Thousand Oaks Residents Buying Up Guns

a reply to: chr0naut

You can never have too many guns chuck.....

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Groot

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Groot

How does a gun stop a bullet?

Stops a person shooting the gun. Makes a person think twice before shooting up others .

I am guessing you are anti gun and from Australia? Am I wrong?

Wouldn't some snazzy kevlar tailoring be better at protecting the average joe?

I mean the bad guy is ready, aiming and will get off all the shots before the good guy gets his gun up. The proliferation of weapons favors the evil and murderous.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I wasn't saying that a gun can never defend against a criminal.

Ask yourself, who arms the crims? Those who are criminal and will use the guns against others can buy guns just like those few do-gooders. In fact, crims also obtain guns by nefarious methods, too.

Almost anyone can obtain a gun. moreso those who lie and steal.

Let me know if I have this right. You admit that you know criminals get all the guns they want, but the do-gooders shouldn't be allowed to. Next your going to say that criminals only get their guns at gun stores. That if we close them it will prevent them from getting a gun LoL. Oh and FYI there are far more than just a few do-gooders.
Gun violence is not on the rise as much as people think. The only real difference is the internet. Crime has always happened we just hear about more of it. There was a time when you only ever heard about the stuff in your part of the country. Now you hear about all of it.

My post starts with let me know. I don't know why it put it all in one page

originally posted by: Groot

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Good for them! Now if they would start voting the liberals out of office, they might build themselves a nice little State.

Of course the “journalist” is a bit disingenuous, stating they were purchasing guns out of “raw fear”. Arming yourself because the police can’t protect you and your family isn’t raw fear, it’s prudent decision making.

Not to mention that anyone who studies history knows that a government disarms its citizens prior to the “round ups”.

Please tell me about those specific incidences from history.

1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded up and murdered.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.

1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.

1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.

1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.

1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.

I could spend ages on this Facebook BS post you have regurgitated.

But others have done all the work: ‘A Little Gun History’ - Snopes

If you think that is wrong, check it against Wikipedia or visit a library.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: chr0naut
Don't you always ask that question, and then a deluge of people provide examples like the Nazi round ups, China during g the revolution under Mao, pol pot Cambodia, pretty sure it's how Burma got to the point they are now...
Happened in South American states preceding many of their Independences from Spain, etc.. etc..

You'd probably think so if you had no knowledge of history and believed everything posted on Facebook.

originally posted by: kookkook
a reply to: chr0naut

Do you realize that a gun is cheaper than kevlar? The type of kevlar that'd be worth wearing that is. While most kevlar vests are inexpensive, they are not rated to stop certain rounds from penetration still resulting in your death. Not to mention the cost for protection from rifle rounds. You'd be better off buying a gun and learning to shoot back. You'd certainly save some money.

But you'd die at the first bullet that hit one of your vital organs.

originally posted by: MikeA

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Groot

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Groot

How does a gun stop a bullet?

Stops a person shooting the gun. Makes a person think twice before shooting up others .

I am guessing you are anti gun and from Australia? Am I wrong?

Wouldn't some snazzy kevlar tailoring be better at protecting the average joe?

I mean the bad guy is ready, aiming and will get off all the shots before the good guy gets his gun up. The proliferation of weapons favors the evil and murderous.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I wasn't saying that a gun can never defend against a criminal.

Ask yourself, who arms the crims? Those who are criminal and will use the guns against others can buy guns just like those few do-gooders. In fact, crims also obtain guns by nefarious methods, too.

Almost anyone can obtain a gun. moreso those who lie and steal.

Let me know if I have this right. You admit that you know criminals get all the guns they want, but the do-gooders shouldn't be allowed to. Next your going to say that criminals only get their guns at gun stores. That if we close them it will prevent them from getting a gun LoL. Oh and FYI there are far more than just a few do-gooders.
Gun violence is not on the rise as much as people think. The only real difference is the internet. Crime has always happened we just hear about more of it. There was a time when you only ever heard about the stuff in your part of the country. Now you hear about all of it.

My post starts with let me know. I don't know why it put it all in one page

How do mass murderers usually get guns?

At the shop.

a reply to: chr0naut

I dunno, i'm pretty spry in a gunfight. Most people don't know how to shoot. I'm certain I'd fair better than yer average schmoe stealing hubcaps. Not like I ain't been shot at before. With practice in anything you just get better. I'll take me chances.

a reply to: chr0naut

Just... LOL.

You are using snopes as a source?

How about opening up a history book?

Since you are not American, I have a secret for you...

Snopes is a left-wing trash site... always has been.

Usually people that use it as a link just look a little stupider about the topic they have replied to.

In your case, it wasn't even necessary.

a reply to: Groot

Smart people. In the home isn't good enough. Carry at all times, no exceptions. (OK metal detector/pat down exceptions)

If you live in non-free America, if it were me I'd personally risk the misdemeanor. Make them charge a law abiding Citizen not with actually harming anyone/engaging in criminal conduct but rather merely for the simple possession of an item (vs. misuse of that item)

It is your court costs/time, but to me it would be worth it. Judged by 12 than carried by 6 and all that. Many Citizens (including those who serve on juries) are pro-liberty pro-gunners and could be counted on to at least consider nullification.

a reply to: chr0naut

Depends, on what state they live in, what those laws for purchase are, if friends gave them weapons, etc etc. Still the gun isn't the problem. You could take em all away and they'd still find a way to kill you. Your question is moot.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: MikeA

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Groot

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Groot

How does a gun stop a bullet?

Stops a person shooting the gun. Makes a person think twice before shooting up others .

I am guessing you are anti gun and from Australia? Am I wrong?

Wouldn't some snazzy kevlar tailoring be better at protecting the average joe?

I mean the bad guy is ready, aiming and will get off all the shots before the good guy gets his gun up. The proliferation of weapons favors the evil and murderous.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I wasn't saying that a gun can never defend against a criminal.

Ask yourself, who arms the crims? Those who are criminal and will use the guns against others can buy guns just like those few do-gooders. In fact, crims also obtain guns by nefarious methods, too.

Almost anyone can obtain a gun. moreso those who lie and steal.

Let me know if I have this right. You admit that you know criminals get all the guns they want, but the do-gooders shouldn't be allowed to. Next your going to say that criminals only get their guns at gun stores. That if we close them it will prevent them from getting a gun LoL. Oh and FYI there are far more than just a few do-gooders.
Gun violence is not on the rise as much as people think. The only real difference is the internet. Crime has always happened we just hear about more of it. There was a time when you only ever heard about the stuff in your part of the country. Now you hear about all of it.

My post starts with let me know. I don't know why it put it all in one page

How do mass murderers usually get guns?

At the shop.

And then where do they head to?

A gun free zone.

originally posted by: Lab4Us
a reply to: Groot

You beat me to it, thanks.

I was going to suggest the person requesting the information invest in a real education that includes “accurate” history.

I do have a real education that includes accurate history.



Apparently, you don't.

a reply to: JBurns

Sympathies are not direct reflection of the law no matter how stupid those laws are. You'd be surprised about them juries.

a reply to: chr0naut

Where do armed Citizens get their weapons/people who defend their lives with firearms get them?

Their friendly neighborhood FFL.

Laws target specific criminal behavior/conduct, they don't prevent anything. Nor are they supposed to.

Preventing is why we have a right to self-defense and RKBA. You prevent crime/violence by being armed and stopping the sorry SOB who picked erred by choosing you as their intended victim.

Firearms are the ultimate force multiple and equalizer. It doesn't matter if an attacker is 100 lbs or 250 lbs and a body builder. If he is engaging in violent conduct that rises to the level of deadly force then that firearm will ensure you have the proper tool to end the threat.

Laws punish criminals. They don't prevent crime.
Guns prevent violent crime.

Regardless the whole conversation is moot. Not interested in shredding the second amendment so some cowards can rest easier in their self-righteous (and completely wrong-headed) anti-gun beliefs.

EDIT: That last line not directed at you chrono Just wanted to make sure you knew that

a reply to: chr0naut

You could be the smartest person on the planet and still be a dumb mother #er. And history is written by the agenda and the winners. Not all history learned equals actual fact. Just an observation from experience. Not trying to be difficult.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut

Just... LOL.

You are using snopes as a source?

How about opening up a history book?

Since you are not American, I have a secret for you...

Snopes is a left-wing trash site... always has been.

Usually people that use it as a link just look a little stupider about the topic they have replied to.

In your case, it wasn't even necessary.

I did suggest that you check up elsewhere. Real academic sources corroborate the Snopes article and refute the Facebork post.

If you only had some real knowledge, you might have a case to argue.

a reply to: kookkook

Not an issue for me personally thanks to H.R. 218 not to mention a fairly liberal state (as far as liberal = promoting individual freedom, ie: very permissive gun laws)

But if it were, I'd still take the risk

Every victim of "gun violence" and every other type of violence that sees innocent Citizens lose their lives 100% with absolute certainty would've preferred having a firearm and standing a chance at surviving

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

Where do armed Citizens get their weapons/people who defend their lives with firearms get them?

Their friendly neighborhood FFL.

Laws target specific criminal behavior/conduct, they don't prevent anything. Nor are they supposed to.

Preventing is why we have a right to self-defense and RKBA. You prevent crime/violence by being armed and stopping the sorry SOB who picked erred by choosing you as their intended victim.

Firearms are the ultimate force multiple and equalizer. It doesn't matter if an attacker is 100 lbs or 250 lbs and a body builder. If he is engaging in violent conduct that rises to the level of deadly force then that firearm will ensure you have the proper tool to end the threat.

Laws punish criminals. They don't prevent crime.
Guns prevent violent crime.

Regardless the whole conversation is moot. Not interested in shredding the second amendment so some cowards can rest easier in their self-righteous (and completely wrong-headed) anti-gun beliefs.

Have you tried overdosing on opiates to defend yourself against those criminals who peddle opiates?

I wouldn't recommend it. It would be a stupid thing to do.

a reply to: chr0naut

Point well taken

Yet, I cannot help but feel that (to keep with the metaphor) banning opiates all together would not be a solution either

Individual responsibility (ie: responsibility for whether it turns out good or bad) and education is the best answer to me. Let people make up their minds and live (or die) with the consequences of their choice.

a reply to: JBurns

People should have the right to carry whatever makes them feel safe...even if its a tank. As long as its for defense and not offense who cares?