America is not banning guns and that is that.

page: 11
31
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
This entire idea of banning guns is ridiculous! If some insane person murders kids with a knife, are we going to ban knives too? What's going to stop an insane person from using another method of killing? Think people.


Case in point the man in China who attacked schoolchildren with a knife. He injured more than a score but he didn't kill one.

Now if he had had a semi-automatic rifle !

You can't just ignore the ease with which these weapons can kill a large number of people.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Case in point the man in China who attacked schoolchildren with a knife. He injured more than a score but he didn't kill one.


That's unusual, though. China has had a number of those incidents in recent years, and usually, it involves several fatalities. But I don't disagree with you. A semi-automatic rifle is certainly more dangerous in the wrong hands.

That said, I don't think an 'assault rifle' ban will do much at all to minimize the damage in these incidents. The sustained rate of fire even out of a pump or lever action rifle/shotgun is considerable. The guy who went on a rampage over in the UK and killed a dozen people a few years ago with a shotgun is plenty of evidence of that, and I don't think the UK allows even a pump shotgun to have more than 1 or 2 in the magazine.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by Computron
 


Q: What killed 20 Children and 7 adults in that school the other day?

Select answer from below:

a: A tree
b: A Knife
c: Bullets fired from automatic weapon, close range, multipul shots.

If you want to protect yourself from Snakes, Reptiles, Bears. First of all, Man-up then perhaps fire with a single shot reloadable pistol?

No need for AK-47, M-16, TAC-9, HK ETC ETC In the hands of the average man on the street. You a member of public not a one man malitia?

Deep down I know you know are wrong. Your just making # up to form what you believe is a warranted argument against my hate for guns.

Sure, give the police guns, give the military guns. But guns lying around the houses of Joe blow America? Nah.

I have been lucky to see the world, it's part of my Job, but you my friend, through no fault of your own havent. And I'm affraid you are therefore not entitled to an opinion to judge me or others if you have not seen it from our eyes. I have, and I think you are all still loonies wandering around with guns.

Give it up.

I'll think of you when your president makes the change.

I hope it's a tough one.

Just remember, I'll be smiling. You might want to look me up when it happens, I'll be free for a chat.


What stopped this killing spree, as all others?
1). Soft words
2). Winning smile
3). Good men armed to the teeth with guns and willing to kill the perpetrator



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
I guess what I'm really trying to get my head around is why there are 270,000,000 people with legal firearms in the US.

That's 270,000,000 people that feel threatened enough to carry a deadly weapon.

270,000,000 people that can't live life without the protection of a deadly weapon.

270,000,000 people who's lives would be unbearable and cave in if they didn't have the protection of a deadly weapon.

270 Million separate people.

Paronoid? You decide.

Bear in mind, these weapons can legaly be used agains't another human being in the event of "the decision being made".

Unlike most other countries where you can on use your weapon at a range.

I can't get my gun out and shoot away in Australia at a human and declare self defence

I can't get my gun out and shoot away in the UK at a human and declare self defence

I won't go on, but the list pretty much covers the whole of the civilised world.

So who do you need protection from? Yourselves America?




edit on 17-12-2012 by CaptainBeno because: vid


ANd out of those 270 million legally owned firearms, how many were used in a crime? 9k murders with 270 million guns. 9,000/270,000,000=.00003333 Legal guns are very, very rarely used in crime. Consider that long arms ("assault", sporting rifles, shotguns together are long arms) were used in 300 of those murders, we see that banning semi-automatic rifles would be just a microscopic blip on the criminal radar.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
reply to post by Helious
 

although i agree with everything you said, you have said nothing any different than a hundred or more members have said on this site. but in the years from 1993 to now against the constitution has not stopped our government from doing pretty much what they damn well please.
how do you explain the fact that they had a gun ban in the past. it might not have been a all out gun grab, it did succeed in causeing severe losses in our second amendment right and some would say our first and fourth.
and they have been making a steady push to take away more and more.
and you can bet that they are tweaking the gun ban list as we type.
edit on 16-12-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



We dont have any or much representation that looks to the peoples rights. They move by other winds......and thus are wind bags. We cant trust representation to not turn into a DC stuge when they get up there.....and go from representing the people to learning to see the"big picture" and then preach to us about it.
edit on 18-12-2012 by Logarock because: n



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Computron
 


Its more than just that. Its a total disconnect with rural America and a complete lack of respect for our values and attitudes on subjects such as this one.

I think the one thing both sides need to realize is that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't serve anyone. This needs to be a state's right issue. I don't care if Massachusetts bans guns, if that's what their people want. Good for them. Likewise, respect and accept our decision to allow them.

Mutual respect and self-determination of our laws and way of life is too much to ask these days, unfortunately.



Oh yea. We have seen it. The anti gun types, and I saw some on CNN the other day, think that hicks dont understand what good for them and keep guns.....cause dumbazz just dont know any better bless his little country heart.

The were flaping, had a panel, on CNN the other day with that imported british guy.......and you have never seen such a fixture of tards all the way around. Even the pro 2nd rep was a tard. And this is cutting edge gun talk. Like a bunch of apes scratching and sniffing.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Never let a perfectly good crisis go to waste.
It won't work.
Why punish law abiding Americans in all 50 states all because of a mentally unstable
guy in Connecticut?
Isn't it odd that the progressives are ignoring the endless shootouts in Chicago?
Gun control laws are not working there.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
If the principle had a gun she is just as likely to still be dead and the gunman would of just had another gun. The debate continues.


I can see this being one of those scenarios where it is better to have it and not need it vs. need it and not have it.

Remember, this kid had 4 handguns on him and several rounds. Its not as if he needed another gun. And the teachers and principal being armed and trained to use a weapon is better than them being slaughtered while they huddle together over in a corner...At least they have a fighting chance. And lets be honest, how many people are going to want to go shoot up a school if they know that the faculty is armed and trained to use weapons?
edit on 18-12-2012 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Yep, Good on'ya Jar Head.

It's not me you have to convince. I'm not interested in what you have to say at all. You love guns, I don't.

However, I will be smiling when I picture the thought of YOU handing in you Auto's to be melted into candle holders.

Good luck pal
Oorah!
edit on 18-12-2012 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Power_Semi
 
That isnt any kind of argument. Its something a college freshman would make. When the founders said arms they were talking about fire arms.



Single shot firearms.

Correct!



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Mass Murders Are On The Rise


According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

Since 1980, which is a bit disingenuous. ALso the definition: (4 or more) considering that the majority of those cited are associated with the illegal drug trade, it does not hold the fact that the mass spree killings are on the rise. Broaden the dedinition and of course you'll expand the numbers.


1 to 2 mass murders per decade up until the 80's

9 in the 1980's
11 in the 1990's

Since 2000 there have been 27

Mass murders being defined as 4 or more victims.

No matter how you look at it or what names you call it - that's a rise in mass murders.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Yep, Good on'ya Jar Head.

It's not me you have to convince. I'm not interested in what you have to say at all. You love guns, I don't.

However, I will be smiling when I picture the thought of YOU handing in you Auto's to be melted into candle holders.

Good luck pal
Oorah!
edit on 18-12-2012 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)


LOL. You think you know what you are talking about, and you are trying to be clever, but look at the "Navy" part of my name and get back to me.

I'm so sorry you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object. Perhaps some counseling to explore the root cause of that fear would be helpful.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Mass Murders Are On The Rise


According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

Since 1980, which is a bit disingenuous. ALso the definition: (4 or more) considering that the majority of those cited are associated with the illegal drug trade, it does not hold the fact that the mass spree killings are on the rise. Broaden the dedinition and of course you'll expand the numbers.


1 to 2 mass murders per decade up until the 80's

9 in the 1980's
11 in the 1990's

Since 2000 there have been 27

Mass murders being defined as 4 or more victims.

No matter how you look at it or what names you call it - that's a rise in mass murders.


11 durnig the so called "assault weapons ban." Looks like assault weapon bans do not stop mass murders.

Even if you take the NY Times article at face value, it still shows that the decades where we had less gun control, we had less mass murders. Up until 1968, you could buy semi-automatic rifles through the mail from SEARS, yet there were no school shootings in the 30's, 40's, 50.s, 60's, and 70's.
edit on 19-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Power_Semi
 
That isnt any kind of argument. Its something a college freshman would make. When the founders said arms they were talking about fire arms.



Single shot firearms.

Correct!


They were talking about the standard infantry weapons of the day and they knew it. In fact, if you look at the militia act of 1791, sponsored by the father of the second amendment, James Madison, you would see the intent was to have the citizen armed with the same rifle as the average soldier--like they do in Switzerland now.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Finally one voice of reason amid a sea Of Ignorance specially for those that have not clue What the constitution of the US is all about and specially the second Amendment

No government in power including congress will dare touch the second amendment

Like you said is not going to happen and that is that.



But, but, the monkeys and clowns that has grown fat on the spoils of corruption at the expenses of the people in the nation are growing increasingly fearful of a well armed population, with the rights to end the corruption and that is what will prompt them to make owning arms more difficult for law abiding citizens.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Helious
 


Finally one voice of reason amid a sea Of Ignorance specially for those that have not clue What the constitution of the US is all about and specially the second Amendment

No government in power including congress will dare touch the second amendment

Like you said is not going to happen and that is that.



But, but, the monkeys and clowns that has grown fat on the spoils of corruption at the expenses of the people in the nation are growing increasingly fearful of a well armed population, with the rights to end the corruption and that is what will prompt them to make owning arms more difficult for law abiding citizens.


Star for you. Well said. The issue is that the corrupt politicians hate and fear an armed populace and that is why they want to do away with private arms--especially rifles. The problem is that they will get around the 2nd amendment but not banning them, but do things like expand the NFA, tax them out of reach, use EPA rules to restrict their manufacture and use, and various other dishonest things to get around that pesky civil right.

As I always say, any politician who votes for a gun ban while surrounded by armed guards is a hypocrite. If guns are evil, the president should lead by example and completely disarm the secret service. Only then will his views be anything other than insincere hypocrisy.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I posted this in another thread but I think it works
in all these Gun ownership worry arenas.


I am for gun ownership.
I think that its a fantastic deterrent for would be invaders, whether China or a crack head.

Have you heard the stat that gun owners in the US are the most powerful force on earth?
If we are talking purely conventional war & say the Chinese Army invaded.
They wouldn't stand a chance against US citizens. I think we could miss
our mark 9 out of 10 times and still have more guns and ammo. Not to mention owners
that are extremely proficient with them. Our government knows this fact.
They ain't coming for your guns.

It takes 200,000 troops
to secure 1,000,000 UNARMED civilians .
At 300,000,000 people,
even if we were unarmed, they couldn't do it.

All this, "They are gonna take our guns ! "
is the NRA letting you lobby for them.
The bigger the tradgedy the louder they get YOU to yell.
Let's think about it..

...It always amazes me how mad some gun owners get
when there is a mass slaying. They aren't mad at the shooter,
they are mad because what happened may effect them.
(though it never really has) Any gun owner want to tell me
how many guns Clinton or Obama have taken from you?
Having your guns physically taken and not being able to
buy an M-4 with an M-203 attachment are two TOTALLY different actions.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


That is the sad thing, we know the agenda behind the gun ban using any excuse to make this happen.

Sadly when crime of opportunities happens the government is always there to take the advantage under the umbrella that they care.

I am so angry of how the clowns and monkeys come forward in TV with tears of make believe to soften the harts of the gullible and impressionable, sadly many Americans in the US still believe in their system of government and that is still pure and honest.

Is like watching a movie you can pretty much know ahead of time what the outcome will be.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





I'm so sorry you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object. Perhaps some counseling to explore the root cause of that fear would be helpful.


LOL, Yeah that's right because I must be in such a small minority on this planet? I forgot for a moment there, but thanks for pointing out my undiagnosed fear Doc.

Hey Everybody look Ol'NavyDoc has found my fear! And there was me thinking it was something stupid............like spiders?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.





top topics
 
31
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join