Here we go again - Gun Bans are on the way

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



Did they come door to door and take your guns? Did they disarm the citizens, as you claim they would? Did they go door to door to collect the assault weapons that were already out there? OR DID THEY BAN PRODUCTION AND SALE OF THEM?

I never said a word about door to door confiscation. Now you’re making assumptions.

It will likely be more subtle….such as making guns illegal and giving people a grace period to turn them in. Anyone caught in possession after a certain date would face felony charges.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by seabag
 


All of that, and you didnt answer my question. Did they come door to door and take your guns? Did they disarm the citizens, as you claim they would? Did they go door to door to collect the assault weapons that were already out there? OR DID THEY BAN PRODUCTION AND SALE OF THEM?


Don't hold your breath while waiting.

This is the same guy that believes that the police having a two minute phone conversation with a guy (keep in mind there was no formal investigation, detainment, search, or arrest) was a violation of the 4th Amendment.
There is no grey area or compromise for him.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



Did they come door to door and take your guns? Did they disarm the citizens, as you claim they would? Did they go door to door to collect the assault weapons that were already out there? OR DID THEY BAN PRODUCTION AND SALE OF THEM?

I never said a word about door to door confiscation. Now you’re making assumptions.

It will likely be more subtle….such as making guns illegal and giving people a grace period to turn them in. Anyone caught in possession after a certain date would face felony charges.




So what youa re saying is that they arent going to take our guns. Fair enough.
edit on 16-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Now do you gun lovers understand why lots of NORMAL people don't give a F$%£ about your guns or your love for them.


Anyone who wants a gun can get one….in America or UK or anywhere else. If somebody goes nuts and wants a gun they can buy a used one with no record whatsoever.

How exactly can you state this with a straight face, and then say you're not in favour of gun control?

In the UK you cannot just buy a firearm, getting hold of one is difficult, they're usually blank firing stage pistols and being caught with one will put you in jail for 5-10 years.

It's way way different than you make out.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



Did they come door to door and take your guns? Did they disarm the citizens, as you claim they would? Did they go door to door to collect the assault weapons that were already out there? OR DID THEY BAN PRODUCTION AND SALE OF THEM?

I never said a word about door to door confiscation. Now you’re making assumptions.

It will likely be more subtle….such as making guns illegal and giving people a grace period to turn them in. Anyone caught in possession after a certain date would face felony charges.




So what youa re saying is that they arent going to take our guns. Fair enough.
edit on 16-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


Right! Not take our guns - criminalize the possession of guns. There is not enough man power to TAKE guns.

This is another attempt at making guns illegal to own. Today its assault weapons and tomorrow it could be all long rifles or all pistols. Pretty soon everyone in possession of any type of firearm is a criminal.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



How exactly can you state this with a straight face, and then say you're not in favour of gun control?

UK has gun control!! How did this guy get a gun? Weren’t there some of the strictest gun laws in the world in place??






In the UK you cannot just buy a firearm, getting hold of one is difficult, they're usually blank firing stage pistols and being caught with one will put you in jail for 5-10 years.

It's way way different than you make out.

Criminals never have a hard time finding guns. Don’t be naïve.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by exponent
 

UK has gun control!! How did this guy get a gun? Weren’t there some of the strictest gun laws in the world in place??

He held them legally. You're not exactly helping your case here by showing how easy it is to kill people with guns.


Criminals never have a hard time finding guns. Don’t be naïve.

Then why are there so few gun murders in the UK (30-50 per year) vs 8-12 thousand per year in the US. You have only 5x our population and you have 10x our area.

How is it that we kill so few, and you kill so many?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I could be mistaken but isnt Dianne Feinstein the cow that wants to ban guns, but has a concealed weapons permit for her protection? Because people like her NEED one



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



He held them legally. You're not exactly helping your case here by showing how easy it is to kill people with guns.

So tell me again how effective the UK’s strict gun laws are if he legally owned that gun?


Why advocate for more laws if they don't work?


Then why are there so few gun murders in the UK (30-50 per year) vs 8-12 thousand per year in the US. You have only 5x our population and you have 10x our area.

How is it that we kill so few, and you kill so many?


…Because in US there are 3 guns for every citizen. My point is that even if much stricter gun laws are adopted there will still be millions of guns available. The only people who will be compelled to disarm are law abiding citizens who wish to avoid penalties for possession. Criminals will still have guns!



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ruderalis1
I could be mistaken but isnt Dianne Feinstein the cow that wants to ban guns, but has a concealed weapons permit for her protection? Because people like her NEED one


Well, laws don't apply to the elites.

You know that!



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by exponent
 

So tell me again how effective the UK’s strict gun laws are if he legally owned that gun?


Why advocate for more laws if they don't work?

They do work, the existence of one man killing 12 people in a year doesn't change that. Those 12 people accounted for 1/3rd to 1/2 of all gun homicides that year.


…Because in US there are 3 guns for every citizen. My point is that even if much stricter gun laws are adopted there will still be millions of guns available. The only people who will be compelled to disarm are law abiding citizens who wish to avoid penalties for possession. Criminals will still have guns!

How can you both say that you
a) Kill more people because you have more guns
b) Can't get rid of the guns and so should keep them

It's utter nonsense, you're trying to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. The correct procedure here is to strengthen gun regulations, to slowly collect and destroy illegal firearms and to sort out some of your poverty issues.

The US has incredibly poor people living next to incredibly rich people with literal gun shops on many corners. No wonder people end up shooting each other. Hell if you just made a start on this it would positively affect your crime statistics.

I'm not for banning all guns, just most that are held with no point. Perhaps it would have prevented this massacre if those guns were in a safe the kid didn't know the code to.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Just as I said in another thread:


I have yet to hear one single person come up with even a remotely logical reason why they need a high-cap AR-15. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON.



The 2nd Amendment is not in our constitution because people enjoy hunting. You know this.

The 2nd Amendment is about our right to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. If we are only allowed to possess inferior weapons we have lost our right to defend ourselves. It is that simple. AND, since the government doesn't give us our inalienable rights, our government cannot take them away. We don't have that kind of government in this country. We don't unless of course we allow this president to fundamentally change our nation by destroying our constitution.

What makes you think that those "in charge" in government have your back? What makes you think they always know what is best for you? Are they made of a finer sort of clay than the rest of us?

This nation is unique because our founders designed it that way. I fear for our great nation because there are far too many people who have zero understanding of history.

Those who foolishly trust in the big, benevolent government rather than in themselves and their countrymen.... the stupid, it burns....

edit on 16-12-2012 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



They do work, the existence of one man killing 12 people in a year doesn't change that. Those 12 people accounted for 1/3rd to 1/2 of all gun homicides that year.

You can answer your own question. There are FAR fewer people in UK who possess firearms (legally or illegally) because of the stricter gun laws yet these incidents still occur. OBVIOUSLY it will occur more in a country with a 2nd amendment because gun ownership is significantly more prevalent.


How can you both say that you
a) Kill more people because you have more guns
b) Can't get rid of the guns and so should keep them
It's utter nonsense, you're trying to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. The correct procedure here is to strengthen gun regulations, to slowly collect and destroy illegal firearms and to sort out some of your poverty issues.

It’s no contradictory at all. A)More people WILL be killed because we have more guns. B)All the laws in the world will never get rid of guns, it will only decrease the amount of legally owned guns. It never has had a significant impact on illegal guns and never will.



The US has incredibly poor people living next to incredibly rich people with literal gun shops on many corners. No wonder people end up shooting each other. Hell if you just made a start on this it would positively affect your crime statistics.

As opposed to socialist Europe where all people are nearly equally broke and dependent on government?



I'm not for banning all guns, just most that are held with no point. Perhaps it would have prevented this massacre if those guns were in a safe the kid didn't know the code to.

Again….today it’s an “assault weapons” ban and tomorrow its pistols. Who are you to decide for the rest of us which weapons have “no point”? I agree people should be responsible and keep guns out of reach of others but people have free will in America.

You can’t go around protecting people from themselves!


That's not freedom!



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Why not "ban" banning guns and any other legislation that is patently "unconstitutional"? Make it an act of treason or something to introduce such a bill. I know that dog wont hunt but it ought to give Ms. Feinstein...pause.
edit on 16-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I'm going to make my signature a post since it is so relevant to this discussion.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

- Frederic Bastiat

This says it all ~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 

"They" at least the elite that control the legislators do think that they are superior. The ruling elite in our government have always felt "special" and deserving of special perks, etc. as well.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


The sooner the fools arguing against power being in the hands of the people understand this the better. It is really quite simple.

More loss of life will occur under a tyrannical government than under one crazed individual.

There is a fine line between liberty and safety.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by exponent
 

You can answer your own question. There are FAR fewer people in UK who possess firearms (legally or illegally) because of the stricter gun laws yet these incidents still occur. OBVIOUSLY it will occur more in a country with a 2nd amendment because gun ownership is significantly more prevalent.

So let me get this right. Gun control works, but you also think it doesn't work.

What?! You've just admitted your argument is nonsense!


It’s no contradictory at all. A)More people WILL be killed because we have more guns. B)All the laws in the world will never get rid of guns, it will only decrease the amount of legally owned guns. It never has had a significant impact on illegal guns and never will.

But you just pointed out we kill way way less people, and that because you have guns, you kill more. What exactly has your argument been reduced to here?


As opposed to socialist Europe where all people are nearly equally broke and dependent on government?

Haven't been to Europe have you?


Again….today it’s an “assault weapons” ban and tomorrow its pistols. Who are you to decide for the rest of us which weapons have “no point”? I agree people should be responsible and keep guns out of reach of others but people have free will in America.

People also have free will in Europe. Don't be so ignorant. We are a responsible society not driven by our irrational fear of invaders. That's why we decide what weapons have no point.


You can’t go around protecting people from themselves!


That's not freedom!

We can and do, and I think you'll find we enjoy just as many if not more freedoms than you do. Plus of course if we do get shot, all our healthcare is free at delivery and we have absolutely no worries.

Perhaps you should believe less right wing talking heads and start listening to people who actually live in the UK. I'll answer any questions you like.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by johncarter
 

Well thank you. YOU are the reason we need guns.
You do not care about the law. Does that not make you a criminal? Now it makes sense about why you want guns banned! Do YOU already have your unregistered guns? So that when the normal citizen is disarmed YOU will still be armed since you ALREADY say disregard the law? Able to take advantage of our disarmed state?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





I have yet to hear one single person come up with even a remotely logical reason why they need a high-cap AR-15. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON.


Then you are not paying attention. The reason is to protect and preserve liberty and freedom against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC!

If you haven't noticed the encroaching police state then you live in fantasy land.

You're Not Getting the Guns Period!!!






new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join