Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases

The best law any state could ever pass would be for a felon caught with a gun its a automatic 25 years.
Unless they use the gun then its life +
If they get caught a 2th time its life+.

originally posted by: ANNED
The best law any state could ever pass would be for a felon caught with a gun its a automatic 25 years.
Unless they use the gun then its life +
If they get caught a 2th time its life+.

Any felon? So someone who gets busted with 2.1 oz of weed deserves to lose his ability to defend himself for the rest of his life? Or some guy down on his luck who breaks into a Mercedes to for a nice stereo?

Your far to bros for something like that. This is something that needs to be handled on a case by case basis.

I don't get you anti-gun people.

Are you saying that you don't want people to have the right to own guns and to defend themselves and their families against criminals who use guns?

Owning guns proves they are in fear? LOL! So are hunters in fear for their lives?

I swear!!! Some people geez.

Dishonesty seems to be the stock in trade for the anti-gunners.Why tell the truth when any lie will do!Mass shootings everyday indeed.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Actually the Second Amendment has several key points.

The Federal Government is not allowed to have a permanent standing Army, nor is any State. The Feds are limited to only two years except in time of war but Congress has to approve every two years in times of war. (Unfortunately this has pretty much been ignored since the Civil War and completely since Vietnam)

The idea was always that the people should be ready to fight and either hold a position or slow the enemy down enough for an Army to be raised and given basic training to reenforce the militia engaging the enemy. Now the enemy could be a foreign invasion, a local insurrection or an attempted coup by a domestic party. The militia can also squash tyranny on a local, state or federal level by force of arms. Congress can call forth a militia by publicly stating we need all able bodied men to come to say Ferguson and stop the riot that was happening. Yep, that is a Congressional power that even the President can't stop. But as Commander in Chief, he can order the tactics to be used like do not engage the protestors with live ammo.

But the funny thing about militias, they can self-activate. And give themselves their own orders. But that is a different discussion.

But since the main purpose of a militia is to be a stopgap until the real military gets there. Then yes, private citizens should be able to arm themselves with the current modern firearm and have ammo and other provisions for a three to five day engagement. Which would pretty much be M-16's or at minimum AR-15's. Just for the stock ammo choice.

It should also be noted that even during WW2, civilians could and did have better arms than the soldiers. As there were more privately owned Tommy guns than were issued. And most of those had the drum whereas the Army's did not.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I haven't read every response to this thread, but I've read enough. I haven't said anything on this topic often. I have my own ideas about it and I tend to want those ideas to be my own, but I get awfully tired of people that don't live in this county piling on their #e about it. If your gun laws work for your county then that's wonderful. Until you're living here how about you have nice tall glass of "shut teh FK up"?

Those of you who live here and don't want to exercise our right to own guns all the more power to you. Legal gun owners are NOT who you need to be worried about. Disarm me, take my guns... then I'll have a bow.. take that I'll have a knife... take that I'll have whatever is handy. A good rule of thumb is to be polite, be respectful, and to have a plan to kill everybody in the room.

a reply to: Ahabstar

That was a joke post in response to Macman's joke post. We were being satirical. That is why I threw in #5.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I always wanted to respond to a break in at my home by walking down in a leather gimp suit and telling them "I am soo happy you came in."

a reply to: PhoenixOD

WOW. That response isn't seeping with elitism or anything.

Nothing like wanting to control people to ruin your morning mood.

a reply to: macman

Leather gimp suit?

If you're going for shock factor, I'd go with birthday suit and ball bat, whispering, game time...

*puts ball bat next to bed laughing*

a reply to: KawRider9

Ohhh no. Gimp suit, jar of Vaseline and a bag of marbles.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah, but it was educational for those that don't understand why the Second is there in the first place and why it is an important right to individuals versus those that have been lied to in high school that firearms should only belong to formal established militias like police departments and state national guard units. And why it covers more than just Brown Bess flintlock muskets.

No harm no foul.

a reply to: Ahabstar

No worries. I completely agree.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Actually the Second Amendment has several key points.

The Federal Government is not allowed to have a permanent standing Army, nor is any State. The Feds are limited to only two years except in time of war but Congress has to approve every two years in times of war. (Unfortunately this has pretty much been ignored since the Civil War and completely since Vietnam)

The idea was always that the people should be ready to fight and either hold a position or slow the enemy down enough for an Army to be raised and given basic training to reenforce the militia engaging the enemy. Now the enemy could be a foreign invasion, a local insurrection or an attempted coup by a domestic party. The militia can also squash tyranny on a local, state or federal level by force of arms. Congress can call forth a militia by publicly stating we need all able bodied men to come to say Ferguson and stop the riot that was happening. Yep, that is a Congressional power that even the President can't stop. But as Commander in Chief, he can order the tactics to be used like do not engage the protestors with live ammo.

But the funny thing about militias, they can self-activate. And give themselves their own orders. But that is a different discussion.

But since the main purpose of a militia is to be a stopgap until the real military gets there. Then yes, private citizens should be able to arm themselves with the current modern firearm and have ammo and other provisions for a three to five day engagement. Which would pretty much be M-16's or at minimum AR-15's. Just for the stock ammo choice.

It should also be noted that even during WW2, civilians could and did have better arms than the soldiers. As there were more privately owned Tommy guns than were issued. And most of those had the drum whereas the Army's did not.

I just wanted to quote this again because I really feel like this is a lost piece in this whole situation a lot of people were never taught. Good on you for laying it out in a very easy to read and understand way. I will probably borrow that wording from time to time...how would you like your signature on the quote to appear lol.

a reply to: RickyD

An American

Credit it any way you wish. It is common sense knowledge that everyone should have, bit unfortunately is neither taught properly or allowed to be discussed fully in public schools. It is all about teaching to a standardized multiple choice test. Essay questions and reports are just too open to interpretation for fair grading. I recall a paper on Lewis Carroll's poem Jabberwocky that I did in college where is said the whole thing was a cautionary tale about choosing the right wife for the listener. C+ with the comment of that was an interesting theory that she had never heard before. I always had odd English professors that liked what I had to say on a subject but didn't like the format of how I presented it. That I was using an older style of writing... WTF? For me communication is to if the reader understands what you are writing not some lame composition format that change every five years or varies from textbook to textbook.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: butcherguy
I think that those that think that people shouldn't be able to own firearms should shuffle their unarmed butts to the nearest gun owner and disarm the person.
No... they will let that job for the jack-booted thugs with military weapons.

I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help. This would be a very interesting business opportunity I think....setting up false robberies on unarmed citizens to show them just how slow the response it by police and just how vulnerable they are to criminals.....but that would just be totally non-PC

These folks don't have a clue. A clue to the mind of the sort they would need to protect themselves from if their home were intruded. They don't understand what sort of animals are out there walking around on two legs.

Might be half the reason they want everyone disarmed. They know law-abiding gun owners are no threat to 'them'. So, they threaten to remove 'our' rights and leave us as vulnerable as they are. Gives the criminal element a greater number of sheep to choose from ... diminishing their odds of being selected for the feast.

I laugh every time I read of a home invasion where the homeowner opted out of gun ownership.

Stoopid people - there's no legal cure for them.

I'd rather be considered stupid than be a callous gun nut who puts their own desire to own a weapon open the safety of kids and and the general public.

Another school shooting? Oh well.
Another toddler blasted in the face by mistake? Oh well.


You can pretend that you want it for protection, because obviously you ALL live in Sao Paulo or Caracas where you would need it....but we all know the truth.

Another family torn apart from gun violence?. ..who cares? Gotta get me another AR15! USA! USA!

Haha....hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I'd rather be considered stupid

Your wish ...
... is granted.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014


I'd rather be considered stupid than be a callous gun nut who puts their own desire to own a weapon open the safety of kids and and the general public.

Okay then. Your stupid.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: butcherguy
I think that those that think that people shouldn't be able to own firearms should shuffle their unarmed butts to the nearest gun owner and disarm the person.
No... they will let that job for the jack-booted thugs with military weapons.

I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help. This would be a very interesting business opportunity I think....setting up false robberies on unarmed citizens to show them just how slow the response it by police and just how vulnerable they are to criminals.....but that would just be totally non-PC

These folks don't have a clue. A clue to the mind of the sort they would need to protect themselves from if their home were intruded. They don't understand what sort of animals are out there walking around on two legs.

Might be half the reason they want everyone disarmed. They know law-abiding gun owners are no threat to 'them'. So, they threaten to remove 'our' rights and leave us as vulnerable as they are. Gives the criminal element a greater number of sheep to choose from ... diminishing their odds of being selected for the feast.

I laugh every time I read of a home invasion where the homeowner opted out of gun ownership.

Stoopid people - there's no legal cure for them.

I'd rather be considered stupid than be a callous gun nut who puts their own desire to own a weapon open the safety of kids and and the general public.

Another school shooting? Oh well.
Another toddler blasted in the face by mistake? Oh well.


You can pretend that you want it for protection, because obviously you ALL live in Sao Paulo or Caracas where you would need it....but we all know the truth.

Another family torn apart from gun violence?. ..who cares? Gotta get me another AR15! USA! USA!

Haha....hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

How, exactly, are the safety of kids and the general public in jeopardy because I, personally, own guns? If you walked by me any day of the week you would not know I own guns. You would not know I have a gun on me. So how is it that I am posing any threat to you again?

I think MANY more families are torn apart because of the loss of a loved one than how it happens. Is it any more tragic to be killed accidentally by a gun than a car accident or drowning or gas leak? Nope. Accidents happen. Most gun accidents happen by irresponsible gun owners, just as car accidents happen by irresponsible drivers, and drownings happen to kids by irresponsible parents. And the latter 3 of the 4 types of accidents I listed happen on a much more regular basis than gun accidents.

I would say PEOPLE are the problem in these cases.....operator error.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You do realize this is an uneducated, non-US citizen turd stirrer that you are dealing with.