Massachusetts: proposed "arsenal" law"

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

lol i live in Canada because I was born here. If i was born in the states I might have a different view, but bad education systems do that to people...

That is such a weak excuse.

This doesn't seem like such a bad idea. After all, they aren't taking guns away from law abiding citizens, but rather, they are helping the citizens keep their guns away from those that will abuse them.

That's the biggest problem I have with the whole... right to bear arms debate.
Making guns illegal would probably be the stupidest and most dangerous thing the government could do. After all, making them illegal would only be keeping them from law abiding citizens. And it isn't the law abiding citizens with guns that are dangerous... It's the criminals with guns that are dangerous.
So by making guns illegal... we'll be arming the criminals and disarming the potential victims.


I don't really see how this arsenal law would be that big of a problem. It's not like they are taking the guns away - they're just making it so the guns will be locked up. And from what I know, most people lock their guns up when they don't need them, anyway.
I mean, I can see where having an alarm that notifies the police might be a little bit over-the-top... but I don't have much of an opinion on that.

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by OUNjahhryn

 

lol yeah so Picasso was a good painter because he owned a lot of brushes?
Michael Jackson was a good dancer because he owned a lot of shoes?

Your comment is ridiculous.

As is yours sir...

different guns different purpose...
just like the sounds a piano and guitar and drums make...

You didnt think all we Americans hunted with machine guns did ya?

i'm not questioning using a gun for hunting, just necessity vs materialism. HOW MANY things do you hunt that you need in excess of 10 firearms?

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

lol i live in Canada because I was born here. If i was born in the states I might have a different view, but bad education systems do that to people...

That is such a weak excuse.

it wasn't an excuse as much as me poking fun of your falsified textbooks and patriotic power tripping propaganda your country feeds its children.

unless you mean my excuse for why i live in Canada, but if you were referring to that, then I doubt it required a comment.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

lol where do you live so i can stay far far away. im a musician and you own more guns than I do instruments. you seems like a family that hunts so I understand owning some guns, but seriously now... how many rabbits do you need to kill....

c'mon...he has rabbits and squirrels all over the place...and they all need to be shot. 10 gun limit??? there should be no limit on how many you can own. it is our god-given right to kill as many animals as we wish, plus the occasional tresspasser. we are americans for christs sake.

I currently own two firearms: A Glock 17 and a Mossberg 12 gauge Tactical Persuader (with a Tac-Stock). I am looking for a good affordable high powered long range rifle. Something I could kill a moose through an engine block with. Any suggestions?

reply to post by OUNjahhryn


As I said: Weak.

You suffer from a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Something took away your rights and that was so horrible that you convinced yourself it is a good thing to have happen to you and that the people who still have those rights are somehow bad and to be 'poked fun at'.

Weak.

reply to post by jimmyx


FYI
twice a month weather permitting
I take the family out to the shooting range....
so it's not all about hunting rabbits...

What a load of crap and abuse of power.
If the home owner is a legal owner of firearms, then local Govt and LEA have no business forcing people to give out this info period.
A slow stripping of rights will always go unnoticed.
Any person who calls into 911 has the opportunity to let LEO know if there are any firearms in the house.
States requiring firearms being locked within the home, requiring homeowners to divulge information.

Ok, just another state to add to my "Do not travel to/through or live in".

reply to post by OUNjahhryn


If I was trying to rob or shoot someone I'd probably think twice if that guy was armed and would shoot back. Since gun laws only control law abiding people it puts them at a disadvantage so why even bother. Yes they destroy things too so do knives, bow&arrows, Chemicals, and a ton of stuff but come on is controlling all those things is really gonna get us anywhere? Not to mention they have purposeful uses too that are beneficial...

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

lol where do you live so i can stay far far away. im a musician and you own more guns than I do instruments. you seems like a family that hunts so I understand owning some guns, but seriously now... how many rabbits do you need to kill....

c'mon...he has rabbits and squirrels all over the place...and they all need to be shot. 10 gun limit??? there should be no limit on how many you can own. it is our god-given right to kill as many animals as we wish, plus the occasional tresspasser. we are americans for christs sake.

lol finally someone gets what i'm saying! I have no quarrel with firearms being used for hunting, its just a necessity vs hobby thing. theres no way you need more than 10 firearms, for anything!

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by OUNjahhryn

 

As I said: Weak.

You suffer from a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Something took away your rights and that was so horrible that you convinced yourself it is a good thing to have happen to you and that the people who still have those rights are somehow bad and to be 'poked fun at'.

Weak.

edit on 9-5-2011 by Exuberant1 because: weak

huh? i CAN own guns in Canada btw....but just because I can do something doesn't mean I want to or agree with it.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

lol where do you live so i can stay far far away. im a musician and you own more guns than I do instruments. you seems like a family that hunts so I understand owning some guns, but seriously now... how many rabbits do you need to kill....

So what if he does?

It is called personal freedom. You obviously don't get it.

I think there should be a ban on how many musical instruments one can have. You only need a guitar and piano. Drums are way too loud and could disturb your neighbor.

reply to post by xFloggingMaryx

I don't really see how this arsenal law would be that big of a problem. It's not like they are taking the guns away - they're just making it so the guns will be locked up. And from what I know, most people lock their guns up when they don't need them, anyway. I mean, I can see where having an alarm that notifies the police might be a little bit over-the-top... but I don't have much of an opinion on that.

I don't I leave mine in arms reach with a round chambered cause if I did need it in an emergency what good is it locked up with no bullets in it lol...

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

I think the law should be "if you own more than 10 guns, get rid of most of them"

Which is why you live in Canada. In America we believe in inalienable, natural rights. The second amendment is a wonderful thing and I will own as many guns as I want to. I would expect nothing less from a big government, progressive utopia like Massachusetts.

My question is... who decides what "most of them" is? How many is most of them? Which ones can I keep? The only people effected by gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals break laws (hence the term criminal).

I don't know how a gun is a "natural right" i didn't know guns grew on trees.

Neither does your instruments.

reply to post by RickyD


we should destroy all guns and only allow swords. reinstate the samurai code. i'm sure the cowards that use guns against innocents to rob or intimidate would all but vanish.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
reply to post by RickyD

 

we should destroy all guns and only allow swords. reinstate the samurai code. i'm sure the cowards that use guns against innocents to rob or intimidate would all but vanish.

Samurai had crossbows. Your argument stinks more then what I left in the toilet.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

I think the law should be "if you own more than 10 guns, get rid of most of them"

Which is why you live in Canada. In America we believe in inalienable, natural rights. The second amendment is a wonderful thing and I will own as many guns as I want to. I would expect nothing less from a big government, progressive utopia like Massachusetts.

My question is... who decides what "most of them" is? How many is most of them? Which ones can I keep? The only people effected by gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals break laws (hence the term criminal).

I don't know how a gun is a "natural right" i didn't know guns grew on trees.

Neither does your instruments.

"neither do your instruments"

my instruments also don't fire metal at high velocity designed specifically to kill efficiently.

Also, if you read some more of my posts, you would see i'm not against owning guns for hunting.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
reply to post by RickyD

 

we should destroy all guns and only allow swords. reinstate the samurai code. i'm sure the cowards that use guns against innocents to rob or intimidate would all but vanish.

Samurai had crossbows. Your argument stinks more then what I left in the toilet.

actually they used a yumi compound bow. but im pretty sure that was only for horseback. plus the samurai really changed after (i think) chinese or mongolians invaded. so depending on what era you get your information on, its very different.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

I think the law should be "if you own more than 10 guns, get rid of most of them"

Which is why you live in Canada. In America we believe in inalienable, natural rights. The second amendment is a wonderful thing and I will own as many guns as I want to. I would expect nothing less from a big government, progressive utopia like Massachusetts.

My question is... who decides what "most of them" is? How many is most of them? Which ones can I keep? The only people effected by gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals break laws (hence the term criminal).

I don't know how a gun is a "natural right" i didn't know guns grew on trees.

Neither does your instruments.

"neither do your instruments"

my instruments also don't fire metal at high velocity designed specifically to kill efficiently.

Also, if you read some more of my posts, you would see i'm not against owning guns for hunting.

You just suggested that all guns be destroyed. Sounds pretty anti gun to me.
You don't understand something, so you fear it. It is basic human nature, I don't fault you for this flawed logic.
We here in the states have protected rights, whether you agree or not and whether you understand it or not. One of those rights is firearm ownership. And, if you look at history, this right is more along the lines for forming a militia, to defend against foreign and domestic threats. So, the ownership of many firearms could be used to arm such group. That is why the Govt has started a slow encroachment of this right. To prevent the People from having the ability to defend from both foreign and domestic threats.