Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on December 17, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
-
If you guys come across any, please post. I want to sign every single one of them.
-
well, if anybody was unsure about what side you're on...
-
I used to own an SKS Assault Rifle with a bayonet and don`t see what the big deal is at all.
-
Refreshing to see this thread!
I'm in
-
I used to own an SKS Assault Rifle with a bayonet and don`t see what the big deal is at all.
Nothing wrong with it. Those were very popular rifles.
(http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2010/11/05/66307_01_sks_rifle_7_62x_39_640.jpg)
-
I heard their was a petition called "FREEDOM TO KILL MASSES OF OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN". You would have to be a seriously deranged gun nut to want to sign it though!
-
I do not wish to leave all weapons legal and unregulated so therefore I think I draw the line at weapons which give their user the ability to kill several people at one time
-
I heard their was a petition called "FREEDOM TO KILL MASSES OF OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN". You would have to be a seriously deranged gun nut to want to sign it though!
was it in regards to alcohol use?
b/c that kills many more innocent ppl than guns do every year, why isnt your liberal bleeding heart crying about banning that?
-
a 10 to 15 round magazine is really not a big deal.
the PROBLEM is unsecure locations, these 'soft targets' like schools.
They should have a cop at every school - not only because of crazy 20 year olds, but also because of al-quida terr'ists, because of parents who steal their own kids, etc.
they SHOULD have cops at every mall - because stores get robbed, people start fights, etc.
Every store owner SHOULD have a weapon if they want, to protect their premises.
it's not exactly rocket science, many of these places spend millions of $ and don't bother with a $40k salaried cop.
-
a 10 to 15 round magazine is really not a big deal.
the PROBLEM is unsecure locations, these 'soft targets' like schools.
They should have a cop at every school - not only because of crazy 20 year olds, but also because of al-quida terr'ists, because of parents who steal their own kids, etc.
they SHOULD have cops at every mall - because stores get robbed, people start fights, etc.
Every store owner SHOULD have a weapon if they want, to protect their premises.
it's not exactly rocket science, many of these places spend millions of $ and don't bother with a $40k salaried cop.
You mean more government employees and spending?
-
You mean more government employees and spending?
not "more".
Use the existing dollars in a WISER fashion. You have no idea how many $40,000 'smart boards' are in classrooms - PCs connected to interactive overhead projector systems.
to me, the old fashioned "transparency overhead" sheets we used as kids are just fine, you don't need a $40k projecter in every classroom - and they have them. That's just one of many things that could be eliminated in order to pay the $40k salary for a police officer working schoool hours 8 to 230 or whatever.
Cut the waste, and put a damn cop at every school. it's common sense. car accidents, custody disputes, soft target for foreign and domestic terror - why would you ever leave 800 soft targets at risk, with nothing more than a $9 per hour secretary being the only one to challenge any bad guy?
-
not "more".
Use the existing dollars in a WISER fashion. You have no idea how many $40,000 'smart boards' are in classrooms - PCs connected to interactive overhead projector systems.
to me, the old fashioned "transparency overhead" sheets we used as kids are just fine, you don't need a $40k projecter in every classroom - and they have them. That's just one of many things that could be eliminated in order to pay the $40k salary for a police officer working schoool hours 8 to 230 or whatever.
Cut the waste, and put a damn cop at every school. it's common sense. car accidents, custody disputes, soft target for foreign and domestic terror - why would you ever leave 800 soft targets at risk, with nothing more than a $9 per hour secretary being the only one to challenge any bad guy?
I think most people would be more ok with the governments expenditures if there wasn't such a godawful amount of flagrant waste and corruption.
-
I do not wish to leave all weapons legal and unregulated so therefore I think I draw the line at weapons which give their user the ability to kill several people at one time
???
-
I think most people would be more ok with the governments expenditures if there wasn't such a godawful amount of flagrant waste and corruption.
schools spend at LEAST $5,000 per child per year. Many estimates are doubled, it varies from districts.
So I'm asking for $60k a year... that's a $40k salary for a cop, plus $20k to cover his benefits, etc.
That's the cost of TWELVE KIDS - and he protects EIGHT HUNDRED of them. Such a small investment, such a small % of overall cost.
Anyone who bitches about the cost of a $60k cop is ignorant of how much $ gets wasted in the school system on an annual basis.
-
???
Yeah I paused in confusion at that one as well.
-
schools spend at LEAST $5,000 per child per year. Many estimates are doubled, it varies from districts.
So I'm asking for $60k a year... that's a $40k salary for a cop, plus $20k to cover his benefits, etc.
That's the cost of TWELVE KIDS - and he protects EIGHT HUNDRED of them. Such a small investment, such a small % of overall cost.
Anyone who bitches about the cost of a $60k cop is ignorant of how much $ gets wasted in the school system on an annual basis.
I'll strap myself up w my AR, glocks, and Remi 870 for a month in Tac Gear for volunteer work at the local school to keep the children safe.
-
I do not wish to leave all weapons legal and unregulated so therefore I think I draw the line at weapons which give their user the ability to kill several people at one time
So you want all guns to have one bullet maximum capacity? What happens if the bullet hits one person and goes through another?
So if 5 armed men were to come in my house, I should have the ability to only kill one of them with one bullet?
Help me understand your nonsense here? The object of any firearm is to hit your target as many times as you can/need to.
-
So you want all guns to have one bullet maximum capacity? What happens if the bullet hits one person and goes through another?
So if 5 armed men were to come in my house, I should have the ability to only kill one of them with one bullet?
Help me understand your nonsense here? The object of any firearm is to hit your target as many times as you can/need to.
Forgive him - have you seen a pic lately?
-
I'll strap myself up w my AR, glocks, and Remi 870 for a month in Tac Gear for volunteer work at the local school to keep the children safe.
id' be happy to join you. we could post on getbig from our phones and listen to Glen Beck as we stood guard, terrifying soccer moms with our bald heads and scary rifles.
-
Help me understand your nonsense here?
This mixed up lad obviously didn't have a grandpa like yours.
-
So you want all guns to have one bullet maximum capacity? What happens if the bullet hits one person and goes through another?
So if 5 armed men were to come in my house, I should have the ability to only kill one of them with one bullet?
Help me understand your nonsense here? The object of any firearm is to hit your target as many times as you can/need to.
I'm going to go ahead and assume he's talking about fully automatic weapons.
-
I'm going to go ahead and assume he's talking about fully automatic weapons.
Oh yeah those. The ones that nobody really has and that have never been used in any "mass shooting" whatever "mass shooting" means anyways.
-
id' be happy to join you. we could post on getbig from our phones and listen to Glen Beck as we stood guard, terrifying soccer moms with our bald heads and scary rifles.
Sounds awesome! I'll bring the Vodka - you bring the gatorade!
-
Oh yeah those. The ones that nobody really has and that have never been used in any "mass shooting" whatever "mass shooting" means anyways.
Exactly, another reason why I scratched my head at tbombz comments. The only people that really have them are the people responsible enough to jump through hoops and wealthy enough to afford all the bullshit that it entails (mostly former-military turned defense contractor types and collectors/enthusiasts.)
People don't go through all the bullshit to get a fully automatic weapon to go shoot up a school or a theater.
-
So you want all guns to have one bullet maximum capacity? What happens if the bullet hits one person and goes through another?
So if 5 armed men were to come in my house, I should have the ability to only kill one of them with one bullet?
Help me understand your nonsense here? The object of any firearm is to hit your target as many times as you can/need to.
no i didnt propose any such rule.
i said i would draw the line at weapons which give the user the ability to kill several people at one time. and that is worded specifically vague for "legal" reasons :D
see, the idea behind the statement was a general guiding principle that a judge could use to decide cases. let the congress make whatever laws they do, but if the people feel the government oversteps their bounds by putting to tight controls on weapons then they can take the law to court and the judge will decide the case based on that statement "ability to kill several people at one time".
you see in my scenario, i am the judge. 8)
-
no i didnt propose any such rule.
i said i would draw the line at weapons which give the user the ability to kill several people at one time. and that is worded specifically vague for "legal" reasons :D
see, the idea behind the statement was a general guiding principle that a judge could use to decide cases. let the congress make whatever laws they do, but if the people feel the government oversteps their bounds by putting to tight controls on weapons then they can take the law to court and the judge will decide the case based on that statement "ability to kill several people at one time".
you see in my scenario, i am the judge. 8)
???
-
???
basically what im trying to say is that i think that on this issue in particular its probably better to go case by case according to the present dangers of certain weapons. giving a judge the ability to judge laws the come about as to whether they are jusitifed or dangerous. At the moment, im not sure i like assault weapons, fully automatics, grenades, missiles, nukes ect being legal. and yes this is kind of an arbitrary thing. but so is government? but what kind of law could i write that would be changeable and adaptable to different scenarios so that only my preffered weapons are legal and those most dangerous ones are illegal? i think that would be very difficult and result in some thing too rigid.
-
I heard their was a petition called "FREEDOM TO KILL MASSES OF OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN". You would have to be a seriously deranged gun nut to want to sign it though!
::) come on, you don't need to be Einstein to figure out that shit was obviously started by an anti-gun nut not as you said a "gun nut"
-
basically what im trying to say is that i think that on this issue in particular its probably better to go case by case according to the present dangers of certain weapons. giving a judge the ability to judge laws the come about as to whether they are jusitifed or dangerous. At the moment, im not sure i like assault weapons, fully automatics, grenades, missiles, nukes ect being legal. and yes this is kind of an arbitrary thing. but so is government? but what kind of law could i write that would be changeable and adaptable to different scenarios so that only my preffered weapons are legal and those most dangerous ones are illegal? i think that would be very difficult and result in some thing too rigid.
???
-
I do not wish to leave all weapons legal and unregulated so therefore I think I draw the line at weapons which give their user the ability to kill several people at one time
right, so the autisic killer would then go with a bomb quite potenially killing even more depending on how big he made it.
People hell bent on killing are going to find a way to do it. Stop fucking blamming guns. There's a shitload of things to mass murder with. If you think a person like this will just say fuck it because the can't get a gun, lol...
How about we start asking questions about what drugs this kid might have been on? They hand them out like crazy, you know they had this kid on them! It's looking like a lot of these psychos are on anti-depressants turning then into drug created psychopaths. Why aren't we fucking talking about that shit? Or at least fucking asking questions about it? Oh no, it's all guns and our fucked up founding fathers for the 2nd Amendment ::)
-
There's only three options. Complete freedom, partial freedom, and no freedom. Most people want partial freedom when it comes to weapons. I don't know many who would argue for legalization of nuclear weapons.
-
There's only three options. Complete freedom, partial freedom, and no freedom. Most people want partial freedom when it comes to weapons. I don't know many who would argue for legalization of nuclear weapons.
did you really just place nuclear weapons in the auto-rifle issue? ::) fucking really?
-
Oh yea, I'm against guiding a comet toward an enemy on earth. BB guns should be banned,... yea... that's what I'm saying lol....
-
basically what im trying to say is that i think that on this issue in particular its probably better to go case by case according to the present dangers of certain weapons. giving a judge the ability to judge laws the come about as to whether they are jusitifed or dangerous. At the moment, im not sure i like assault weapons, fully automatics, grenades, missiles, nukes ect being legal. and yes this is kind of an arbitrary thing. but so is government? but what kind of law could i write that would be changeable and adaptable to different scenarios so that only my preffered weapons are legal and those most dangerous ones are illegal? i think that would be very difficult and result in some thing too rigid.
What is YOUR definition of an Assault Weapon, just curious.
-
maybe this would be a better question for people:
If you were a freaking nutbag and wanted to kill a bunch of people, could you figure out how to do that without an automatic rifle? Come on... not hard to answer... If that's your goal, you know you're going to find a way to do that. Hell there are several commonly known ways to do that. Take away guns, you might very well have someone coming up with a worse alternative. Someone releasing a chlorine gas or another gas or a suicide bomb or any number of things. The point being when a person reaches the point that they want to do something like this, they will do it. This autistic kid would have killed no matter what and maybe more if he had been forced to choose another option.
You think the nutbag in Colorado would have just said fuck it if he couldn't get the weapons he wanted? yea right... He spent all that time planning the shit, he would have planned it another way if he couldn't have gotten the weapons to do it.
What meds were these guys on, that's what I fucking want to know and what the media is fucking chickenshit to chase because big pharma pays their stupid asses.
Lets start asking real fucking questions before we go blaming guns.
-
did you really just place nuclear weapons in the auto-rifle issue? ::) fucking really?
What's wrong with that? Nukes don't kill people. More people die in auto accidents than from Nukes, and just because some nutters use Nukes for immoral purposes doesn't mean they can't be owned responsibly. Just because you hate freedoms, don't try and prevent others pursuit of it. Sound ridiculous doesn't it?, sadly this is the type of ridiculous reasoning people use for wanting to own all kinds of dangerous objects that are detrimental to civilised society! Face it, your a selfish Nutter who couldn't give a flying fuck about building decent, safe and secure communities, your selfish interests take priority over absolutely everything else, even the lives of innocent children.
-
maybe this would be a better question for people:
If you were a freaking nutbag and wanted to kill a bunch of people, could you figure out how to do that without an automatic rifle? Come on... not hard to answer... If that's your goal, you know you're going to find a way to do that. Hell there are several commonly known ways to do that. Take away guns, you might very well have someone coming up with a worse alternative. Someone releasing a chlorine gas or another gas or a suicide bomb or any number of things. The point being when a person reaches the point that they want to do something like this, they will do it. This autistic kid would have killed no matter what and maybe more if he had been forced to choose another option.
You think the nutbag in Colorado would have just said fuck it if he couldn't get the weapons he wanted? yea right... He spent all that time planning the shit, he would have planned it another way if he couldn't have gotten the weapons to do it.
What meds were these guys on, that's what I fucking want to know and what the media is fucking chickenshit to chase because big pharma pays their stupid asses.
Lets start asking real fucking questions before we go blaming guns.
What a load of bullshit, many people get to a point where they want to MURDER others, I have heard people say to each other many times that they are going to kill someone, only to have the heat of the moment cool down and for them to become clear thinking again. It is human nature to experience extremes in emotion that lead people to act in ways that don't make sense. Your examples of spending lots of time devising other weapons of mass destruction are bullshit, those type of devices are used by terrorist groups with a political motivation, these mass shootings are done by people who have snapped and while they are worked up grab a gun and start killing everyone. They do this, WHY? Because they CAN, it is EASY. Individuals will always take the path of least resistance, why bother taking the risk of months of collecting suspect materials, and scouring the Internet for lessons on how to build volatile weapons of mass destruction.(all by which time the extreme emotion has passed) when you can just easily access guns and shoot the shit out of everyone.
The fact is killing people with guns is the EASIEST way for an individual to kill lots of people (or anything for that matter). That's why people love GUNS, EASE of USE, you put some bullets in it and pull a trigger, so easy, a child could do it. Unlike more civilised countries, America has made it all too EASY to get a gun and kill people. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out why these shootings occur. It's because it is EASY EASY EASY. If I ran a business and left the doors open overnight only to arrive in the morning and everything had gone, everyone would say "Well, you did make it EASY for that to happen". Same deal here, America has made it EASY to SNAP and shoot up a bunch of people. You want to know why these things happen, you made it EASY for it too.
-
I do not wish to leave all weapons legal and unregulated so therefore I think I draw the line at weapons which give their user the ability to kill several people at one time
Agreed.
-
What's wrong with that? Nukes don't kill people. More people die in auto accidents than from Nukes, and just because some nutters use Nukes for immoral purposes doesn't mean they can't be owned responsibly. Just because you hate freedoms, don't try and prevent others pursuit of it. Sound ridiculous doesn't it?, sadly this is the type of ridiculous reasoning people use for wanting to own all kinds of dangerous objects that are detrimental to civilised society! Face it, your a selfish Nutter who couldn't give a flying fuck about building decent, safe and secure communities, your selfish interests take priority over absolutely everything else, even the lives of innocent children.
Calm down buddy... No need to wave the "I'm the biggest asshole ever" flag.... I'm willing to talk about it.
You're right, more people do die in auto accidents than from nukes and that includes from shootings! Auto accidents are the leading cause of deaths for children of all ages. Not once have I seen the president up there saying we've had enough, we can't go on like this. Despite the fact that many kids who die in auto accidents will die a much more horrible death. And one at a time doesn't make it any better than 20 at a time.
I'll tell you what I do see... I see irresponsible automakers plastering the TV with commercial after commercial showing cars trucks and motorcycles speeding their asses off and promoting all other sorts of reckless behavior to sell their cars. And yup, that's what kills most people and most kids.... But hey, let's change the constitution and America for what some retard did on meds ::) That sounds like the bigger priority... fracking brilliant!!!
-
Calm down buddy... No need to wave the "I'm the biggest asshole ever" flag.... I'm willing to talk about it.
You're right, more people do die in auto accidents than from nukes and that includes from shootings! Auto accidents are the leading cause of deaths for children of all ages. Not once have I seen the president up there saying we've had enough, we can't go on like this. Despite the fact that many kids who die in auto accidents will die a much more horrible death. And one at a time doesn't make it any better than 20 at a time.
I'll tell you what I do see... I see irresponsible automakers plastering the TV with commercial after commercial showing cars trucks and motorcycles speeding their asses off and promoting all other sorts of reckless behavior to sell their cars. And yup, that's what kills most people and most kids.... But hey, let's change the constitution and America for what some retard did on meds ::) That sounds like the bigger priority... fracking brilliant!!!
I have to keep posting this, because Gun Nuts aren't the deepest thinkers, but cars, trucks, trains and the whole transport system serve an obvious community benefit, individuals benefit from the system. Citizens on the other hand owning guns, serves NO Community benefit, the HARM vs GOOD benefit to the community is out of balance, Gun Ownership causes more harm than good, hence the reason they are frequently the target of advocates who want to eliminate them from public consumption. Normal citizens, the ones who aren't deeply self centred and community minded, weigh up the community benefit to individual loss ratio when deciding on what should be restricted and what shouldn't. And GUNS bring way more HARM than GOOD to the community as opposed to cars and the Transport system. BIG DIFFERENCE
I remember reading a study years ago about the cost to society from noise complaints regarding neighbours, and I remember they compared people who lived alongside a railway line with those who lived next door to noisy neighbours. You would think that they would both be equally negatively impacted by the regular intrusions into their household living, but the people who lived next to the railway line were far better off, they discovered that they rationalised the situation and weighed up the community benefit that trains provide against the general annoyance they felt when hearing the trains, and also because of the predictable nature of trains and the fact they knew that the noise was short lived, it made the situation bearable, unlike the neighbour who had rowdy neighbours, it was impossible to judge when the neighbours would cause the disturbance, nor how long it would go on for, and the noise almost always served no community benefit, it was always a selfish indulgence by the neighbour. These factors, No Community benefit and Predictability were major factors on the negative impact on individuals and to the community at large (the handling of noise complaints cost a lot of money, also sometimes people were killed over it) when handling Noise Complaints.
And this is the Issue, individuals who aren't obsessed with GUNS and don't feel the need to own one, get ZERO benefit from their neighbours owning guns and mass shooting are impossible to predict (statistically, they are INEVITABLE in America) when and where they will happen next, putting the average citizen in a fearful state (this is the state GUN NUTTERS prey on, hoping that if everyone becomes afraid enough, they will finally cave in too the GUN NUTTERS and buy a GUN for so called protection, even though STATS show you are more likely to be killed during a crime if you have a gun than if you don't). The average NORMAL citizen will weigh up the benefit of something as opposed to the risk to their health when advocating for something, and the actuarial risk of individual gun ownership for citizens has now become so great, and the benefit/loss ratio so unbalanced, that the general community is now at GREAT Risk due to a selfish individual privilege granted to citizens by the Government. Communities Interests must come first for them to be SAFE, SECURE and HEALTHY, selfish Interest will always erode any Community! Time for Individuals to grow up and put their communities first, and ironically, the Individual will also prosper.
-
Citizens on the other hand owning guns, serves NO Community benefit
says you!... Tell that to the many other nations who have been disarmed and have thugs or various other atrocities committed against them. And don't fucking think it can't happen here just because it's America. It can.
There are plenty of other things killing people as we've talked about that can be addressed without treading on the constitution. If the president just started talking about what crap auto commercials are getting away with he would probably save more kids in the next 5 years than were killed the other day. No law needed, it would just be bad PR for them to do it. The auto industry promotes bad behavior behind the wheel and that's the leading cause of death for kids of all ages! Yea, where is the freaking priority here? We would rather change the Contitution than just address the leading cause of death for kids? Are you fucking kidding me?
-
True adonis you asked me for my definition of an assault weapon. I think you want to know where I would draw the line. I think your suggestion of limiting guns to one shot might be good. Single shot rifles and hand guns. That way you can protect yourself from other people, even if they do have a semi or fully automatic weapon. One good shot and they are dead.
-
was it in regards to alcohol use?
b/c that kills many more innocent ppl than guns do every year, why isnt your liberal bleeding heart crying about banning that?
this
dont mention smoking ssh
or driving cars
-
says you!... Tell that to the many other nations who have been disarmed and have thugs or various other atrocities committed against them. And don't fucking think it can't happen here just because it's America. It can.
There are plenty of other things killing people as we've talked about that can be addressed without treading on the constitution. If the president just started talking about what crap auto commercials are getting away with he would probably save more kids in the next 5 years than were killed the other day. No law needed, it would just be bad PR for them to do it. The auto industry promotes bad behavior behind the wheel and that's the leading cause of death for kids of all ages! Yea, where is the freaking priority here? We would rather change the Contitution than just address the leading cause of death for kids? Are you fucking kidding me?
The whole Cars argument is absurd, I have already pointed out the obvious community benefit and Community Good VS Community Harm argument, but the other factor that needs to be noted is, you are comparing fatalities caused by ACCIDENTS, events that aren't deliberate or malicious as opposed to PRE MEDITATED MASS MURDERS using a tool created with a specific purpose of being an efficient killing tool, cars are being used for a beneficial purpose and occasionally during their operation they cause fatalities. Guns on the other hand, don't have any other purpose than to cause serious injury or death. And the majority of gun deaths would be deliberate acts of violence. The things that really gets me, is GUN Nutters argue that they need a firearm for protection, but Protection from what? It can't be Gun Violence, because as the Gun Nuts point out, the chances of that happening, is so small as too not worry about it! Protection from your own Government, do you really think that the American Military is going to be stopped by a bunch of red-necks with a few firearms. If their was a coup tomorrow and a Military Dictator took charge, do you really think with the Military's advanced armoury that armed civilians would stand a chance against such powerful Military Weapons.
It just seems strange to me this argument, that their is nothing to worry about, that statistics show that the chances of being killed by a gun are remote, but then people arm themselves and say, Why take the chance? Personally, if you own a gun for protection, you are being unnecessarily AFRAID, and if you own one for recreation and sporting purposes, well, you're just a DOUCHE! If your a farmer and you use them for preserving livestock etc, that's an appropriate use of a gun, if your a hunter, and you hunt and eat what you kill, that's an appropriate use of a gun. other than that, what purpose is served by ordinary citizens owning a GUN OTHER THAN PROPPING UP an Individuals DEFICIENT PERSONALITY or a desperate insecurity, fear and anxiety!
-
What is YOUR definition of an Assault Weapon, just curious.
Hey, look. Here's someone who shares your views.
Good luck with that.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/17/tennessee-pastor-mass-shootings-because-schools-teach-evolution-and-how-to-be-a-homo/
-
says you!... Tell that to the many other nations who have been disarmed and have thugs or various other atrocities committed against them. And don't fucking think it can't happen here just because it's America. It can.
There are plenty of other things killing people as we've talked about that can be addressed without treading on the constitution. If the president just started talking about what crap auto commercials are getting away with he would probably save more kids in the next 5 years than were killed the other day. No law needed, it would just be bad PR for them to do it. The auto industry promotes bad behavior behind the wheel and that's the leading cause of death for kids of all ages! Yea, where is the freaking priority here? We would rather change the Contitution than just address the leading cause of death for kids? Are you fucking kidding me?
Lets face it guns in the hands of ordinary people isnt gnna do jack shit against a trained force sent by an evil government.
Do you want handgrenades and bazookas on the street?
-
Lets face it guns in the hands of ordinary people isnt gnna do jack shit against a trained force sent by an evil government.
Do you want handgrenades and bazookas on the street?
When civil order breaks down how do people defend themselves from the animals and savages.
-
When civil order breaks down how do people defend themselves from the animals and savages.
If every nutjob who is not satisfied with his life has easy access to weapons goes killing kids there will be no civil order to protect.
-
If every nutjob who is not satisfied with his life has easy access to weapons goes killing kids there will be no civil order to protect.
Genie is already out of the lamp on that
-
Lets face it guns in the hands of ordinary people isnt gnna do jack shit against a trained force sent by an evil government.
Wrong.
-
True adonis you asked me for my definition of an assault weapon. I think you want to know where I would draw the line. I think your suggestion of limiting guns to one shot might be good. Single shot rifles and hand guns. That way you can protect yourself from other people, even if they do have a semi or fully automatic weapon. One good shot and they are dead.
???
-
Hey, look. Here's someone who shares your views.
Good luck with that.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/17/tennessee-pastor-mass-shootings-because-schools-teach-evolution-and-how-to-be-a-homo/
How does that person share my views?
-
I guess he also forgot about the history of Afghans just riding it out with small weaponry and the guerrilla tactics of the Viet Cong.
-
True adonis you asked me for my definition of an assault weapon. I think you want to know where I would draw the line. I think your suggestion of limiting guns to one shot might be good. Single shot rifles and hand guns. That way you can protect yourself from other people, even if they do have a semi or fully automatic weapon. One good shot and they are dead.
???
What happens if you miss?
-
???
What happens if you miss?
Or more than 1 assailant?
-
Or more than 1 assailant?
Something tells me this was not well thought out. :-\
-
Genie is already out of the lamp on that
True.
-
Wrong.
Lets see how long you last when they send a SWAT team then.
What are you carrying?
-
How does that person share my views?
Forgive him True Adonis, he's an idiot.
-
How does that person share my views?
You're an otherwise smart guy.
Figure it out.
-
Lets see how long you last when they send a SWAT team then.
What are you carrying?
Don't be a moron. Civilians employing guerrilla tactics with rifles and homemade explosives are extremely hard to defeat. See Afghanistan. They held out against the full might of the Russians AND the US, not to mention that the Russians were 50x as brutal as the Americans could even dream of.
By the way, if a man knew the SWAT team was on the way and had time to prepare, he could set one hell of a deadly ambush using simple rifles. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
-
You're an otherwise smart guy.
Figure it out.
I can`t. Please explain it to me. You made the charge.
-
???
What happens if you miss?
Or more than 1 assailant?
Something tells me this was not well thought out. :-\
maybe more thought than you think.
the proposition certainly would put one at a tremendous disadvantage against multiple enemies or an enemy with an illegal semi- or fully automatic weapon.
however really take into account the idea that no matter where you draw the legal line, the law abiding citizens are always at a tremendous disadvantage
to those individuals who break the law.
for me, when i take that into account, i first consider the need for the freedom to arm oneself. it is essential to liberty i think, being able to defend oneself. and i realize that firearms are probably an integral part of that ability to defend oneself. especially if the government is going to have them. but i do not think that the citizens should be able to keep all the same kinds of firearms that the government should be able to keep. and i think i draw the line at single-shot firearms because the ability to shoot a single bullet is probably the most significant benchmark a person can meet in terms of physical defense. they are now almost assured of success if they ever need to kill anyone. no government official is safe.
idealistically i am an anarchist but i find it difficult to see the argument for liberalization of the laws concerning weapons. i consider it the top priority of the government, as keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands out of those who would use them for harm is the single most powerful tool in protecting national security.
(as for what if you miss your shot and what if you are confronted by multiple assailants.. well, sorry joe, looks like the forces against you trumped the forces with you.. government cant pretend to be able to stop that from ever happening)
-
Don't be a moron. Civilians employing guerrilla tactics with rifles and homemade explosives are extremely hard to defeat. See Afghanistan. They held out against the full might of the Russians AND the US, not to mention that the Russians were 50x as brutal as the Americans could even dream of.
By the way, if a man knew the SWAT team was on the way and had time to prepare, he could set one hell of a deadly ambush using simple rifles. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Thats true unless they get pissed and send in a Apache.
Remember the Iraq videos?
-
Thats true unless they get pissed and send in a Apache.
Remember the Iraq videos?
You really believe that the US military is just going to be cool with lighting up their fellow citizens? They wont. If it ever gets to that, you can bet the military would split in half and you'd have an all out civil war.
Besides, part of guerrilla warfare is picking and choosing your battles. You're not going to stand an fight an air element. You retreat and pick another fight.
You really don't know much about this subject, do you?
-
Thats true unless they get pissed and send in a Apache.
Remember the Iraq videos?
-
The whole Cars argument is absurd, I have already pointed out the obvious community benefit and Community Good VS Community Harm argument, but the other factor that needs to be noted is, you are comparing fatalities caused by ACCIDENTS, events that aren't deliberate or malicious as opposed to PRE MEDITATED MASS MURDERS using a tool created with a specific purpose of being an efficient killing tool, cars are being used for a beneficial purpose and occasionally during their operation they cause fatalities. Guns on the other hand, don't have any other purpose than to cause serious injury or death. And the majority of gun deaths would be deliberate acts of violence. The things that really gets me, is GUN Nutters argue that they need a firearm for protection, but Protection from what? It can't be Gun Violence, because as the Gun Nuts point out, the chances of that happening, is so small as too not worry about it! Protection from your own Government, do you really think that the American Military is going to be stopped by a bunch of red-necks with a few firearms. If their was a coup tomorrow and a Military Dictator took charge, do you really think with the Military's advanced armoury that armed civilians would stand a chance against such powerful Military Weapons.
It just seems strange to me this argument, that their is nothing to worry about, that statistics show that the chances of being killed by a gun are remote, but then people arm themselves and say, Why take the chance? Personally, if you own a gun for protection, you are being unnecessarily AFRAID, and if you own one for recreation and sporting purposes, well, you're just a DOUCHE! If your a farmer and you use them for preserving livestock etc, that's an appropriate use of a gun, if your a hunter, and you hunt and eat what you kill, that's an appropriate use of a gun. other than that, what purpose is served by ordinary citizens owning a GUN OTHER THAN PROPPING UP an Individuals DEFICIENT PERSONALITY or a desperate insecurity, fear and anxiety!
Please explain this to my dear friend who's home was invaded by scumbags set to maim, rape and murder his family during Katrina. The only thing that stopped them from committing these acts: his mosberg shotgun which used to protect the lives of his wife and children.
Your arguments would be valid if we lived in a world where violence was non-existent and individuals were not set out to harm our loved ones, but we do.
Like the old saying goes, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than need one and not have it.
We can talk about societal and culture issues until we are blue in the face, but even in places like the UK where guns are completely banned, they have seen violent crimes SKYROCKET. There is ZERO logical retort to the issue of defense.
We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem.
-
You really believe that the US military is just going to be cool with lighting up their fellow citizens? They wont. If it ever gets to that, you can bet the military would split in half and you'd have an all out civil war.
Besides, part of guerrilla warfare is picking and choosing your battles. You're not going to stand an fight an air element. You retreat and pick another fight.
You really don't know much about this subject, do you?
I thought we were talking a hypo scenario where people fought the government?
Wasnt that your argument for guns?
-
maybe more thought than you think.
the proposition certainly would put one at a tremendous disadvantage against multiple enemies or an enemy with an illegal semi- or fully automatic weapon.
however really take into account the idea that no matter where you draw the legal line, the law abiding citizens are always at a tremendous disadvantage
to those individuals who break the law.
for me, when i take that into account, i first consider the need for the freedom to arm oneself. it is essential to liberty i think, being able to defend oneself. and i realize that firearms are probably an integral part of that ability to defend oneself. especially if the government is going to have them. but i do not think that the citizens should be able to keep all the same kinds of firearms that the government should be able to keep. and i think i draw the line at single-shot firearms because the ability to shoot a single bullet is probably the most significant benchmark a person can meet in terms of physical defense. they are now almost assured of success if they ever need to kill anyone. no government official is safe.
idealistically i am an anarchist but i find it difficult to see the argument for liberalization of the laws concerning weapons. i consider it the top priority of the government, as keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands out of those who would use them for harm is the single most powerful tool in protecting national security.
(as for what if you miss your shot and what if you are confronted by multiple assailants.. well, sorry joe, looks like the forces against you trumped the forces with you.. government cant pretend to be able to stop that from ever happening)
Life isn't like the movies is it? A short while back in a neighboring suburb, a man was killed by a crazed intruder armed with two machetes. The homeowner and his wife had just returned home from walking their dogs, only to be surprised in their kitchen my this nut job. The couple may have owned a gun or guns, but this not being the "wild, wild west" when men went around with their guns in holsters 24-7, if they had guns they were probably put away somewhere and were therefore useless to them. As I said, the husband died of knife wounds and fortunately the wife survived. The intruder was caught and it seems this wasn't his first act of violence.
Needless to say this event, like other similar ones has shook up our local communities. Fortunately, we are a lot safer than we think sometimes according to statistics. I don't own a gun and these kinds of horrors don't make me want to run out and purchase one either. It may be wishful thinking, but when our big dog barks, he sounds like he is going to eat whoever is on the other side of the front door. One day, not long ago, what I suspect was a magazine salesman knocked on our door. Danny barked and the young man literally turned and ran down our driveway to get away before I could answer the door. I would like to believe that Danny and Lucy, (the little feisty dog) are like burglar alarms. If they don't scare off a potential intruder, my mean "I will kill you look" is sure to do the trick. LOL!
Here's an interesting statistic, in 68 years of life, I have never had to test my theories on how to defend myself or my loved ones from harm. However, I cannot find the Nook I bought my wife a couple of years ago (which she never used). Do you suppose someone broke into the house and sole it?
-
Life isn't like the movies is it? A short while back in a neighboring suburb, a man was killed by a crazed intruder armed with two machetes. The homeowner and his wife had just returned home from walking their dogs, only to be surprised in their kitchen my this nut job. The couple may have owned a gun or guns, but this not being the "wild, wild west" when men went around with their guns in holsters 24-7, if they had guns they were probably put away somewhere and were therefore useless to them. As I said, the husband died of knife wounds and fortunately the wife survived. The intruder was caught and it seems this wasn't his first act of violence.
Needless to say this event, like other similar ones has shook up our local communities. Fortunately, we are a lot safer than we think sometimes according to statistics. I don't own a gun and these kinds of horrors don't make me want to run out and purchase one either. It may be wishful thinking, but when our big dog barks, he sounds like he is going to eat whoever is on the other side of the front door. One day, not long ago, what I suspect was a magazine salesman knocked on our door. Danny barked and the young man literally turned and ran down our driveway to get away before I could answer the door. I would like to believe that Danny and Lucy, (the little feisty dog) are like burglar alarms. If they don't scare off a potential intruder, my mean "I will kill you look" is sure to do the trick. LOL!
Here's an interesting statistic, in 68 years of life, I have never had to test my theories on how to defend myself or my loved ones from harm. However, I cannot find the Nook I bought my wife a couple of years ago (which she never used). Do you suppose someone broke into the house and sole it?
Every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting. People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.
People with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
Conclusion: You are MORE at RISK if you choose to own a gun than if you don't. people think they are increasing their survival rate when in fact you are more vulnerable and exposing yourself to greater risk. if you care about your family, you WOULDN'T OWN A GUN!
-
YOu want to link this drivel.........cause I bet I can link the exact opposite.
-
Ridiculous.
Every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting. People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.
People with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
Conclusion: You are MORE at RISK if you choose to own a gun than if you don't. people think they are increasing their survival rate when in fact you are more vulnerable and exposing yourself to greater risk. if you care about your family, you WOULDN'T OWN A GUN!
-
I dont know E-kul but look at you 2 guys posts (33 and HH) and compare them to his.
He is way above you guys sorry.