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

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave

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 .


There is absolutely no difference. A weapon is merely a tool that is used on another creature. I can pick up a hammer, and choose to use it as a weapon or a tool. The decision is made by what I use that hammer on.

I work closely with restaurants. We consider knives to be tools of the job (we actually classify them as a "ware" item, according to 10th edition standards). A police officer might call it a weapon. Depending on how it is used, the state laws have something to say about whether it is a tool or a weapon, depending on specification and where it is being carried (and by whom).




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Love it, nice video.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
What is the point of taking away arms from the citizens when doing so is not going to solve the problem?

Why not actually try something new that will work instead of trying to disarm us like (insert famous dictator here).



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by RothchildRancor
 



Exactly. Regardless of < insert dictator here >, your point about doing something that works is spot on. If you remove guns without changing the treatment of the insane, then you create more knife murders. But every country has its murders. In the US, it happens to be with guns more than knives.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Facebook memes aren't convincing to brains that think that arms are bad for society. We are talking about people that think it is okay to ban a plant here. A plant. A plant!!!!! Who the hell does that? Oh Americans. Guns? I am surprised Americans can even buy a crock pot or wear back packs or send kids to school in camouflaged. Oh that's right, they CANT! So let us think. Guns are definitely going to be banned. That or the ammo. Good job America!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


reply to post by Propulsion

" Think about it...Have you met anyone anti-gun? Do you know anyone who is anti-gun? When you speak of the people who are anti-gun and when are they going to get it, first you'll have to show me who they are. "

With the greatest respect, newcovenant, I am completely " anti gun " ownership for citizens.

No, I won't get it, ever. I realise everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is mine.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one ; )



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


I will tell you what's wrong with a universal background check and guns taking longer to get a hold of. It's the same argument I have been saying for a while now.

If some decent person that just so happens to live in a bad neighborhood is being threatened or feels threatened because of escalating crime in their area and wants to purchase a firearm and they are told I'm sorry sir we have to wait on the new universal background check to go through it will be five days. Four days later gang members who have been harassing him on his/her way home break in and end up shooting him more than likely to death. That's the problem I have with law abiding citizens waiting on guns.

Americans are paranoid for a reason.

I was robbed and held at gunpoint for 30 minutes 50 feet from the back door of my high rise apartment building about four or five years ago. I live in a completely different place now that is statistically 100 times safer than where I was before and just one month ago someone in my profession was robbed and beaten not more than 3-4 miles from where I live, a couple of weeks before that some wannabe gang bangers pulled a pistol and shot up into the air emptying a 9mm in order to act big and bad and scare a bunch of people no more than 1/2 a mile from where I live, and last year several months ago someone else in my chosen profession was robbed and beaten up.

It's not that I'm scared of some boogieman and paranoid btw. It's happened to me, I know people it's happened to, and I will never be a victim again. It's a state of mind. If I am ever attacked or robbed again either I will be dead or they will, if I have my concealed weapon with me I will use it whether I was harmed or not, because if you commit a felony against me you will be shot period end of story, and in my opinion you deserve to be shot if you are doing anything to feloniously harm the public.

Refusing to be victimized is just considered by some to be radical or nuts, you should just go with the flow and hand over everything you have and hope for the best. Well I say "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."

I believe also that what our second amendment means is that any arms that can be held, carried, or transported safely among the public can be used by any member of the public or militia whatever the case may be. Therefore Nuclear, biological, etc...(weapons of mass destruction) are automatically not included in that because a militia would have no way to safely transport or store such material. However if it is inert unless operated, things like rocket launchers, grenades, grenade launchers, small armored vehicles, etc...should be able to be owned and operated by an organized militia. I'm not saying that George next door should have an anti-tank missile in his garage. Just that if there is already an organized militia in your state then they may have it as backup in case our government does something crazy, or in case we ever do have a land war again.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
 


Any particular reason why? You left that kind of vague. You must have a reason for being anti-gun, what is it might I ask?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 



How come background checks are removing the people´s right to buy guns... From my perspective anybody who does not like this has something to lose...

we have backround checks, they're just not enforced. 44 prosecutions in 2010 when over 48,000 felons and other criminals were denied the ability to purchase guns, yet MORE laws are the answer.

your argument "anybody who does not like this has something to lose" is mathematically identical to "lawfully refusing a search is indicative of guilt".

and lastly, background checks necessitate registration, and registration has historically always lead to limitation or outright confiscation. oh, and mass murder.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havox

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.


Vatican City....What do I win?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by Havox

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.


Vatican City....What do I win?


Although most offences are minor, there was a murder of a Swiss Guard in 1998, as well as the attempt on the life of John Paul II in 1981.

cathnews.acu.edu.au...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Havox
 


One in 88years and that being 15 years ago years has gotta be considered as murder free...
gimme a break lol
edit on 24-4-2013 by idmonster because: (no reason given)


ETA not 1988, 88years
edit on 24-4-2013 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by Havox
 


One in 88 and that being 15 years ago years has gotta be considered as murder free...
gimme a break lol
edit on 24-4-2013 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

98.
The point was that the murder exists in the country, just doesn't happen a lot. But, it exists.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Looks like you win a dunce cap.

Murders, although rare, do happen in vatican city.

Is there low murder rate an artififact of their laws.....or.......?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Think about it...Have you met anyone anti-gun? Do you know anyone who is anti-gun? When you speak of the people who are anti-gun and when are they going to get it, first you'll have to show me who they are. I think you are a little mixed up and confused about what is really going on. It's OK because that was the plan all along. Spin you around and make you dizzy so when the bill comes due in the Senate you have no idea what they are actually voting on. Not your fault. They tricked you.

There are no "anti-gun" people. Some people think gun buyers should pass a background check. Others think you should be able to sell guns to anyone without background checks and it appears this is the side you are on.

There are no anti-gun people.
There are people who are against background checks and those that are for them.


incorrect.

there are anti-gun people...you know, the ones here who say nobody should have them, and they should be banned, and all that...

the vast majority of us are not against background checks...if you have committed a violent crime with a weapon(any weapon),and you are a felon, in my opinion, you should forfeit that particular right(to keep and bear), as you have demonstrated that you are incapable of playing by the rules of civilized society. and there are already background checks in place, to make sure that people like that cannot buy a gun through standard, above-board channels...but there's always the black market, they don't do background checks, and no amount of laws is going to make them start..

nobody's saying background checks are bad...so long as the only thing they're looking for is your criminal record



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave
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)


and this is where you silly anti-gun people get silly.....you start with the "nukes and fighter jets" argument....

the 2nd amendment is about small arms...not friggin airplanes, ICBMs, nukes, tanks, and every other goddamn silly thing you guys decide to toss in there...

what's wrong with a ban on certain guns? it's an infringement...that's what's wrong with it...

if i decide i want a shotgun, or an AR-15 to defend my home, or hell, why not both....that's MY choice, and nobody else's

you obviously don't understand the concept of preparedness... the idea that it's better to have a thing, and not need it, than to need it, and not have it....



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave
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 .







you don't get it, do you?

THEY'RE ALREADY EASILY AVAILABLE TO THE WRONG PEOPLE!

they're NOT easily available to the RIGHT people...

if more honest citizens could easily get a gun, things might change in chicago



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


You and I agree for the most part. But two important elements that we disagree on:

- The second amendment IS about fighter jets. The idea is that the US Government cannot equip a standing army to out arm the populace. Our 2nd amendment is more about our ability to control our government as "the final check and balance". Secondary reasons would include self protection.

- Felons should not give up any "right". A "right" is just that, and it is (as written by our founders) granted by our maker (whomever that may be). It is unabridgable by man unless done so by force and against the wishes of our maker. My position would be that far fewer violent felons would survive their crimes if guns laws were more reasonable (and folks in cities didn't give up their responsibility to protect themselves to some cold and uncaring authority).



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by idmonster
 


Looks like you win a dunce cap.

Murders, although rare, do happen in vatican city.

Is there low murder rate an artififact of their laws.....or.......?

i would ask what the sexual abuse rate in the vatican is, but those numbers will never see the light of day, that is if they were ever recorded in the first place.

arm the alter boys!
edit on 25-4-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join