Gun Control -- No matter what your opinion, you need to see this , page 4

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by kaylaluv

---

99.99999999% of gun owners have never shot anybody. But way to bigot them all out and sterotype the whole lot.

I didn't say they would. I said they would be able to. Isn't that what you all want? To be able to?

I can't speak for everyone but I certainly want to be ABLE to shoot someone in defense of myself or others.

I was paid to do that in the military with MUCH more powerful and devastating weapons (SMAW). Why should I not be trusted to exercise good judgement now?

Yes, you will be able to shoot 30 people at once, or one person 30 times (if you aren't that good of a shot). I don't know you, so you won't be upset if I don't trust you anymore than I trust that guy who killed Chris Kyle. Eddie Routh was in the military too, wasn't he?

And yet you seem to have full faith in a government who did this. thebellnews.com...

reply to post by kaylaluv

---

Nobody appears to be reading my posts. I am not talking about self-defense. I am talking about the ability to shoot 30 bullets very quickly. This is not self-defense. This is a power thing. So, you say you want this type of gun because the criminal has this type of gun? Great, you shoot him 30 times; he shoots you 30 times. Who wins?

you're completely wrong. didn't you watch the video where the DHS statement was read that said the ar-15 platform with a 30 round clip is a very good choice for personal defense?

A 15-year old boy used his father’s AR-15 to defend himself and his 12-year old sister against two burglars at their home just north of Houston, Texas.

www.breitbart.com...
he hit one of them three times, and the police ended up catching them at a hospital.

www.13wham.com...

another story of an ar-15 saving people from armed home invaders. the presence of the gun scared them away and no one was injured, no shots fired.

a 30 round clip is very useful for home defense, and necessary to the security of a free state.

Originally posted by billy82269


And yet you seem to have full faith in a government who did this. thebellnews.com...

The government that did that, way back when, would just bomb the heck out of us now. You could try shooting at a jet fighter plane, but I don't think it would do much good.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

---

If you are a good shot, you don't need an AR-15 with 30 mag clip. If you aren't a good shot, you probably shouldn't own any gun until you become a good shot.

reply to post by redtic

---

The one key difference, to me, is their intent...

Me too. Its the intent on the part of one who uses anything to murder, not what he commits the murder with. Car, gun, hammer, is irrelevant.

If you were somehow able to "remove all guns" a person with murder on their mind is going to find a way.

The war on alcohol (prohibition), crime, poverty and drugs has been futile as far as it goes. Good lets start a war on guns now.

reply to post by kaylaluv

---

If you aren't a good shot, you probably shouldn't own any gun until you become a good shot.

Being a "good shot" as a qualifier is your criteria? How do we find out? Rent guns?

Whatever. Murderers are good shots too. You know how I know? Because they shot and killed someone.

God shot... murderer. Where did you learn to shoot?

At the gun rental place. They taught me.

Is that kind of like the 911 terrorists learning to fly before going on "their killing spree"?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

---

If you are a good shot, you don't need an AR-15 with 30 mag clip. If you aren't a good shot, you probably shouldn't own any gun until you become a good shot.

this is a completely misinformed statement. firstly you completely ignore the real life situations where they were used to save lives, secondly, it has nothing to do with being a good shot. i suppose you ignored the part of the speech that went into shop owners protecting their businesses during the riot, and only succeeding because they had "high capacity" magazines.

why does the DHS need 7,000 FULL AUTO ar-15's and why did they label them as "personal defense weapons" while referring to semi-auto ar-15's in civilian hands as assault weapons?

cuz no government would ever confiscate weapons, then massacre the defenseless population oh, wait...that's happened every time guns have been confiscated or made illegal. it may take a few years, but it is inevitable.

one last point: if it's only about accuracy, why do highly trained soldiers have 30 round mags? surely a bolt action rifle with a 10 round non-detachable clip would suffice. (proposed limit on guns includes all semi-auto weapons, all weapons capable of accepting a detachable magazine of any size, and any single action firearm with an attached clip of more than 10 rounds. excludes .22 tube fed)

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

---

I believe you've missed my point - the entire reason that the gun even exists is for killing, or at best to maim - either way, its intent is to cause harm. How is that a good thing?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by redtic

---

The one key difference, to me, is their intent...

Me too. Its the intent on the part of one who uses anything to murder, not what he commits the murder with. Car, gun, hammer, is irrelevant.

If you were somehow able to "remove all guns" a person with murder on their mind is going to find a way.

The war on alcohol (prohibition), crime, poverty and drugs has been futile as far as it goes. Good lets start a war on guns now.

I never said that - in fact, I said the opposite - it's too late for a war on guns and it'd be about as fruitful as prohibition or the drug war, as you've stated. We need to rehabilitate the human race so that their perceived need for guns goes away.. that takes time and a lot of foresight..

And I totally disagree that someone with "murder on their mind" is going to find a way regardless - a gun sitting on a dresser makes killing a lot more accessible, a lot more possible and a lot less preventible than, say, a car in the garage, or a hammer in a toolbox. As I've said - guns exist to do harm, they have no other intended purpose. How that benefits us as a human race is beyond me - someday we'll look back on the 18-21 century and think "remember when everyone had guns and we used to kill each other all the time - god, we were stupid back then"...

reply to post by redtic

---

Yes, because flare guns, signal guns, and starter guns are all lethal weapons. Or how about when riot police load their guns with rubber bullets?

Perhaps you missed it but when you state guns only exist for killing, but also maiming, you are attempting to conflate things hoping nobody would notice the contradiction. Killing and maiming are not the same thing. One will get you charged with murder, the other mayhem.

I will relieve you of your burden. You can stop trying to debate gun control because you lack the technical knowledge to actually debate what a gun is, what it does, and why it should be banned.

Perhaps, instead, you should share what will happen without guns in society and see if we agree?

Originally posted by redtic
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

---

I believe you've missed my point - the entire reason that the gun even exists is for killing, or at best to maim - either way, its intent is to cause harm. How is that a good thing?

They also exist to enjoy as exercise, competition, even meditation. Why is it you believe they exist to kill? Guns were not invented to kill the helpless, they were invented to defend against a superior force trying to kill you. The gun was originally invented to give light infantry the ability to stand up to heavy cavalry which usually slaughtered and rode right over them. It is the same way today, the gun allows the 95 lb female to save herself from the 250 lb thug, the lone person against the gang and the oppressed against the oppressor.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by redtic

---

Yes, because flare guns, signal guns, and starter guns are all lethal weapons. Or how about when riot police load their guns with rubber bullets?

Perhaps you missed it but when you state guns only exist for killing, but also maiming, you are attempting to conflate things hoping nobody would notice the contradiction. Killing and maiming are not the same thing. One will get you charged with murder, the other mayhem.

I will relieve you of your burden. You can stop trying to debate gun control because you lack the technical knowledge to actually debate what a gun is, what it does, and why it should be banned.

Perhaps, instead, you should share what will happen without guns in society and see if we agree?

WTF, now we're arguing semantics?? Obviously when I say guns, I mean the firearm, and not signal or starter guns. The gun was invented for war - to do harm to your enemy. To do bad things to other people. Period.

I'm not conflating anything - I believe I'm being very succinct. Guns are for bad, not for good - is that simple enough for you?

I don't give a rats a$$ about my technical knowledge of guns - if you want a signal gun or a starter gun, or a water gun, have at it. You win.

But to argue that guns are a good thing for this earth is totally illogical. And, as I've stated, it's too late - you can't just ban all guns and things will be hunky-dory. It will take a huge consciousness shift over many decades/centuries that I don't even know is possible anymore, much to our detriment.

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by redtic

---

Yes, because flare guns, signal guns, and starter guns are all lethal weapons. Or how about when riot police load their guns with rubber bullets?

Perhaps you missed it but when you state guns only exist for killing, but also maiming, you are attempting to conflate things hoping nobody would notice the contradiction. Killing and maiming are not the same thing. One will get you charged with murder, the other mayhem.

I will relieve you of your burden. You can stop trying to debate gun control because you lack the technical knowledge to actually debate what a gun is, what it does, and why it should be banned.

Perhaps, instead, you should share what will happen without guns in society and see if we agree?

WTF, now we're arguing semantics?? Obviously when I say guns, I mean the firearm, and not signal or starter guns. The gun was invented for war - to do harm to your enemy. To do bad things to other people. Period.

I'm not conflating anything - I believe I'm being very succinct. Guns are for bad, not for good - is that simple enough for you?

I don't give a rats a$$ about my technical knowledge of guns - if you want a signal gun or a starter gun, or a water gun, have at it. You win.

But to argue that guns are a good thing for this earth is totally illogical. And, as I've stated, it's too late - you can't just ban all guns and things will be hunky-dory. It will take a huge consciousness shift over many decades/centuries that I don't even know is possible anymore, much to our detriment.

To argue that they are not a good thing is the illogical position. The strong have always preyed upon and subjugated the weak. It has been that way since before recorded history and is a part of human nature. Anything that gives the weak an equal footing is an achievement for humanity. The gun has done that throughout it's history, In fact, there would be no such concept as human or civil rights were it not for the gun. Irregardless of what is written on a piece of paper, the only rights you have are those you have the ability to fight for.

reply to post by redtic

---

And I totally disagree that someone with "murder on their mind" is going to find a way regardless - a gun sitting on a dresser makes killing a lot more accessible, a lot more possible and a lot less preventible than, say, a car in the garage, or a hammer in a toolbox.

Actually a gun is a lot louder than hammer or a knife. Most murderers want to get away with their crime and shooting someone is a bit obvious. Guns are loud and there are bullets in the body. A gun is not the first best choice.

Unless they don't care. Those people don't care about "laws" or "consequences" either.

Keeping a "gun on the dresser" is asking for trouble, by the way. That person is irresponsible with firearm safety.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

---

If you are a good shot, you don't need an AR-15 with 30 mag clip. If you aren't a good shot, you probably shouldn't own any gun until you become a good shot.

What does it matter if you can't shoot good? I don't see that anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

---

If you are a good shot, you don't need an AR-15 with 30 mag clip. If you aren't a good shot, you probably shouldn't own any gun until you become a good shot.

That plane has to land sometime.

UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags

Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags

Update...Canada Couple Wins Right To Grow Vegetables On Front Lawn...Case Closed!
  Posted 16 days ago with 25 member flags

We argue about Healthcare, meanwhile, the Elephant laughs (pls read!)
  Posted 13 days ago with 25 member flags

A new country in North America? What do Canadians and Americans make of this?
  Posted 9 days ago with 22 member flags

" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags

Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags

Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: