Will You Anti-Gun Folk Ever Get It? (Video)!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave

Originally posted by Havox

Originally posted by freedomSlave
I am not anti gun I am for commonsense .
will you paranoid americans ever get it .Nope sadly paranoia and fear takes over commonsense .

If you had any common sense you'd realize that criminals would still have weapons, this will just hurt the average gun owner, who will no longer be able to protect themselves.


who the hell said anything about taking away your guns wtf? Yes so what if some criminals have guns I still don't live in fear of a boogie man .

So what is wrong with proper back ground checks and take away the guns of people who are unfit , what is wrong with ban on certain guns. You have a right to bear arms does that mean you can own a ballistic missile or a atomic weapons , clearly and sadly all to many americans can't figure out where to draw the line. by your guy's logic lets make it easier for criminals to get fire arms expect everyone and anyone to have a gun because some boogie man might come into your house to kill you and what might those odds be ?

Is crime and home invasions in the usa so rampant am I to believe that the crime rate there is worse than a 3rd world country ?

would be nice if you people would stop putting words in my mouth and assume. because really you just come across as a jack ass .

And people down there why their country is always the butt of a joke lol

reason and logic as always goes out the window , fearful paranoid america the world sees it but sadly many there dont
edit on 23/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)

Most Anti-Gun people don't want us to have any firearms, not background checks. Regardless, if someone is mentally unstable and wants to kill people, then they shouldn't be in the public anyway. Making it harder for regular citizens to acquire their firearms isn't right.




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 




who the hell said anything about taking away your guns ,makes me question how many people understood the bill lol wow or if were even able to understand the bill. Seriously you guys just make this up out of fear and paranoia than attack anyone who views things differently and just plain make up stuff to bash them with


Does typing in bigger font help you display your emotions? I live in Chicago I have a backround check in my pocket called a FOID card. I was for the backround checks. I even listen to MSM for #s and giggles so I can cross reference that with my Alternative Media Source ATS. Now, what I did hear the MSM was that they bill was shot down, not because of the backround check but because there was content inside that deliberately violated the Constitution. Do you know what what was, and do you understand what was in that bill? By your big font I say no.

If you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on in regards to firearms then don't expect to understand a American who feels like these bills being passed aren't to protect you. If you feel safe w/o a gun come to my neighborhood and i'll drop you off where you will feel out of place and don't belong. People disapear here. Because you live in a safe haven neighborhood, don't expect to understand the rest of the US when you haven't travelled farther than the job you made a career.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


Yikes.... I really need to proof read more before I post... my bad.... Reading that again I see some grammatical errors.... Ohhhh well~



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Havox
 

No I think people should have the right to arm themselves if thats what they want but what really does one need to protect themselves , a shot gun works would well for home defense it has a wide spread making it easier for anyone to hit but the odds of an home invasion with a armed person is rather small.

Rifles are great for hunting an ar 15 probably not so much , also what does someone need a 30 round clip for ?

honestly I think the NRA did a lot of fear mongering .as they were the ones to truly stand to lose the most , profits in sales . Not to mention the lose of revenue from taxes ( if there is a sales tax down there)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


No typing in bigger fonts was to make it easier for some of you people to read as you were not paying attention to what I was saying and instead there is a knee jerk reaction and going off about the regular bs blah blah blah , nothing even remotely what I am talking about to.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


I am going to go with the believe that since you call a magazine a "clip", you really don't know much about guns.

An AR-15....outstanding hog hunting rifle. Hog are dangerous and costly vermin down here. A 30 round mag....will enable to you get off enough shots to do some damage to the rampant population.

I could go on and on....but I will leave it with this: why should someone else decide which tool I find most effective? Especially when they can't tell that what they think is a "clip" is actually a magazine?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sulaw
Because you live in a safe haven neighborhood, don't expect to understand the rest of the US when you haven't travelled farther than the job you made a career.



Again another with the baseless assumptions . If your argument is just baseless assumptions ( and I really do think they are ) point out where to me in the bill it stated it wanted to take away your guns away.

You said you were from Chicago from what I have been reading from atser from Chicago is that you just need to go outside of the city limits to buy guns with out all the bs of the city gun laws (unless they are lying). Makes the gun laws pointless there does it not? Where federal law every town county and state has to abide.

So you live in a rough neighborhood and your solution is to pump in more guns
yes that seems quite logical. As I said fear and paranoia takes over commonsense and I will also add logic

ETA if it is so bad and scary where you live why not move?
edit on 23/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


I am going to go with the believe that since you call a magazine a "clip", you really don't know much about guns.

No not really guns were never really my thing to be honest I was more into guitars and music . I don't criticize people when they misname a guitar part or or amp . but you managed to get what I was getting at so why split hairs?



An AR-15....outstanding hog hunting rifle. Hog are dangerous and costly vermin down here. A 30 round mag....will enable to you get off enough shots to do some damage to the rampant population.

sounds like a reasonable reason given the situation. Is it necessary to have a need for an ar 15 with a 30 round mag in a city like Chicago.


I could go on and on....but I will leave it with this: why should someone else decide which tool I find most effective? Especially when they can't tell that what they think is a "clip" is actually a magazine?

This is like me saying to you not to talk about music unless you know how to play an instrument . Stupid and absurd . What does me not knowing the proper terminology take away from the ability of reasoning and debate the issue ? or is that your angle of the debate , seems rather petty and silly reasoning? no?
edit on 23/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)
edit on 23/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Here for the fun of it a quick google search to wiki

A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines can be removable (detachable) or integral to the firearm. The magazine functions by moving the cartridges stored in the magazine into a position where they may be loaded into the chamber by the action of the firearm. The detachable magazine is often controversially referred to as a clip.



A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm. This speeds up the process of loading and reloading the firearm as several rounds can be loaded at once, rather than one round being loaded at a time. Several different types of clips exist, most of which are made of inexpensive metal stampings that are designed to be disposable, though they are often re-used. The term "clip" is also frequently used to refer to a detachable magazine, though such usage is incorrect.[1][2][3] The defining difference between clips and magazines is the presence of a feed mechanism in a magazine, typically a spring-loaded follower, which a clip lacks.[2][4][5]


you bring up a rather weak debate that is also typical of your crowd , it really is like debating a christian fanatics. pathetic
edit on 23/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


I am only splitting hairs to display that folks who are not "into" something shouldn't have a really strong opinion when it comes to trying to regulate it.

I would say that if you had more guns in Chicago, you would have far less crime. I would also say that someone in Chicago, being free to leave Chicago, may or may not have need for an AR-15. LIke i said....why should we decide which tools work best for them?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sagitaris

Great point made me think of a quote in the video "So making guns Illegal will take them off the street, then we should ban Heroine and Meth too"

If you can provide a valid argument against this quote I would be VERY impressed
I'll Give it a try.

We Americans have the most Guns in the World, Therefore we Must have the Lowest Crime in the World.

Wait, What????



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Come to my town, where gun ownership is a way of life. Don't judge us off of the skewed numbers given by large cities (with massive gun control schemes), as they tend to raise the violent crime rates.

While we are at it, lets talk about that study that details (on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis) how the decline in environmental lead levels correlates exactly with lowered violent crime rates. It is the driving force behind the reports by the FBI that violent crime is at an all time low (which has been stated each year for since leaded gasoline was outlawed).



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

Still it boils down to reasoning and commonsense . our gun laws in canada work they work well in the uk and every other west nation with gun laws and control .

you have a need for what you said about the ar 15 fine I get that thats fine you have a reason for it . do you really think it is necessary for everyone to own one .

Putting more guns out there in a city of chicago is not going to improve anything probably make it worse for having them so easily available to the wrong people .



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Come to my town, where gun ownership is a way of life.
Im glad your town is safe, I wish they all were.

But I could point out Towns, Cities, even countries where Gun Ownership Is Not a Way Of Life, and Murders do not exist.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Come to my town, where gun ownership is a way of life. Don't judge us off of the skewed numbers given by large cities (with massive gun control schemes), as they tend to raise the violent crime rates.

While we are at it, lets talk about that study that details (on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis) how the decline in environmental lead levels correlates exactly with lowered violent crime rates. It is the driving force behind the reports by the FBI that violent crime is at an all time low (which has been stated each year for since leaded gasoline was outlawed).


gun laws are aimed to get guns out of the wrong people hands . violence and crime is a completely different issue all together. A high rate of violence and crime from 1st world nations is division and poverty . If crime rates are so low then why the paranoia to protect yourselves at all times with a fire arm with any kind of fire arm?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


and murder laws are aimed at keeping folks from being murdered. To mutual effectiveness.
edit on 23-4-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by freedomSlave
 

LIke i said....why should we decide which tools work best for them?


There is a difference between a tool and a weapon be it for an assault or defense .



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


true and that is not something the average joe does.

and people who want to harm others will harm others .

but making guns less available and under more scrutiny with this rash of mass shootings of mentally ill people , these people would of never gotten the chance to purchase the guns up here .

it boils down to public safety and imho it is reckless down there .where does one draw the line what would you compromise with
edit on 23/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Come to my town, where gun ownership is a way of life.
Im glad your town is safe, I wish they all were.

But I could point out Towns, Cities, even countries where Gun Ownership Is Not a Way Of Life, and Murders do not exist.

Please, point out a country to me where murders do not exist.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 



I comprimise with freedom and liberty. Nothing else will quench my thirst.

If prohibitive laws work, then just make acts like murder, or shooting people in general, illegal. That should do the trick, right? Do you not see the fallacy in the idea that people obey laws? People obey laws that are convenient all of the time. They will usually obey laws that are inconvenient when they think they will be caught. They will ignore laws that are inconvenient when either they believe they won't be caught, or they are dim (either just stupid, or mentally ill....both affected by impulse control).

On the other hand, if you are worried about the crazies that are getting guns, let me first point out that Adam Lanza used guns not registered to him, but readily accessible to him. Beyond that, the only real way to effect change is to improve mental health care.

In the late 90's a whole new series of antipsychotics cleared "testing" phases and were put into full use. Drugs like Seroquel, Zyprexa, Clozaril.....these drugs were highly effective and treating psychosis. And the undesirable side effects were almost eliminated (look up Tardive Dyskenesia or extrapyramidal symptoms related to antipsychotics like haldol and thorazine). So you saw a large improvement in medication compliance, and a reduction in the revolving door effect that had plagued the mental health industry for years.

With the loss of patients to fill beds, many hospitals converted to "forensic" hospitals (or risk closure and loss of jobs). They sought to address the long observed issue of the mentally population in prisons. So now you have these hospitals that are converted to handle forensic patients. They are dangerous to nonforensic patients, so you don't really intermingle patients. Further, the skills needed to care for a forensic patient (with their own set of patients rights concepts that are infused with prisoners rights) are different. In short: the hospitals that provided inpatient care 20 years ago are no more. Patient care is typically pushed to a privatized (yet formerly state funded) community mental health service.

So, you want to decrease the mentally ill usage of guns to kill folks? There is a good start right there: create bed space for inpatient care.

But while you are doing that, remember that in addition to Adam Lanza's access to guns not registered to him, there is also the issue of the Denver shooter not having any real mental health history. So he had seen a therapist.....he had yet to "enter the system". There had been very little paper trail to support a meaningful diagnosis. So I am unsure how what you are proposing would have been relevant with either of the cases that are in your mind. I realize it may make you FEEL more safe. But how you feel has no bearing on the reality of your situation.
edit on 23-4-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join