CIVIL ACTION.

I subscribe to the idea of keeping people honest. Don't 'invite' people to steal from you to give you an excuse to punish them. Just because you have a gun, you don't want to leave your valuables unprotected.

Keep your doors locked. Get a car alarm. Many car insurance companies will give you a discount on your insurance for each method of anti-theft you have installed. So you could be paying less right now, if that's the concern.

What? I would never "invite" to steal. And i know you don't mean literally but I mean I'd also take all measures to prevent it. I do have an alarm, I lock everything, and keep vigilant to prevent theft. It doesn't mean it's not going to happen. There's a good chance it's going to again.

but Rakurai is a chivato from meanstreets arizona ..he's been gang banging before chu was born ese ..ya gotta show who is charge or the vato locos dont respect chu. I've got my respect earner right here holmes <pulls out gun, tilts gun sideways gangster styles, kisses crucifix dangling around neck>

That's more like a Cali gang rather than an Arizona gang. Maybe moreso in Phoenix but in smaller areas they focus more on making money via traficking and coordinated robberies, etc

not really, check out his avatar ..I'm speaking to him in a language he'll understand ....holmes

I don't get this post. My avatar has nothing to do with a gang it's just a picture of my face. If anything it seems like you're implying racism but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

 

[Kase]

Seriously the right to bear arms is a redundant law in a modern democracy

agree with ya on that one

oh my i feel dirty :cheese:

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

agree with ya on that one

oh my i feel dirty :cheese:

Maybe you don't mind being defenseless but I won't stand for it.


Also it's pretty stupid that I've received infractions in this thread. Seems more like censorship than anything.

 

[TwwIX]

Maybe you don't mind being defenseless but I won't stand for it.

They have non lethal weapons for a reason. You,however,would rather a kill a man than simply incapacitate him. Which makes you no better than the perpetrator.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

They have non lethal weapons for a reason. You,however,would rather a kill a man than simply incapacitate him. Which makes you no better than the perpetrator.

I'm not going to try and taser someone. You're being ridiculous now. I can understand people who say they would not kill (thats up to them and if they have anything against it they dont have to do it)

But to go outside and try and hit someone with a tasers prongs, only to miss LOL. You've just signed your own death warrant if that happens. And what are you going to do once they get up from the taser or ge toff it? Again you're ****ed. The objective is that they're not going to get up again.


Like I said, I'm not doing this "to be a better person" or "because its morally right"

I'm doing what it takes to protect my family and property, thats it. Stop trying to spin my concerns into being some kind of vigilantee. There is no black and white.

 

[Maestro]

Who are you referring to?

Pretty much all the posts on the first page, I got too sick by the time I finished those to go on.

 

[Maestro]

just wondering...how many times have you experienced life threatening situations?

and why would you need anything more than a pistol for self defense?

it seems to me you're trying to defend the right to guns, not because of the "safety" they provide but because you like guns in general. although i'm not 100% sure.

I think that he also means if the gov't outlaws firearms that means things have taken a significant downturn.
If you haven't noticed every single oppressive regime in the last 100 years has banned guns within a few years before a complete takeover.
The day semiautos are banned is the day that SWAT teams can take 'political dissidents' or as it's called now, 'suspected terrorists' without any fear of retribution or self-defense.
The day semiautos are banned is the same day I'll make sure that regime never makes it to maturity.
Don't kid yourself that your country doesn't control your life if you do live in a place that has banned firearms. Tell me, if all your precious just-in-time delivery systems suddenly stopped or you were suspect for being a terrorist how long do you think you'd survive before you succumbed to starvation or being taken to GTMO.
It may sound like a slippery-slope logical fallacy but we've already started down that slope, if immigrants could vote in Switzerland I'd move there but they can't so I'm in the US for now. Biding my time until the call to arms is issued by an unjust law.
If this still doesn't convince you, just look at how Nazi Germany did things. You'll find a disturbingly large number of parallels, the only reason it's taken so long here is that the US would have a hell of a time outlawing guns once-and-for-all now. The powers that be just have to wait another decade or so of wearing the gun owners down, though. Then it's easy pickings...until they break down the door of someone with my mentality.
I bet you think I'm a domestic terrorist waiting to happen, but look up the definition of terrorist and ask yourself: who is the real terrorist?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I think that he also means if the gov't outlaws firearms that means things have taken a significant downturn.
If you haven't noticed every single oppressive regime in the last 100 years has banned guns within a few years before a complete takeover.
The day semiautos are banned is the day that SWAT teams can take 'political dissidents' or as it's called now, 'suspected terrorists' without any fear of retribution or self-defense.
The day semiautos are banned is the same day I'll make sure that regime never makes it to maturity.
Don't kid yourself that your country doesn't control your life if you do live in a place that has banned firearms. Tell me, if all your precious just-in-time delivery systems suddenly stopped or you were suspect for being a terrorist how long do you think you'd survive before you succumbed to starvation or being taken to GTMO.
It may sound like a slippery-slope logical fallacy but we've already started down that slope, if immigrants could vote in Switzerland I'd move there but they can't so I'm in the US for now. Biding my time until the call to arms is issued by an unjust law.
If this still doesn't convince you, just look at how Nazi Germany did things. You'll find a disturbingly large number of parallels, the only reason it's taken so long here is that the US would have a hell of a time outlawing guns once-and-for-all now. The powers that be just have to wait another decade or so of wearing the gun owners down, though. Then it's easy pickings...until they break down the door of someone with my mentality.
I bet you think I'm a domestic terrorist waiting to happen, but look up the definition of terrorist and ask yourself: who is the real terrorist?

So true.

It's ridiculous how people think "BUT ARMY HAS LIEK TECH AND STUFF"

It's not going to be regular army troops that bring a reign of terror, it's going to start in the police.

 

[TwwIX]

I'm not going to try and taser someone. You're being ridiculous now. I can understand people who say they would not kill (thats up to them and if they have anything against it they dont have to do it)

But to go outside and try and hit someone with a tasers prongs, only to miss LOL. You've just signed your own death warrant if that happens. And what are you going to do once they get up from the taser or ge toff it? Again you're ****ed. The objective is that they're not going to get up again.

I said "non lethal",which includes a variety of ranged and projectile based weapons.
You of all things should know that.
This post only further proves that you have a bloodlust,my boy. Again,if you're that keen on killing,join the military. Experience some real combat conditions and what a weapon can reall do, then we'll talk again. A weapon is not a toy nor is it a symbol of your strength or manhood.
In fact,it's the opposite. Instead of adding a new gun to your collection,i suggest that you seek out a shrink to work out you insecurities and deficiencies.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I said "non lethal",which includes a variety of ranged and projectile based weapons.
You of all things should know that.
This post only further proves that you have a bloodlust,my boy. Again,if you're that keen on killing,join the military. Experience some real combat conditions and what a weapon can reall do, then we'll talk again. A weapon is not a toy nor is it a symbol of your strength or manhood.
In fact,it's the opposite. Instead of adding a new gun to your collection,i suggest that you seek out a shrink to work out you insecurities and deficiencies.

Again with the "JOIN MILITARY"

In no way am I hard on killing people. I can tell you its not ****ing fun to be shot at or to shoot at someone.

I'm not going to shoot someone with rubber bullets or something equally as inefficient. This isn't crowd control, this is about stopping power, PERIOD.


You seem to be so hard up on stripping people of their rights, maybe YOU have some issues with insecurity. Why are you so scared to let me keep my rights? These accusations are ridiculous and it shows you have no lawful basis or logical basis in your arguement besides "morals."

When you argue like that about things you sound just like the Christian right.

 

[TwwIX]

Getting awfully defensive,are we? I,for one,do not need a weapon to feel secure. Unlike your arguments,those non lethal weapons have been proven to be very efficient.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Getting awfully defensive,are we? I,for one,do not need a weapon to feel secure. Unlike your arguments,those non lethal weapons have been proven to be very efficient.

Go ahead and use your non lethal weapons then if you feel safe and secure with them. I will continue to keep my firearms, and over my dead body will I give them up, nor my right to purchase them.