Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

40 Reasons to Ban Guns

ban guns flawed logic stop violent crime on contact idiots

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 HMFIC

HMFIC

    Founder

  • Founder
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:25 AM

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759


40 reasons to ban guns.....

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Attached Files


  • 6

HMFIC

Founder

Awesome Sh!t my Drill Sergeant Said

www.ASMDSS.com

www.Facebook.com/ASMDSS

 


#2 Cavalry19d

Cavalry19d

    FNG

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • LocationLas Vegas Nevada

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:38 AM

You forgot we should start a war on guns because the war on drugs took all the illegal drugs out of the United States.
  • 2
On the 8th day God created the Scouts and the devil stood at attention.

#3 Charlie_Rock

Charlie_Rock

    Specialist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • LocationKentucky

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:39 AM

also forgot that banning guns is effective because criminals will give up without guns


  • 1

#4 Robert Tuggle

Robert Tuggle

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:49 AM

And its okay for Drug Cartels to buy assault weapons from the federal government, but its not okay for a private citizen to buy a semi-automatic rifle from a legal firearms dealer...


  • 1

#5 optarmy

optarmy

    FNG

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:50 AM

You forgot the proposed CDC research.....oh wait, they did research on the last ban and found no evidence it worked. Go figure. More tax payer money wasted to appease small interest and the loony left!


  • 1

#6 Anthony aka Moldy

Anthony aka Moldy

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:50 AM

We need education before legislation. Money not well spent by BOTH parties.
  • 0

#7 optarmy

optarmy

    FNG

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:52 AM

Education is key!


  • 0

#8 sgt-OB

sgt-OB

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:53 AM

I take it your from the Indy area DS, most people dont use Indy to make a point but I agree
  • 0

#9 Arkais

Arkais

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:54 AM

 

Penn and Teller talk about the bullshit that is gun control, and what the second amendment's actual intent is.

 

@14:46 A favorite thought experiment of mine of gun control and crime prevention.


  • 1

#10 ErinStahle

ErinStahle

    Specialist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • LocationTennessee

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:38 AM

@HMFIC Amen! I firmly believe that this site and its followers are the most intelligent, insightful, eloquent, and thought provoking people in the world!
  • 0

#11 DonSmithnotTMD

DonSmithnotTMD

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:47 AM

"A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use ..."

 

I've heard this usedto explain not transitioning from revolvers.


  • 1

#12 *sfrob76*

*sfrob76*

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 106 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:00 AM

and remember if you take the guns away from us where tdo the criminals get there guns i believe they dont obtain them legally guess it's gonna be pitch forks and rocks for self defense


  • 0

#13 Jeremy 'Monty' Montague

Jeremy 'Monty' Montague

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:07 PM

It never has been a gun issue, its a ******* moral issue. Americans in. general are spoilt, have no respect for each other or themselves. In. the pursuit of happiness (money property prestige) they stomp on anyone. In. the 40's and 50's the country worked together, struggled and knew hardships together but adversely were better off. National service, three years 18-21, would help a generation stand tall, know teamwork and brotherhood, and giving of self for the common good....
  • 0

#14 defensor tortoise

defensor tortoise

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:44 PM

ya know guys, I'm in the military and a police officer. when the new legislation fully takes affect it will be way harder for ne to acquire any weapon than the common citizen. Not only do i have the same limitations and processes as you, I have even more mandated by the military. So all the police/military bashing is ridiculous and offensive. I am an avid gun rights supporter and owner of several firearms, and this affects me as well. however, would you really want to see someone break into your house with an ar-15 and a police officer respond with a Beretta 92FS. kinda tips the scales in the favor of the criminal in my opinion. So what if the application process is a little more stringent. If you are the honest law abiding citizen you claim then why woud you have any issues legally purchasing a firearm for home defense. No one needs an ar-15 or 10 for home defense. You shot a burglar good job you're a hero but what about when that round flies through the guy through your wall and into your neighbors bedroom and hits him in his bed. Ive seen the aftermath of that exact incident several times throughout my career. Then the hero from above becomes the criminal due to his negligence. A law abiding citizen rightfully defending his home becomes a killer because he insisted on having a weapon he used a weapon inappropriate for the situation. As i said before I am not promoting gun control just ignorance control.
  • -1

#15 warangel

warangel

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:20 PM

Just a quick note: while I understand the focus of the OP is satirical in nature, I just wanted to point out how #18 can be improved slightly. Where it says

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

 

the fact of the matter is, however, there were many school shootings in the 1940's-1960's, but it pales in comparison to the numbers after the fact. This is a pretty accurate chart, plotting the murder rates in school shootings: http://jpfo.org/imag...ootings-800.jpg A more complete list (sorted by decade, and including more details) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

 

It should probably read more along the lines of:

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were just as many school shootings.

  • 0

#16 Mr. Clean

Mr. Clean

    PVT

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:20 PM

No one needs an ar-15 or 10 for home defense.

That is your opinion.  And I respect that.  Doesn't mean I agree.  "Nobody needs ______" is not for any of us to say outside of common sense barriers.

I know someone who uses a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun for home defense, and he lives in a very small apartment.  You do the math.


  • 0

#17 Shawn Ski

Shawn Ski

    FNG

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:02 PM

 No one needs an ar-15 or 10 for home defense.

Really? No one? So someone on, say a farm, wouldn't need an AR-type rifle for home defense. I am pretty sure an AR-15 would be a great pick for defense of someone living on a larger piece of property. And people use different ammo for different purposes. For my suburbia home defense weapon I use an FNP-40, not my AR. But before I could afford a second firearm, the AR was used for defense as well as recreation, since it is pretty good at everything. In the FNP-40 I have FMJ ammunition for shooting paper. I do not have this loaded while the weapon is stored at home, or when I choose to carry, as these rounds would easily carry through my home, into my sleeping neighbors home. At home or while carrying, I load JHP, which is less likely to carry through walls and people, and is designed to deposit the maximum amount of terminal energy in my target.

 

But all of that is secondary to the real flaw in your argument. The Second Amendment was NOT primarily written to protect the right of self defense, or the rights of hunters. It was written to guarantee the citizens the right and ability to protect themselves against Tyranny. This is why I need to be able to purchase and own an AR-Type rifle


  • 1

#18 HMFIC

HMFIC

    Founder

  • Founder
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

No one needs an ar-15 or 10 for home defense.

 

 

As i said before I am not promoting gun control just ignorance control.

 

I'd apply some of the bolded control to yourself before attempting it on anyone else...


  • 0

HMFIC

Founder

Awesome Sh!t my Drill Sergeant Said

www.ASMDSS.com

www.Facebook.com/ASMDSS

 


#19 Lord_Vader78

Lord_Vader78

    Specialist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 166 posts
  • LocationAugusta Ga

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

The fact of the matter is the lack of training.  

 

With all the waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, why is their no training requirement? We all had to at one point train with and than prove proficiency with the weapon we were gonna use and then after a certain amount of time re-qualify to yet again prove we could use it. Why can't that be required for civilian ownership? It would not infringe on your rights but under some instances put people at ease about the usage of the weapon. For example If you put lets just say a SWAT officer carrying an AR-15 next to a some dingle berry fresh out of trailer park and then ask random people witch one makes them feel uncomfortable and why I would be willing to bet they would say they were more comfortable around the SWAT officer because of his training. Now I'm not saying every gun owner should have SWAT level training but something would be nice. I mean for god sake I have to have a drivers license to drive a car why not a gun? Prove to me that you can hit the broad side of a barn and identify a REAL threat BEFORE you skin that shiny new hand cannon and unload on the guy that just cut you off on the way to the office. 

 

Magazine capacity: Now do we all really NEED a 30rd mag... No. We want a 30rd mag the fact is that if you can't eliminate your target in 10rd you shouldn't have the gun in the first place. (see paragraph above^) 

 

Home Defense:  AR-15 for home defense? where the **** do you live downtown Mogadishu? If you need a AR-15 with a 30rd mag to protect your self in your home you might want to consider moving.  I recommend a nice spas 12 with a  #1 buckshot load(Firearms Tactical Institute reports 

"number 1 buckshot produces more potentially effective wound trauma than either #00 or #000 buck. In addition, number 1 buck is less likely to over-penetrate and exit an attacker's body."  in other words kill the intruder not your flat-screen.

 

The bottom line is crazy is as crazy does you will never legislate out crazy people. Nut bags will get guns be it legally or illegally and use them for fucked up stuff. So taking them away is pointless. 


  • 0

"I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: 'I served in the United States Navy." President John F. Kennedy


#20 Shawn Ski

Shawn Ski

    FNG

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:18 PM

Training would infringe. What if I fail the training? I am not a felon or nut case. If you deny me a firearm because I fail some training, you are infringing. And as a former armorer, I have seen many soldiers at ranges that I would REALLY prefer to never ever touch a firearm even after training and retraining, but they still get to. And when I exercise free speech, I know and understand the few restrictions it has, so I don't yell "fire" in a crowded room because it could kill someone and it would be my fault. I never received any training for this. The same premise applies to your gentleman cut off in traffic. When you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, you know and understand the few restrictions it has, such as how and when you can use it. The laws are there, it is the personal responsibility of the citizen to read and educate themselves of their rights and responsibilities when exercising those rights.

 

Yes, many of us really do need 30rd magazines. One common use is in Hog hunting. Another would be on extending hunting treks. One may need 30rnds should they ever have to use it to defend against multiple attackers. And the one that trumps these is if I should ever have to defend and/or fight against a tyrannical govt, foreign or domestic.

 

To home defense, please refer to my previous post (#17). Yes, there are better firearms for certain purposes, but if I could only get 1 firearm to do it all, a 16" AR-15 would be on the short list of possibilities. 

 

And yes, crazies will always be crazy. And they will find ways to possess the tools to do their crazy things. To take away from decent folks their best tools used to stop crazies is counter productive and plain dumb


  • 0

#21 Mr. Clean

Mr. Clean

    PVT

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:42 PM

With the right training you will not fail.  And if you "keep going til you fail" like some people did during basic and not even try, that's another story.  Gun ownership is not just a right.  It's a responsibility.


  • 0

#22 Lord_Vader78

Lord_Vader78

    Specialist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 166 posts
  • LocationAugusta Ga

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:51 PM

" What if I fail the training?"

Go to gun range practice try again.

 

 

'If you deny me a firearm because I fail some training, you are infringing"

No I'm denying because you failed.

 

"I never received any training for this"

You did you just don't remember. How many times has the term been used on tv or movies as a joke or a gag and you see the result and your brain says "damn that makes sense maybe I shouldn't do that" <training

 

"it is the personal responsibility of the citizen to read and educate themselves of their rights and responsibilities when exercising those rights."

You mean Training?

 

"Yes, many of us really do need 30rd magazines. One common use is in Hog hunting".

If you have to expend 30rds without a opportunity to reload I would consider a bigger gun.

 

"Another would be on extending hunting treks"

And you can't bring extra rounds on these trips Like in a ruck or back pack? Do they all have to be in the gun?

 

"One may need 30rnds should they ever have to use it to defend against multiple attackers. And the one that trumps these is if I should ever have to defend and/or fight against a tyrannical govt, foreign or domestic."

 

You know your right, maybe I should mount a C-WIZ on my roof you know just in case.

 

You know I get it you want your guns and I'm all for it But make you argument for your cause solid, this knee-jerk grabasstic reasoning is why non gun owners are scared to death of gun owners.   Saying **** like you NEED a 30 rd mag to kill a wild boar make you in the eyes of the non owners look like a gun crazed lunatic. People have been defending themselves and there property and for that matter hunting boar for hundreds of years with out AR-15's with much success. Hell theres a guided hunt in South Carolina to hunt Boar with a ******* Knife. So don't insult my intelligence by telling me you need a 30rd mag for your AR-15 to hunt boar because you don't. You WANT one to hunt boar. 

 

 

 

 What if I fail the training? I am not a felon or nut case. If you deny me a firearm because I fail some training, you are infringing. And as a former armorer, I have seen many soldiers at ranges that I would REALLY prefer to never ever touch a firearm even after training and retraining, but they still get to. And when I exercise free speech, I know and understand the few restrictions it has, so I don't yell "fire" in a crowded room because it could kill someone and it would be my fault. I never received any training for this. The same premise applies to your gentleman cut off in traffic. When you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, you know and understand the few restrictions it has, such as how and when you can use it. The laws are there, it is the personal responsibility of the citizen to read and educate themselves of their rights and responsibilities when exercising those rights.

 

Yes, many of us really do need 30rd magazines. One common use is in Hog hunting. Another would be on extending hunting treks. One may need 30rnds should they ever have to use it to defend against multiple attackers. And the one that trumps these is if I should ever have to defend and/or fight against a tyrannical govt, foreign or domestic.

 

To home defense, please refer to my previous post (#17). Yes, there are better firearms for certain purposes, but if I could only get 1 firearm to do it all, a 16" AR-15 would be on the short list of possibilities. 

 

And yes, crazies will always be crazy. And they will find ways to possess the tools to do their crazy things. To take away from decent folks their best tools used to stop crazies is counter productive and plain dumb


  • 2

"I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: 'I served in the United States Navy." President John F. Kennedy


#23 Mr. Clean

Mr. Clean

    PVT

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:05 PM

I just got permission to share this.

Some have recently pointed to the modern "assault weapon" - the cosmetically altered semi-auto rifles of today - as being something that was not envisioned by the second amendment. They say that these are modern weapons that are not protected by the second amendment.

Well let's think about it a minute.

What was the state of the art in a soldier's firearms at the time the constitution was written? The musket, a black powder, manually loaded, single shot rifle.

When the constitution was written, arms meant arms, even those in equal capability and capacity to what the military used at the time of the US Revolution.

Where did America raise its armies from? From the citizens. Where did they get their guns initially? They had them already.

America was armed at the time. Militias and watchmen were local groups of armed citizens. These militias and watchmen became soldiers and fought for our freedom using muskets, the state of the art in personal firearms at the time.

An argument can be made for the legalization of full-auto rifles following that principle. And yet, gun-owners already compromised decades ago and gave that up.

We are not giving up any more of our rights because of someone else's fear. We have made out compromise.

The suggested measures of national registration serves only two purposes: taxation and confiscation. It does absolutely nothing to stop crime.


  • 0

#24 Old 33

Old 33

    Specialist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 288 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:54 PM

I think there is justification for states to create their own militia's again.  I don't mean some half-baked "militia movement" put together by a few eccentric citizens, I mean a real state militia under the command of the governor that can not be "federalized" without the governor's consent.  It wouldn't be too expensive, I don't think, to create a few companies of light leg infantry, and maybe a couple of small scout units.  They could use standardized gear that the members would either have to purchase themselves or find a "sponsor" to purchase it for them.  They would need some vehicles but there are plenty of surplus 2-1/2 ton and 5 ton trucks on the market, eBay is full of them.   The state could purchase the vehicles, fuel and other consumables.  I would be willing to bet that something like "The Texas Light Infantry Brigade" might be possible to pull off at a rather manageable expense. Considering the equipment the federal government is transferring to state agencies these days, such a unit could probably be equipped for a song including drones and helicopters.


  • 0

#25 HMFIC

HMFIC

    Founder

  • Founder
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:36 AM

At this point in the discussion, before more discussion of the 2nd Amendment, if you have not done so go read my post below

 

A Breakdown of and Lesson on the Second Amendment


  • 0

HMFIC

Founder

Awesome Sh!t my Drill Sergeant Said

www.ASMDSS.com

www.Facebook.com/ASMDSS

 


#26 Whitepony3

Whitepony3

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:45 PM

defensor tortoise,

 

The amount of paperwork you fill out to stay armed on the job is completely irrelevant to any laws affecting ordinary citizens, because you don't have to stop being a cop when you go home--or anywhere in the country, for that matter. Let's face it, one of your job perks is virtual exemption from basic gun laws. The fact that you're an armed employee of both the state and federal governments makes you exactly the person that the 2nd Amendment was created to protect us from in the first place. The fact that you're trained, equipped with, and can be ordered to our homes to engage us with AR-10s or AR-15s is exactly why normal people need them for their basic home defense to start with. Someday the person we defend our homes against might just be you while you're at work instead of ordinary burglars, that's why owning them is a Constitutional Right and not a regulatable priviledge like driving. We don't have to demonstrate a "need," they're necessary to the security of a free state. Did you catch that? A FREE state, not a police state. Your arrogance in assuming that a LEO is somehow far more qualified to protect me and others safely from a criminal with a rifle than I am to do it myself is remarkable, considering that more innocent bystanders are hit in law enforcement shootings than those involving normal citizens. Not to mention those who die just waiting for the cops to get there.

 

Jeremy 'Monty' Montague

 

You're a Fascist for assuming that involuntary servitude under the Federal Government--especially in its current state--would somehow make us a better nation. I am sick and tired of old men like you dreaming up causes for young men like me to give our lives and die for, while you draw a social security check and reminisce about generations that you didn't live through. You think because your parents copulated here on stolen Indian land that somehow makes you more deserving of a handout from the government than "illegal Mexicans" are, while proposing things that wouldn't even apply to you if they happened, as you justify yourself under a pathetic guise of "patriotism." So with all due respect--you being a Senior Citizen and whatnot--I don't need the government directing every detail of my life for three years to love my country more. I already care enough to recognize the crooked thoughts of fools who bring it down for what they really are.


  • 0

#27 verrigo

verrigo

    FNG

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:34 PM

In responce to the whole gun debate, this is the best answer I have found to the question of gun ownership. It skips past all the noise and gets to the base of the question.
http://www.backwoods...silveira58.html
  • 0

#28 Twitchy

Twitchy

    Growth & Support Lead

  • Growth and Support
  • 49 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:58 PM

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do they not understand?


  • 0

Twitchy

Growth & Support Lead

www.asmdss.com

twitchy@asmdss.com


#29 Steve

Steve

    Specialist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:54 PM

ya know guys. You shot a burglar good job you're a hero but what about when that round flies through the guy through your wall and into your neighbors bedroom and hits him in his bed. Ive seen the aftermath of that exact incident several times throughout my career.

 

Several times? I smell something here, and it isn't roses.


  • 0

#30 Old 33

Old 33

    Specialist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 288 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 15 February 2013 - 10:29 PM

Weapons manufacturers are starting to boycott NY law enforcement agencies over new gun laws.  All contracts cancelled with many manufacturers:

 

http://weaselzippers...w-anti-gun-law/

 

http://www.thegatewa...n-control-laws/

 

http://www.ncgunblog...w-york-boycott/


  • 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ban, guns, flawed, logic, stop, violent, crime, on, contact, idiots

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users