Guncontrolism: A pathology of the weak and fearful.

a reply to: murphy22

I don't really classify you as a gun nut unless you own three rifles, four pistols, and two shotguns, and open carry in front of playgrounds and primary schools.

If by "lawyer smooth" you mean "buried under 387 pieces of legislation", yes.
However, the difference between having true registration and background checks is that the private market is generally unregulated, correct? A background check is only applicable at the moment you buy the gun, after that they have no idea where it goes.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

There is an old saying, "laws are for the lawless".
You are are kind of correct. That was the original intent of the "backround" check. It wasn't intened to track or register. But it has morphed, like all laws do. If you purchase a firearm with a backround check. It behooves one to maintain personal control of that weapon.

The "private market" will always be unregulated.

The only thing any "reasonable" new "laws" made for the US. will do, is create new criminals out of previously innocent citizens.

America doesn't have a "gun problem". We have a lack of standards and respect. The worst part of our problem. Is the fact that those pushing for more "law" control of any kind. Are the same people that have helped to destroy our standards and civil respect. Most of them hate thier/this country.

The whole charade is really about destroying and distorting truth, freedom and individualism.

It is already illegal to muder. How much more "reasonable" can you get?

I believe it was 2014 our own FBI stats showed more people died from hammer blow than bullets.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: EilasvaleleynAmerica doesn't have a "gun problem".

Of course not. It's all inside our heads

We have a lack of standards and respect.

Of course not: your standard is to shoot the bastard in his face, that'll teach him respect

The worst part of our problem. Is the fact that those pushing for more "law" control of any kind. Are the same people that have helped to destroy our standards and civil respect. Most of them hate thier/this country.

Destroy your standards? I don't think so. Shooting and kllling has been part of your culture since it began. Cowboys and indians, North against South, white against black. Lynching, shooting, robbing and murdering. Even today, your right wing solutions are all about weapons. You believe in shock and awe, in forcefully bringing people you don't like down. Look at your history, especially at the recent history: kiling, bombing, shooting. Guantanomo bay - yeah, respect. Waterboarding - respect. Spying on everybody - out of respect of course. Your respectful police sets the best example by shooting down "'n-word's" - respect. Go, tell me about respect.

Heck yean. "I have a bigger gun - so respect me!"

Sigh.

I believe it was 2014 our own FBI stats showed more people died from hammer blow than bullets.

Even if that were true - hammers are meant to hit a nail, not a head. They are, like guns, abundantly available in the US - but I'm not in favour of a ban of hammers. The main reason is that hammers are NOT - repeat; NOT - made with the intent to kill people. Guns are. There is no other reason to own a gun than that one eventually wants to kill others using it. Also, when the moment comes - and you are the one that determines when - you will be the judge, jury and executioner, all in one, and in the blink of an eye.

Respect. Sure.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: namelesss

I believe he was joking.

The ego problem with firearms definitely exists, but it's generally only the people who tote AR-15s in front of playgrounds and primary schools who have a large one.

Yeah, ok, it's always the 'other guy'...
Whether joking or not, it appears that a point needed to be made, anyway.
It's never 'personal', and it always is! *__-

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: namelesss

Here is another cookie for your jar there nameless: God created all men, Sam Colt made them equal… Samuel Hamilton Walker

So, Mr. Walker's 'argument' (you're right, fortune cookie/bumpersticker) is that a sudden violent death is the final arbiter, and he is willing to bring it to a theater near me?
Next cookie says; "Thanks but no thanks!"

The words of Mr. Walker proclaim much about him; a man of no Faith, for one. A Loveless man, unhappy, selfish, greedy, uncharitable...

Have a Loving day! *__-

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I believe you made my point, better than I could! Thanks for the help. I stand corrected! Although your ignorance is spotlighted in a few of your statements. But you're British? Was it? Commenting on things you have no clue what you're talking about.... It cracks an American smile. Don't go be hard on yourself, o'l chap! Just listen for a while. You may learn something.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I believe you made my point, better than I could! Thanks for the help. I stand corrected! Although your ignorance is spotlighted in a few of your statements. But you're British? Was it? Commenting on things you have no clue what you're talking about.... It cracks an American smile. Don't go be hard on yourself, o'l chap! Just listen for a while. You may learn something.

It's a hard lesson you'll have to learn, but it will be learned sooner or later: that the world is NOT ruled by the ones with weapons, but by the ones selling them. And the thousands of innocent deaths in your country due to firearms are seen as merely collateral damage - as long as they have you and your kind to believe that respect is all about the right to own a firearm.

Yeah. Respect. *Boom*

a reply to: namelesss

Sam Colt made them equal

I think you missed the point. Firearms make the meek and the strong equal. An AR-15 is just as effective at defending the life of a teenage girl as it is in defending a home on the range against coyotes. Predators are threat reduced by small arms.

a reply to: machineintelligence

It's also just as effective at taking the life of a teenage girl, is it not?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Firearms have saved far more than they have killed. The problem is that many of these saves go unreported because no crime was committed because the perp was cut off at the point of intent when the proposed victim was found to be armed.

Wait! Wait! Wait! None of you got the memo! People got wise to what was really meant by gun control and rejected it. Soooooo now its "gun safety!" You know like liberal became progressive or glow ball smarming became climax change!

people get wise to a egregious idea named in nice friendly nomenclature so ya change the nomenclature to something less recognizeable as a liberty destroying ploy.

the big red nuclear button is now known as the energetic peace and welfare restoration activator.

a reply to: machineintelligence

How many times was the gun that cut off the intent an AR-15 or equivalent?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: EilasvaleleynAmerica doesn't have a "gun problem".

Of course not. It's all inside our heads

We have a lack of standards and respect.

Of course not: your standard is to shoot the bastard in his face, that'll teach him respect

The worst part of our problem. Is the fact that those pushing for more "law" control of any kind. Are the same people that have helped to destroy our standards and civil respect. Most of them hate thier/this country.

Destroy your standards? I don't think so. Shooting and kllling has been part of your culture since it began. Cowboys and indians, North against South, white against black. Lynching, shooting, robbing and murdering. Even today, your right wing solutions are all about weapons. You believe in shock and awe, in forcefully bringing people you don't like down. Look at your history, especially at the recent history: kiling, bombing, shooting. Guantanomo bay - yeah, respect. Waterboarding - respect. Spying on everybody - out of respect of course. Your respectful police sets the best example by shooting down "'n-word's" - respect. Go, tell me about respect.

Heck yean. "I have a bigger gun - so respect me!"

Sigh.

I believe it was 2014 our own FBI stats showed more people died from hammer blow than bullets.

Even if that were true - hammers are meant to hit a nail, not a head. They are, like guns, abundantly available in the US - but I'm not in favour of a ban of hammers. The main reason is that hammers are NOT - repeat; NOT - made with the intent to kill people. Guns are. There is no other reason to own a gun than that one eventually wants to kill others using it. Also, when the moment comes - and you are the one that determines when - you will be the judge, jury and executioner, all in one, and in the blink of an eye.

Respect. Sure.

My gun is incapable of forming intent! What a rip off! I wanna gun with killer intent now! also it's lazy. I have never seen it once not even once jump out of storage and so much as switch a channel on the TV. and it never takes out the trash!

a reply to: stormbringer1701

The point is that guns exist exclusively for harming things, for destruction. That is what they are designed to do, and it is all they are capable of.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: stormbringer1701

The point is that guns exist exclusively for harming things, for destruction. That is what they are designed to do, and it is all they are capable of.

a hammer will make a mess of someone's head. seems pretty capable to me. in fact there used to be things called war hammers.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: machineintelligence

It's also just as effective at taking the life of a teenage girl, is it not?

Not if she had one.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Very very few children are injured by guns. More children are injured by vaccines by a large margin.

When only governments are allowed to possess weapons that is usually marked by the beginning of a tyranny historically. Democide or the government killing its people is far too common in human history for a free people to allow themselves to be disarmed.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Seriously mate, good for you and your passion for your 2nd amendment... but I'll give you the hot tip, you don't do your cause any favours when you go on paranoid tangents about how the government promotes gun restrictions for the purpose of committing genocide and and rounding citizens up into fema camps.

Your fearful mentality is not based on reality, evident by the fact that basically all 1st world countries other than the US have strict gun regulations and have just as much rights as US citizens... we aren't constantly being shot by paranoid police either, like in the US, since every suspect is potentially armed. We also don't have armed gangs turning our major cities into war zones either.

If your going to debate the issue, at least base your arguments on reality, rather than paranoid fantasies... that's all I'm saying.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

WANT to make a BET?
THEY land somewhere.
AFBs are EASY to hit with a correct team.