Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sadolph

gun control bs.

Recommended Posts

2) My age shouldn't matter. My mind is closed because it has been made up based on my moral code.

Again, relatively fair point. You totally have the right to make up your mind and, dare I say, "stick to your guns". <g> I just think that a person who effectively states "I think this way now and I always will" is... at best, frightfully naive, and and worst... dangerously closed-minded. I think *very* differently now than I did when I was in college. Part of that is the whole "work and support myself" thing. Part of it is my innate belief in personal responsibility, which has been hardened by watching society move away from that standard. Part of it is... well, perspectives change. Yours will. Unless you dig in your heels, which would be... a great loss. Make your own decisions, but at the *very* least make them based on fact and experience, rather than... other people's position-pieces.

 

Mark Twain said "supposing is good, but finding out is better". The only way you can "find out" is after you open your mind to the possibility that your "supposing" may be imperfect.

 

It was, I believe, Churchill who summed this up nicely.

"If you're under 30 and not a Liberal, then you have no heart -- and if you're over 30 and not a conservative, then you have no brains."

 

Have to be careful about Churchill quotes.

 

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/quotes-falsely-attributed-to-him

 

Making shit up and attributing it to him has been practically a national sport in Britain for 60 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I know. I know that the news is filled every day with tragic stories of accidents and murders where peoples lives are ended by fools with guns, I know that our country has the highest death-by-firearms rate in the world, I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there and I know that more and more are made and sold every day.

 

These facts have influenced me to develop the opinions that I hold regarding the usefulness of our current system of firearm ownership. No indoctrination, political views or naivety about it. The only influences on me have been statistics and mathematics, pure and simple.

 

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

 

Should we ban cars? Lots of people are killed in car accidents?

 

Should we not let kids under 25 drive? Highest death rate for that age group is by auto accident?

 

How about swimming, boating, fishing.., Lots of people drown every year. Should each home be limited to 1 bathtub and it only be 4 inches deep?

 

Do you ever drink alcohol? Isn't that dangerous? Drinking kills lots of kids your age. Do you ever get drunk and then go on a boat, surrounded by the already discussed dangerous water? Have you applied the math to that and decided to not assume that risk? Or is your statistical concern only about things you have no personal interest in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

Whats the difference between 2 guns and 20 guns? You can only use 2, at most, at one time.

 

 

Right. But what happens to those other 18? You're carjacked on the way to the range with your guns in the backseat in gun cases and trigger locked. Next thing you know your prized showpiece killed your daughters friend and her mother because the lowlife who stole your car sold them to his crackhead buddies who got the locks off (a simple enough deal) and suddenly your 20 gun collection is used in 20 murders.

 

Only 2 guns means 10x less potential murders when you lose them.

 

And your vast experience in guns and gun ranges. Not to mention gun transportation. Tells you that people bring their entire gun collection to the range every time they go? I was a member at a shooting club for several years, the largest amount of guns I ever saw a guy show up with was 2, not counting the one on his belt. Which would take care of the carjacker anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I find my views changing as time goes on then I will behave accordingly. Consider everything, form an opinion and act (or don't act) accordingly.

 

Fair enough.

 

Allow me to share a thread-relevant story of my own "changing views".

 

I grew up in a completely anti-gun family. My dad was a vet who came home from WW-2 with his issued weapons, but threw them out (literally put them in the trash) when his first child was born, because he had decided they were "dangerous" all on their own. My mother - literally - taught me that being in the same room as a gun was inherently dangerous, as if it had the ability to jump off the shelf and start shooting babies all on its own. I grew up with *that* mindset, even to the point of asking to be put in a different middle-school when I was in Virginia, because I was so uncomfortable with the knowledge that the school I was assigned to had [gasp] a competitive rifle team.

 

Flash forward to 1989. Some idiot shoots up a schoolyard in CA with a semi-auto rifle. California knee-jerks its way into passing a law that banned the sale of "that scary-looking kind of rifle, you know, the kind that crazy guy used". Didn't phase me a bit. Guns were inherently bad, as far as I was concerned, and this just proved it.

 

Flast forward a little more to 1992. I'm happily living in a nice neighborhood in North Redondo Beach, barbecuing with some neighbors, when the neighborhood became (literally) a war zone. Seems that a bunch of people, unhappy with a jury's decision not to prosecute some LAPD cops for beating Rodney King, decided the appropriate response was to riot. In very short order three things happened: cops disappeared ("for their own protection"), everything in sight was looted and lit afire, and the local gangs took this as an opportunity to, well, take care of their own business.

 

So it became fairly hard to tell whether the gun-fights going on around me were rioters-vs.-shop-owners, or gang-vs.-gang. What was *instantly* clear, though, was that if any of them came into my house and threatened my family, I had absolutely no "say" in the matter. With a gun, I could have had a vote - without a gun, I'd be limited to doing whatever they told me to do. Including (if it came to that) watching them rape, torture or kill my young daughter. Would not have been able to do a thing to stop it.

 

Of course, in the interim, California had passed all sorts of laws to "protect the people". Except, that doesn't work so well when the gangs are roaming the streets, the cops are hiding under freeway overpasses, and there's a mandatory 15-day wait to buy a gun if you're a "good guy" with a clear record. There was, literally, a line all the way down the block from the sporting-goods store on Artesia, people desperately hoping to buy a gun (or ammo) with which to defend their homes and families. All were told "yes, you can buy a gun today, but you can't pick it up for 15 days".

 

My "views" changed considerably that day. I resolved that I would *never* again be in a position where my only choice would be to sit and watch while "the bad guy with the gun" does whatever he wants to do. I have absolutely no interest in getting in a shoot out, or being a vigilante, and I hope to God I never actually have to *use* a gun in defense of myself or others, but.... the simple truth is that if faced with a criminal intent on doing harm, a gun is the only way I have to convince him that *my* house and *my* family are not where he wants to spend his time.

 

My [then]-wife ridiculed my new interest, using many of the same arguments you've posted. I took up "shooting competitions" as a way of both justifying my hobby and, frankly, building my skills and familiarity with an object I had held in such comtempt over the years. I've been actively competing for 20 years now, and every time I pull the trigger I am acutely aware that I am holding "lethal force", which can be used for good or evil. I am not unclear on the fact that *I* - not the gun - am the deciding factor in that question. That knowledge inhabits my thinking about what I own, how I store it and my "rights" to do so.

 

I have - since that time - moved out of California to a state where my "views" are more widely corroborated. Having a completely clean record, I not only have [way more than 3] guns but a permit to carry concealed. Which I would have railed against "back then", but makes perfect sense now. If you want to do a statistical exercise, compare the crime rates in cities with handgun bans, against the cities where concealed carry is allowed. You'll find a striking difference, which can ONLY be attributed to the fact that criminals are not fond of attacking people who may be legally armed.

 

So yeah, "views" can change. Mine certainly did. And I'll dig in *my* heels on this: nobody (including you) has ever made a convincing argument about how taking away guns from people like me - no matter how many I choose to own - makes society safer.

 

$.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I know. I know that the news is filled every day with tragic stories of accidents and murders where peoples lives are ended by fools with guns, I know that our country has the highest death-by-firearms rate in the world, I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there and I know that more and more are made and sold every day.

 

These facts have influenced me to develop the opinions that I hold regarding the usefulness of our current system of firearm ownership. No indoctrination, political views or naivety about it. The only influences on me have been statistics and mathematics, pure and simple.

 

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

 

Should we ban cars? Lots of people are killed in car accidents?

 

Should we not let kids under 25 drive? Highest death rate for that age group is by auto accident?

 

How about swimming, boating, fishing.., Lots of people drown every year. Should each home be limited to 1 bathtub and it only be 4 inches deep?

 

Do you ever drink alcohol? Isn't that dangerous? Drinking kills lots of kids your age. Do you ever get drunk and then go on a boat, surrounded by the already discussed dangerous water? Have you applied the math to that and decided to not assume that risk? Or is your statistical concern only about things you have no personal interest in?

 

Same old tired wank.

 

None of those things were designed to kill.

 

Guns are designed to kill. No other use.

 

Fucking middle aged, pot bellied, wannabe Rambo's. Gun in one hand, Penis in the other. A toss off to see which goes off first.

 

Face to face with some young hyped-up punk with a gun and you would piss your pants.

 

"Defend my country. Defend my property." You wouldn't last 10 seconds against any half trained soldier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought a Liberal was just a Conservative who doesn't own his own business or has been shot at?...... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November.

 

Semi-fair points, so I'll respond in kind.

 

 

I *am* inferring from your statements, true, but certainly not putting words in your mouth. In point of fact, you didn't say anything about firearms in the text quoted above. What you said was that you know how you'll vote this November. There is no "national gun-confiscation referendum" on the ballot this November. What there *is*, is a choice between a liberal social agenda which wants to be everyone's big brother, or a conservative social agenda which wants everyone to stand on their own two feet. If you "know what your vote is going to be this November, and every following November", you're picking one of those. The only thing I'm inferring is which one. And trying to show you that the end-game of that one isn't pretty. A financial model where "everyone" get to sit around expecting "someone else" to take care of them is neither logically nor financially viable. It's just... the truth.

 

2) My age shouldn't matter. My mind is closed because it has been made up based on my moral code.

Again, relatively fair point. You totally have the right to make up your mind and, dare I say, "stick to your guns". <g> I just think that a person who effectively states "I think this way now and I always will" is... at best, frightfully naive, and and worst... dangerously closed-minded. I think *very* differently now than I did when I was in college. Part of that is the whole "work and support myself" thing. Part of it is my innate belief in personal responsibility, which has been hardened by watching society move away from that standard. Part of it is... well, perspectives change. Yours will. Unless you dig in your heels, which would be... a great loss. Make your own decisions, but at the *very* least make them based on fact and experience, rather than... other people's position-pieces.

 

Mark Twain said "supposing is good, but finding out is better". The only way you can "find out" is after you open your mind to the possibility that your "supposing" may be imperfect.

 

If I find my views changing as time goes on then I will behave accordingly. Consider everything, form an opinion and act (or don't act) accordingly.

 

Edit: I do not currently agree with either of the major parties and am currently assessing and evaluating potential other viewpoints which will be on the ballot come november.

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

 

 

Well, in the context of a gun control dispute I inferred from this that you would be voting

Democratic. However put this in a right-to life debate, and the same could be said for your voting Republican. Pity you dont have a combination Lyndon LaRouche / Jimmy Carter ticket this year. Can we assume you are pro life? Should illegal guns be used to shoot abortion doctors if that was the only way to stop them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I know. I know that the news is filled every day with tragic stories of accidents and murders where peoples lives are ended by fools with guns, I know that our country has the highest death-by-firearms rate in the world, I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there and I know that more and more are made and sold every day.

 

These facts have influenced me to develop the opinions that I hold regarding the usefulness of our current system of firearm ownership. No indoctrination, political views or naivety about it. The only influences on me have been statistics and mathematics, pure and simple.

 

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

 

Should we ban cars? Lots of people are killed in car accidents?

 

Should we not let kids under 25 drive? Highest death rate for that age group is by auto accident?

 

How about swimming, boating, fishing.., Lots of people drown every year. Should each home be limited to 1 bathtub and it only be 4 inches deep?

 

Do you ever drink alcohol? Isn't that dangerous? Drinking kills lots of kids your age. Do you ever get drunk and then go on a boat, surrounded by the already discussed dangerous water? Have you applied the math to that and decided to not assume that risk? Or is your statistical concern only about things you have no personal interest in?

 

Same old tired wank.

 

None of those things were designed to kill.

 

Guns are designed to kill. No other use.

 

Fucking middle aged, pot bellied, wannabe Rambo's. Gun in one hand, Penis in the other. A toss off to see which goes off first.

 

Face to face with some young hyped-up punk with a gun and you would piss your pants.

 

"Defend my country. Defend my property." You wouldn't last 10 seconds against any half trained soldier.

 

I don't own my guns to protect my property. I see that they are useful for that, but my guns are locked up in a gun cabinet in my basement so that severely limits their usefulness in protecting anything. I have my guns to shoot at orange saucer like flying targets. And occasionally I take one of them for a long walk through the woods and fields while I am wearing orange clothing.

 

As for how I would act when a gun is pointed at me, or when a young punk is face to face with me. You don't know me, you have no idea who I am or what I have been exposed to. I have had guns pointed directly at me, from 5 feet away. I have had punks in my face... Never been successfully robbed and have never been shot or stabbed. So fuck you and your fake ideas of what's true and what isn't.

 

There are a lot of inherently dangerous things in life. Who cares whether or not they were designed to kill or not. If you get killed by a gangbanger with a gun or by a 16 year old kid who was driving too fast for conditions, you are still dead. If someone wants to tell me that they are anti gun because they are dangerous and they have done the math... Then I don't want to hear from that same person that he has been binge drinking and threw up on someone's fucking boat. He participates in risky behavior but he wants the guns locked in my basement taken from me. Talk about a fucking hypocritical argument. Yeah take shit from that guy, but I am going to do what ever I want. Great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) My age shouldn't matter. My mind is closed because it has been made up based on my moral code.

Again, relatively fair point. You totally have the right to make up your mind and, dare I say, "stick to your guns". <g> I just think that a person who effectively states "I think this way now and I always will" is... at best, frightfully naive, and and worst... dangerously closed-minded. I think *very* differently now than I did when I was in college. Part of that is the whole "work and support myself" thing. Part of it is my innate belief in personal responsibility, which has been hardened by watching society move away from that standard. Part of it is... well, perspectives change. Yours will. Unless you dig in your heels, which would be... a great loss. Make your own decisions, but at the *very* least make them based on fact and experience, rather than... other people's position-pieces.

 

Mark Twain said "supposing is good, but finding out is better". The only way you can "find out" is after you open your mind to the possibility that your "supposing" may be imperfect.

 

It was, I believe, Churchill who summed this up nicely.

"If you're under 30 and not a Liberal, then you have no heart -- and if you're over 30 and not a conservative, then you have no brains."

 

Have to be careful about Churchill quotes.

 

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/quotes-falsely-attributed-to-him

 

Making shit up and attributing it to him has been practically a national sport in Britain for 60 years.

 

 

Right, then...

 

Scratch the Churchill reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I know. I know that the news is filled every day with tragic stories of accidents and murders where peoples lives are ended by fools with guns, I know that our country has the highest death-by-firearms rate in the world, I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there and I know that more and more are made and sold every day.

 

These facts have influenced me to develop the opinions that I hold regarding the usefulness of our current system of firearm ownership. No indoctrination, political views or naivety about it. The only influences on me have been statistics and mathematics, pure and simple.

 

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

 

What a load of Bull Shit barf-bitch.

What you think is statistical support for your position is utter non-sense. You are being swayed by an agenda that is being pushed on you and like the sheeple you are, you eat it up as gospel and regurgitate it all. You haven't the savvy nor sophistication nor honesty nor moral conviction to actually look at the real numbers relative to other forms of premature death, and thus learn the truth. You make excuses that fit the position that you have been lead to believe and as such fail to lay the blame where it belongs. The truth of the matter is that unstable and unlawful P.O.S. shoot innocent folks. They and they alone are responsible for their crimes. Not the hardware they use to commit the act.

That aside, what is far more concerning is that you don't have a clue why there is a Second Amendment. You completely fail to understand its purpose or grasp the responsibility we as citizens are charged with by its inclusion in The Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your vast experience in guns and gun ranges. Not to mention gun transportation. Tells you that people bring their entire gun collection to the range every time they go? I was a member at a shooting club for several years, the largest amount of guns I ever saw a guy show up with was 2, not counting the one on his belt. Which would take care of the carjacker anyway.

 

Firstly I've spent a good enough amount of time on ranges. Enough to be a more than fair shot and the people who taught me were sure to teach me safety, including gun transportation.

 

Secondly: for the record, Boothy sounds like he'll be bringing a large part of his collection to the range for the blast-a-thon. Over the multiple occasions while I was learning we had 7-8 in the vehicle each time which we rotated through throughout the day.

 

Fair enough.

 

Allow me to share a thread-relevant story of my own "changing views".

 

I grew up in a completely anti-gun family. My dad was a vet who came home from WW-2 with his issued weapons, but threw them out (literally put them in the trash) when his first child was born, because he had decided they were "dangerous" all on their own. My mother - literally - taught me that being in the same room as a gun was inherently dangerous, as if it had the ability to jump off the shelf and start shooting babies all on its own. I grew up with *that* mindset, even to the point of asking to be put in a different middle-school when I was in Virginia, because I was so uncomfortable with the knowledge that the school I was assigned to had [gasp] a competitive rifle team.

 

Flash forward to 1989. Some idiot shoots up a schoolyard in CA with a semi-auto rifle. California knee-jerks its way into passing a law that banned the sale of "that scary-looking kind of rifle, you know, the kind that crazy guy used". Didn't phase me a bit. Guns were inherently bad, as far as I was concerned, and this just proved it.

 

Flast forward a little more to 1992. I'm happily living in a nice neighborhood in North Redondo Beach, barbecuing with some neighbors, when the neighborhood became (literally) a war zone. Seems that a bunch of people, unhappy with a jury's decision not to prosecute some LAPD cops for beating Rodney King, decided the appropriate response was to riot. In very short order three things happened: cops disappeared ("for their own protection"), everything in sight was looted and lit afire, and the local gangs took this as an opportunity to, well, take care of their own business.

 

So it became fairly hard to tell whether the gun-fights going on around me were rioters-vs.-shop-owners, or gang-vs.-gang. What was *instantly* clear, though, was that if any of them came into my house and threatened my family, I had absolutely no "say" in the matter. With a gun, I could have had a vote - without a gun, I'd be limited to doing whatever they told me to do. Including (if it came to that) watching them rape, torture or kill my young daughter. Would not have been able to do a thing to stop it.

 

Of course, in the interim, California had passed all sorts of laws to "protect the people". Except, that doesn't work so well when the gangs are roaming the streets, the cops are hiding under freeway overpasses, and there's a mandatory 15-day wait to buy a gun if you're a "good guy" with a clear record. There was, literally, a line all the way down the block from the sporting-goods store on Artesia, people desperately hoping to buy a gun (or ammo) with which to defend their homes and families. All were told "yes, you can buy a gun today, but you can't pick it up for 15 days".

 

My "views" changed considerably that day. I resolved that I would *never* again be in a position where my only choice would be to sit and watch while "the bad guy with the gun" does whatever he wants to do. I have absolutely no interest in getting in a shoot out, or being a vigilante, and I hope to God I never actually have to *use* a gun in defense of myself or others, but.... the simple truth is that if faced with a criminal intent on doing harm, a gun is the only way I have to convince him that *my* house and *my* family are not where he wants to spend his time.

 

My [then]-wife ridiculed my new interest, using many of the same arguments you've posted. I took up "shooting competitions" as a way of both justifying my hobby and, frankly, building my skills and familiarity with an object I had held in such comtempt over the years. I've been actively competing for 20 years now, and every time I pull the trigger I am acutely aware that I am holding "lethal force", which can be used for good or evil. I am not unclear on the fact that *I* - not the gun - am the deciding factor in that question. That knowledge inhabits my thinking about what I own, how I store it and my "rights" to do so.

 

I have - since that time - moved out of California to a state where my "views" are more widely corroborated. Having a completely clean record, I not only have [way more than 3] guns but a permit to carry concealed. Which I would have railed against "back then", but makes perfect sense now. If you want to do a statistical exercise, compare the crime rates in cities with handgun bans, against the cities where concealed carry is allowed. You'll find a striking difference, which can ONLY be attributed to the fact that criminals are not fond of attacking people who may be legally armed.

 

So yeah, "views" can change. Mine certainly did. And I'll dig in *my* heels on this: nobody (including you) has ever made a convincing argument about how taking away guns from people like me - no matter how many I choose to own - makes society safer.

 

$.02

 

I appreciate your experience and understand where your views developed from. I have heard much the same story from other people offline. I'm sure that if I went through the same thing I'd experience much of how your thinking changed.

 

Your $.02 has been saved and is collecting interest.

 

Well, in the context of a gun control dispute I inferred from this that you would be voting

Democratic. However put this in a right-to life debate, and the same could be said for your voting Republican. Pity you dont have a combination Lyndon LaRouche / Jimmy Carter ticket this year. Can we assume you are pro life? Should illegal guns be used to shoot abortion doctors if that was the only way to stop them?

 

Quick rundown for you.

 

Socially liberal (pro gay marriage, abortion = good, guns = bad, etc) and fiscally moderate. Handouts are bad and people need to earn their success. We should be neither taxing nor spending ourselves into oblivion but simply cutting isn't the answer. Obama isn't ideal, Santorum is no better and Romneys record in taxachussets is troubling.

 

If you have any further questions regarding where I stand... you know my phone number... call me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your vast experience in guns and gun ranges. Not to mention gun transportation. Tells you that people bring their entire gun collection to the range every time they go? I was a member at a shooting club for several years, the largest amount of guns I ever saw a guy show up with was 2, not counting the one on his belt. Which would take care of the carjacker anyway.

 

Firstly I've spent a good enough amount of time on ranges. Enough to be a more than fair shot and the people who taught me were sure to teach me safety, including gun transportation.

 

Secondly: for the record, Boothy sounds like he'll be bringing a large part of his collection to the range for the blast-a-thon. Over the multiple occasions while I was learning we had 7-8 in the vehicle each time which we rotated through throughout the day.

 

 

They might have taught you range safety, but they didn't teach you squat about proper gun transportation. Not if the guns were in the backseat they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We brought 12 firearms, Timo brought a half dozen and Mr. Foxtrot brought perhaps ten. That would be twenty eight firearms for just 5 people. Too many, Wes? Whatever, but guess what? We didn't shoot any one, take over a bank, or a school, or kill a church full of lesbian nuns, nor even hijack a jet liner bound for Fiji. Instead we packed up, went for a late lunch, knocked back some excellent bbq and beers, talked story, planned our next range trip.......and went home.

 

I'm having a real g-damn hard time why you would EVER want to deny our pleasure, passion & hobby, Wes. Really, you're not running on all cylinders here-----and methinks you might need a tune-up.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boothie, unfortunately wesley has lived a very sheltered life. As such he is extremely naive. Real problem is, he thinks he knows it all when he is still hiding under his mommy's apron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give him break....his fingers are probably swollen and he's probably icing them right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your vast experience in guns and gun ranges. Not to mention gun transportation. Tells you that people bring their entire gun collection to the range every time they go? I was a member at a shooting club for several years, the largest amount of guns I ever saw a guy show up with was 2, not counting the one on his belt. Which would take care of the carjacker anyway.

 

Firstly I've spent a good enough amount of time on ranges. Enough to be a more than fair shot and the people who taught me were sure to teach me safety, including gun transportation.

 

Secondly: for the record, Boothy sounds like he'll be bringing a large part of his collection to the range for the blast-a-thon. Over the multiple occasions while I was learning we had 7-8 in the vehicle each time which we rotated through throughout the day.

 

 

They might have taught you range safety, but they didn't teach you squat about proper gun transportation. Not if the guns were in the backseat they didn't.

 

 

Fairness alert- Stop the thread a moment.

 

Where did he say they were in the back seat?

 

And, WTF is wrong with the back seat if in a case, and unloaded?

 

 

Local codes may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your vast experience in guns and gun ranges. Not to mention gun transportation. Tells you that people bring their entire gun collection to the range every time they go? I was a member at a shooting club for several years, the largest amount of guns I ever saw a guy show up with was 2, not counting the one on his belt. Which would take care of the carjacker anyway.

 

Firstly I've spent a good enough amount of time on ranges. Enough to be a more than fair shot and the people who taught me were sure to teach me safety, including gun transportation.

 

Secondly: for the record, Boothy sounds like he'll be bringing a large part of his collection to the range for the blast-a-thon. Over the multiple occasions while I was learning we had 7-8 in the vehicle each time which we rotated through throughout the day.

 

 

They might have taught you range safety, but they didn't teach you squat about proper gun transportation. Not if the guns were in the backseat they didn't.

 

 

Fairness alert- Stop the thread a moment.

 

Where did he say they were in the back seat?

 

And, WTF is wrong with the back seat if in a case, and unloaded?

 

 

Local codes may vary.

Our you caillinge this actione undere RRS C6.3(a)? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to raise the voting age to about 37 I think.

 

Nope, it should go back to the way it was, where only land owners could vote. The rest have no vested interest.

 

That seems a bit too aristocratic to me. I'd go late Mediæval and also allow recognised Guildmembers to vote. I concede that this would give the vote to lawyers, but figure they are devious enough to work any system to get the vote anyway. Besides "Do not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain" - if they are writing the laws, they should get some benefit from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your vast experience in guns and gun ranges. Not to mention gun transportation. Tells you that people bring their entire gun collection to the range every time they go? I was a member at a shooting club for several years, the largest amount of guns I ever saw a guy show up with was 2, not counting the one on his belt. Which would take care of the carjacker anyway.

 

Firstly I've spent a good enough amount of time on ranges. Enough to be a more than fair shot and the people who taught me were sure to teach me safety, including gun transportation.

 

Secondly: for the record, Boothy sounds like he'll be bringing a large part of his collection to the range for the blast-a-thon. Over the multiple occasions while I was learning we had 7-8 in the vehicle each time which we rotated through throughout the day.

 

 

They might have taught you range safety, but they didn't teach you squat about proper gun transportation. Not if the guns were in the backseat they didn't.

 

 

Fairness alert- Stop the thread a moment.

 

Where did he say they were in the back seat?

 

And, WTF is wrong with the back seat if in a case, and unloaded?

 

 

Local codes may vary.

 

when he said this

Right. But what happens to those other 18? You're carjacked on the way to the range with your guns in the backseat in gun cases and trigger locked.

 

But you are right local codes may vary and a cased gun that is within reach of an occupant may be legal in some states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the vernacular of the founders, "arms" are those weapons that a man can easily carry. Such as a musket, rifle, pistol, pike, sword.... Cannon and the like are "ordnance".

 

The latter is where your nuke comes in, ditto for all those bazooka and shoulder-fired SAM strawmen you control freaks keep bringing up.

 

I don't read about any gun rights advocacy groups asking for nukes.

 

Arms = Armaments. Show me a supreme court interpretation which says that it's limited to what a man can easily carry.

 

Nuclear weapon is an armament.

 

Besides, what a man can carry is very subjective. I'm sure that at his peak Arnold S could have lifted the actual warhead part of a nuclear weapon. And what about portable nukes? Have you ever heard of the Luna shoulder fired nukes that the USSR developed and our equivalent, the Davy Crockett W54 system. Those literally fit in a suitcase.

 

And yes, I should be allowed to, under the constitution, hypothetically carry Bazookas and SAM's as well.

 

ar_mrl_frog7_v1.jpg

 

Not even Terminator!Arnie could shoulder fire that.

 

We are back at Ordnance again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to raise the voting age to about 37 I think.

 

Nope, it should go back to the way it was, where only land owners could vote. The rest have no vested interest.

 

That seems a bit too aristocratic to me. I'd go late Mediæval and also allow recognised Guildmembers to vote. I concede that this would give the vote to lawyers, but figure they are devious enough to work any system to get the vote anyway. Besides "Do not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain" - if they are writing the laws, they should get some benefit from them.

 

It the way it was for almost the first 100 years in the US. Like I said, everyone else has no vested interest. I'd agree that those who own a functioning business of some sort should be allowed as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

If I find my views changing as time goes on then I will behave accordingly. Consider everything, form an opinion and act (or don't act) accordingly.

 

Edit: I do not currently agree with either of the major parties and am currently assessing and evaluating potential other viewpoints which will be on the ballot come november.

 

Ya see Wes - it doesn't really seem like you ARE considering everything - you've formed an opinion supported by emotion, and don't seem to be willing to consider any empirical data that doesn't support your preconceived notion. Carry your idea to its logical conclusion. BTW - "logical conclusion" is a phrase that means we can't consider a utopian implementation, we must consider the most probable outcome of an action, warts and all.

 

Here's a couple questions for ya to also consider: 1) How many gun-related crimes are committed by persons who are in legal possession of the firearm used in the crime?

2) Of that number - short of a total and complete confiscation of every firearm and the elimination of the public sale of all ammunition, how many of those crimes would be prevented by either of the confiscatory approaches you've proffered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I know. I know that the news is filled every day with tragic stories of accidents and murders where peoples lives are ended by fools with guns, I know that our country has the highest death-by-firearms rate in the world, I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there and I know that more and more are made and sold every day.

 

These facts have influenced me to develop the opinions that I hold regarding the usefulness of our current system of firearm ownership. No indoctrination, political views or naivety about it. The only influences on me have been statistics and mathematics, pure and simple.

 

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

 

Should we ban cars? Lots of people are killed in car accidents?

 

Should we not let kids under 25 drive? Highest death rate for that age group is by auto accident?

 

How about swimming, boating, fishing.., Lots of people drown every year. Should each home be limited to 1 bathtub and it only be 4 inches deep?

 

Do you ever drink alcohol? Isn't that dangerous? Drinking kills lots of kids your age. Do you ever get drunk and then go on a boat, surrounded by the already discussed dangerous water? Have you applied the math to that and decided to not assume that risk? Or is your statistical concern only about things you have no personal interest in?

 

Same old tired wank.

 

None of those things were designed to kill.

 

Guns are designed to kill. No other use.

 

Fucking middle aged, pot bellied, wannabe Rambo's. Gun in one hand, Penis in the other. A toss off to see which goes off first.

 

Face to face with some young hyped-up punk with a gun and you would piss your pants.

 

"Defend my country. Defend my property." You wouldn't last 10 seconds against any half trained soldier.

 

Doesn't matter whether a car was designed to kill or not - dead is fuckin' dead.

 

Middle-aged? Yup. Pot bellied - nope. Wannabe Rambo - not me - I've seen enough in real life to not want anymore of it. Gun in one hand, dick in the other? Naw - I need two hands for either.

 

Face-to-face w/a young hyped-up punk and pissin' my pants? Probably not.

 

Are you any kinda half-trained Soldier JS? Just for the record - I am - retiring this weekend after 27 years of combined service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, and thank you for your service.

 

Thanks Toyota man. Now - to bring the hijack back w/the last thought I'll offer on the topic:

 

The gun-control debate isn't only about whether or not people are allowed to own firearms - it's really much bigger: Admission: If I thought that giving up my guns would actually eliminate violent deaths and assaults - as much as I've spent, and as much as I enjoy shooting and hunting, I'd camp out all night in front of the turn in station to hand 'em in.

 

The debate isn't really about guns, though - it's about how much influence we as a populace feel our government should be able to exercise over us. Guns just happen to be a convenient, polarizing subject for such a discussion. Ever hear of divide and conquer?

 

I won't deign to speak for anyone other than myself, but, in my humble opinion, giving up on gun rights (that's a RIGHT, not a permission granted by the government) is the start down the slippery slope of unfettered government restriction from which I fear we'd never be able to come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I know. I know that the news is filled every day with tragic stories of accidents and murders where peoples lives are ended by fools with guns, I know that our country has the highest death-by-firearms rate in the world, I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there and I know that more and more are made and sold every day.

 

These facts have influenced me to develop the opinions that I hold regarding the usefulness of our current system of firearm ownership. No indoctrination, political views or naivety about it. The only influences on me have been statistics and mathematics, pure and simple.

 

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

 

Should we ban cars? Lots of people are killed in car accidents?

 

Should we not let kids under 25 drive? Highest death rate for that age group is by auto accident?

 

How about swimming, boating, fishing.., Lots of people drown every year. Should each home be limited to 1 bathtub and it only be 4 inches deep?

 

Do you ever drink alcohol? Isn't that dangerous? Drinking kills lots of kids your age. Do you ever get drunk and then go on a boat, surrounded by the already discussed dangerous water? Have you applied the math to that and decided to not assume that risk? Or is your statistical concern only about things you have no personal interest in?

 

Same old tired wank.

 

None of those things were designed to kill.

 

Guns are designed to kill. No other use.

 

Fucking middle aged, pot bellied, wannabe Rambo's. Gun in one hand, Penis in the other. A toss off to see which goes off first.

 

Face to face with some young hyped-up punk with a gun and you would piss your pants.

 

"Defend my country. Defend my property." You wouldn't last 10 seconds against any half trained soldier.

 

Doesn't matter whether a car was designed to kill or not - dead is fuckin' dead.

 

Middle-aged? Yup. Pot bellied - nope. Wannabe Rambo - not me - I've seen enough in real life to not want anymore of it. Gun in one hand, dick in the other? Naw - I need two hands for either.

 

Face-to-face w/a young hyped-up punk and pissin' my pants? Probably not.

 

Are you any kinda half-trained Soldier JS? Just for the record - I am - retiring this weekend after 27 years of combined service.

 

27 years of combined service at what?

 

Why then do you think that what I wrote applied to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 years of combined service at what?

 

Why then do you think that what I wrote applied to you?

 

 

27 years - Army and Air Force, active duty and guard. Why do I think that what you wrote applied to me? Because you painted all the folks who aren't buying the emotional anti-gun arguments as factual with the same broad brush.

 

I won't convince anyone who thinks that guns are evil to reconsider anything - if I can get 'em to consider that the counterpoint to their position may have merit, or even that not every pro-gun person might not be a raving lunatic, then it's been a worthwhile discussion. If not - then we're no worse off then when we started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the fuck isn't this drivel in PA yet? What is more political than a bunch of guys chest beating over gun control laws? Lb tried to add some brevity to thread but some of you fellas don't get humour. At least "chicks with guns" had some redeeming values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 years of combined service at what?

 

Why then do you think that what I wrote applied to you?

 

 

27 years - Army and Air Force, active duty and guard. Why do I think that what you wrote applied to me? Because you painted all the folks who aren't buying the emotional anti-gun arguments as factual with the same broad brush.

 

I won't convince anyone who thinks that guns are evil to reconsider anything - if I can get 'em to consider that the counterpoint to their position may have merit, or even that not every pro-gun person might not be a raving lunatic, then it's been a worthwhile discussion. If not - then we're no worse off then when we started.

I have never written that guns are evil, but you cannot deny that they are made for anything else but to kill.

 

The problem with guns is that over there, they are too easily available and the result is that people use them to kill because it way to easy to pull a trigger. It's part of your culture. Imagine yourself as a Rambo, or Dirty Harry, or any number of imaginary gun toting heros.

 

Since you can't control the nut cases, then the only other option is to control the guns so the nut cases can't get their hands on them.

 

ALL laws are made to limit or control what the fools of this world do. Not the sensible people. Nobody has yet worked out a way to apply laws to one and not the other, so the sensible just have to suffer. A few can and do fuck things up for the many.

 

You have to have a license to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a boat, be a doctor, be a plumber, be an electrician, even to get married. (and plenty of people can't do that properly)

 

Finally, you don't seem to notice (or care) that these two recent school shootings have caught the attention of people all over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have never written that guns are evil, but you cannot deny that they are made for anything else but to kill.

 

The problem with guns is that over there, they are too easily available and the result is that people use them to kill because it way to easy to pull a trigger. It's part of your culture. Imagine yourself as a Rambo, or Dirty Harry, or any number of imaginary gun toting heros.

 

Since you can't control the nut cases, then the only other option is to control the guns so the nut cases can't get their hands on them.

 

ALL laws are made to limit or control what the fools of this world do. Not the sensible people. Nobody has yet worked out a way to apply laws to one and not the other, so the sensible just have to suffer. A few can and do fuck things up for the many.

 

You have to have a license to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a boat, be a doctor, be a plumber, be an electrician, even to get married. (and plenty of people can't do that properly)

 

Finally, you don't seem to notice (or care) that these two recent school shootings have caught the attention of people all over the world.

 

It just f'ng hit me-----you're the drunk Ozzie who knocked up Left Hook's mom.

 

 

It's all coming together now......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have never written that guns are evil, but you cannot deny that they are made for anything else but to kill.

 

The problem with guns is that over there, they are too easily available and the result is that people use them to kill because it way to easy to pull a trigger. It's part of your culture. Imagine yourself as a Rambo, or Dirty Harry, or any number of imaginary gun toting heros.

 

Since you can't control the nut cases, then the only other option is to control the guns so the nut cases can't get their hands on them.

 

ALL laws are made to limit or control what the fools of this world do. Not the sensible people. Nobody has yet worked out a way to apply laws to one and not the other, so the sensible just have to suffer. A few can and do fuck things up for the many.

 

You have to have a license to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a boat, be a doctor, be a plumber, be an electrician, even to get married. (and plenty of people can't do that properly)

 

Finally, you don't seem to notice (or care) that these two recent school shootings have caught the attention of people all over the world.

 

It just f'ng hit me-----you're the drunk Ozzie who knocked up Left Hook's mom.

 

 

It's all coming together now......

 

Not unless he's about 40. Was knocking over a few yankee sheilas back then in Europe & UK. Too easy.

 

So Rambo, or do you prefer Dirty Harry? I notice you didn't address the point I raised with you re how close your daughter was to the friends of hers that were murdered. Too close to home was it? Didn't want to think about it? Or do you just pretend it didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have never written that guns are evil, but you cannot deny that they are made for anything else but to kill.

 

The problem with guns is that over there, they are too easily available and the result is that people use them to kill because it way to easy to pull a trigger. It's part of your culture. Imagine yourself as a Rambo, or Dirty Harry, or any number of imaginary gun toting heros.

 

Since you can't control the nut cases, then the only other option is to control the guns so the nut cases can't get their hands on them.

 

ALL laws are made to limit or control what the fools of this world do. Not the sensible people. Nobody has yet worked out a way to apply laws to one and not the other, so the sensible just have to suffer. A few can and do fuck things up for the many.

 

You have to have a license to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a boat, be a doctor, be a plumber, be an electrician, even to get married. (and plenty of people can't do that properly)

 

Finally, you don't seem to notice (or care) that these two recent school shootings have caught the attention of people all over the world.

 

It just f'ng hit me-----you're the drunk Ozzie who knocked up Left Hook's mom.

 

 

It's all coming together now......

 

Not unless he's about 40. Was knocking over a few yankee sheilas back then in Europe & UK. Too easy.

 

So Rambo, or do you prefer Dirty Harry? I notice you didn't address the point I raised with you re how close your daughter was to the friends of hers that were murdered. Too close to home was it? Didn't want to think about it? Or do you just pretend it didn't happen.

 

They weren't shot to death, ass-fuk, they were stabbed and beaten. Now kindly go fuk yourself, you ignorant, obstinate, annoying, uneducated fallopian tube of a 'man'....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have never written that guns are evil, but you cannot deny that they are made for anything else but to kill.

 

The problem with guns is that over there, they are too easily available and the result is that people use them to kill because it way to easy to pull a trigger. It's part of your culture. Imagine yourself as a Rambo, or Dirty Harry, or any number of imaginary gun toting heros.

 

Since you can't control the nut cases, then the only other option is to control the guns so the nut cases can't get their hands on them.

 

ALL laws are made to limit or control what the fools of this world do. Not the sensible people. Nobody has yet worked out a way to apply laws to one and not the other, so the sensible just have to suffer. A few can and do fuck things up for the many.

 

You have to have a license to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a boat, be a doctor, be a plumber, be an electrician, even to get married. (and plenty of people can't do that properly)

 

Finally, you don't seem to notice (or care) that these two recent school shootings have caught the attention of people all over the world.

 

It just f'ng hit me-----you're the drunk Ozzie who knocked up Left Hook's mom.

 

 

It's all coming together now......

 

Not unless he's about 40. Was knocking over a few yankee sheilas back then in Europe & UK. Too easy.

 

So Rambo, or do you prefer Dirty Harry? I notice you didn't address the point I raised with you re how close your daughter was to the friends of hers that were murdered. Too close to home was it? Didn't want to think about it? Or do you just pretend it didn't happen.

 

They weren't shot to death, ass-fuk, they were stabbed and beaten. Now kindly go fuk yourself, you ignorant, obstinate, annoying, uneducated fallopian tube of a 'man'....

 

Wow. A dummy spit. What are you going to do now? Go out and shoot something Rambo? You have just demonstrated why you should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. You are a fucking dangerous bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, dangerous? With out a threat? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

How does limiting my purchase to just a few guns going to keep me from shooting up a school or something if I snapped or just decided be evil? Do you think I''m going to load my entire safe's worth of guns into the back of the SUV and carry all that hardware down the street just to go shoot up someone????? Quantity does not a psycho make...

 

JFC Wesley - I remember thinking when you were getting picked on here for being a douche that some of it was unwarranted and they (like TS) were being a bit harsh. I was wrong - you are a COMPLETE douche and deserve every ounce of scorn you get here. Here's a tip: Try shitting the fuck up more often and try to learn something from your elders instead of running your cake hole all the damn time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

How does limiting my purchase to just a few guns going to keep me from shooting up a school or something if I snapped or just decided be evil? Do you think I''m going to load my entire safe's worth of guns into the back of the SUV and carry all that hardware down the street just to go shoot up someone????? Quantity does not a psycho make...

 

JFC Wesley - I remember thinking when you were getting picked on here for being a douche that some of it was unwarranted and they (like TS) were being a bit harsh. I was wrong - you are a COMPLETE douche and deserve every ounce of scorn you get here. Here's a tip: Try shitting the fuck up more often and try to learn something from your elders instead of running your cake hole all the damn time.

 

just saying, but he does that quite often. now, shutting the fuck up... id pay good money to see that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kidz, here's an idea-----can any of you guys out near Wes-Land take our young, naive librul to a nice, outdoor shooting range for a day? And let him play with a wide variety of different toys? Just say the word and you can count me in for $10.00....

 

Fuck that! The little douchenozzle knows what he knows. Why waste time letting him fondle and caress the very tools that made America the free country that it is today. Besides, I don't want him to change his mind because shooting is fun.... I want him to see the errors of his mindset for what it is: failed and twisted logic.

 

Look Douchley, errr I mean Wesley - I'm sorry that innocent people die every day, from a multitude of things and reasons. Every life lost is a tragedy and they should be mourned with reverence. But we're not going to change that by banning tools and implements. Turn your anger towards an enabling society who has turned a blind eye to rampant violence, responsibility and the need for involved parenting and just plain old good citizenship.

 

But an even bigger tragedy would be to give up our liberty for a false sense of security. Because that's exactly what would happen if wwe banned guns - only criminals would then have guns and the rest of us would be disarmed and helpless. Sorry, no fucking thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

How does limiting my purchase to just a few guns going to keep me from shooting up a school or something if I snapped or just decided be evil? Do you think I''m going to load my entire safe's worth of guns into the back of the SUV and carry all that hardware down the street just to go shoot up someone????? Quantity does not a psycho make...

 

JFC Wesley - I remember thinking when you were getting picked on here for being a douche that some of it was unwarranted and they (like TS) were being a bit harsh. I was wrong - you are a COMPLETE douche and deserve every ounce of scorn you get here. Here's a tip: Try shitting the fuck up more often and try to learn something from your elders instead of running your cake hole all the damn time.

 

just saying, but he does that quite often. now, shutting the fuck up... id pay good money to see that...

Correct. A little less shitting himself in public and a little more STFU'ing would carry him far in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yumi Stynes...yay ozzie...we're not in the least bit fucked up...oi...oi....oii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boring.

USA

sarah_palin_gun.jpg

 

Australia

australian_soccer_fans_nude_body_paint.jpg

 

 

 

During your daily Canberra masturbatory sessions....you obviously missed the Chicks With Guns thread.

 

Oh well.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

I hear ya pal, but we'll eventually get Johnny and Dreads to come around some day. Just gotta have a little patience.....

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEzuC5UoM8g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

I hear ya pal, but we'll eventually get Johnny and Dreads to come around some day. Just gotta have a little patience.....

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEzuC5UoM8g

 

Not a fucking snowballs chance in hell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

I hear ya pal, but we'll eventually get Johnny and Dreads to come around some day. Just gotta have a little patience.....

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEzuC5UoM8g

 

Not a fucking snowballs chance in hell!

 

 

F'ng racist....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

Bitch, please! You should not expect a civil response to your opinion that a basic human right should be curtailed. And while what you espouse may be new and appear intelligent to your young and hopefully still developing mind, don't think the antiquated cavemen who have responded to you haven't heard the same stupid crap from the likes of you over and over and over again for the last 30 or 40 years.

 

Glad to hear it makes your blood boil. Happy high blood pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

Bitch, please! You should not expect a civil response to your opinion that a basic human right should be curtailed. And while what you espouse may be new and appear intelligent to your young and hopefully still developing mind, don't think the antiquated cavemen who have responded to you haven't heard the same stupid crap from the likes of you over and over and over again for the last 30 or 40 years.

 

Glad to hear it makes your blood boil. Happy high blood pressure.

 

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock ...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitch, please! You should not expect a civil response to your opinion that a basic human right should be curtailed.

 

I was unaware that gun ownership is a basic human right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but you cannot deny that they are made for anything else but to kill.

 

Yeah, I can actually. Many guns like these were made specifically for punching holes in paper or other inanimate objects

 

Olympics+Day+6+Shooting+2X_FO6VmmR8l.jpg

prod_acz101spider_front.jpg

 

Could they still kill people? Sure, but they weren't made to. Just like a car wasn't made to kill anyone but its THE most efficient human killing maching out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

Gentlemen, my work here is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but you cannot deny that they are made for anything else but to kill.

 

Yeah, I can actually. Many guns like these were made specifically for punching holes in paper or other inanimate objects

 

Olympics+Day+6+Shooting+2X_FO6VmmR8l.jpg

prod_acz101spider_front.jpg

 

Could they still kill people? Sure, but they weren't made to. Just like a car wasn't made to kill anyone but its THE most efficient human killing maching out there.

 

Nice way to miss the point!!!

 

A gun was designed to kill people and other things, the ones you describe above are simply off shoots of a killing weapon for sport.

 

A car was designed for transport and is only a killing machine when used incorrectly. A gun is a killing machine when used correctly.

 

What ever crap reasons you want to come up with about why it is you're 'god' given right to own a gun, the fact will always remain that when guns are readily available within the community poeple kill each other and themselves with them. When they are not readily availble people do not.

 

The US looses more people in a month from gun related deaths than died in 9/11, yet they go to war over 9/11 and kill more people and do absolutely nothing about the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here discussing this I got to thinking about my second ammendment rights; that I can keep and bear arms. The following is a hypothetical discussion and I know how ridiculous it sounds but oftentimes taking things to an extreme is a valid way of making an argument. Please keep that in mind while responding. I do NOT have any desire to do anything I've outlined.

 

Anyways, second amendment... " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

Therefore, hypothetically, I should be able to keep and use nuclear weapons.

 

Is this not insane? "Nukes are dangerous and can kill millions of people" you say - you are correct. But say I have an overpowering urge to protect my property or hunt Bambi with a mile high fireball. Technically the constitution defends my ability to do so.

 

What's the difference between a split atom and a bullet?

 

Both are originally designed to kill, both are incredibly dangerous when they fall into the wrong hands, both can also (hypothetically) be used for sport and for self defense.

 

So if you take my nukes away because they are "incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands and were only designed to kill" then how is that different from taking a firearm away from someone? It has the same attributes as a giant bomb. They are (as proven in ohio) incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands, were in fact originally designed to kill. Besides scale how is that different from the fundamental attributes of a nuclear weapon? How different are 1 million guns from 1 nuclear weapon?

 

And as a second hypothetical discussion point:

 

If there are laws preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon aren't those laws unconstitutional due to a violation of my second amendment rights?

 

Who says laws against owning a nuke are constitutional?

He hasn't got to that chapter in the book yet.

 

 

 

He needs to go visit you in England some day. I'll even chip in if you wanna give him an 0200 tour of the 'nicer' parts of town....

He should be safe, only the bad guys have guns now! :o He might want a stab vest though, knife crime is through the roof in places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

 

There are many who do or don't live in highly populated areas and don't feel the need for using a gun for defense on such a level.The guns of many collectors aren't kept for defense,but for other reasons such as hunting,sport or competition shooting or primarily as a collection.Competitive rifle,pistol and shotgun shooters may have just a few guns initially,but usually that collection grows with new and old additions,with more then a few favorites.

 

The same with hunters,having the proper rifle,pistol or shotgun for the intended game,and their collections will grow as well and be quite varied.Then there are collectors like myself who used to shoot and still maintain their collections.You would be amazed at the size of some of the impressive collections I've seen over the years,more then a few handed down from their forefathers.

 

Some of the guns in our collection have been handed down generation to generation,with some dating back six generations.Others are guns built by my great-grandfather & grandfather that were handed down to my father,then on to me.I plan to hand these guns down to my sons,some of which I already have.Some of these are still used,others haven't been used in over 50-75 years or more.It's a collection and a family heritage,and that's what such collections are about,heritage and history of our forefathers.It's also about respecting and honoring those traditions and heritage,and respecting rights that go along with gun ownership.

 

I wouldn't oppose collecting weapons either so long as they're made safe. In my book if you render the weapon unusable (either removing the firing pin or some other method) then you can have a collection of thousands. Sentimental and historical value are incredibly important and I wouldn't try to keep anyone from maintaining that.

 

Though if they insist on having some be operational then they would have to choose between owning sentimental functioning weapons and non-sentimental functioning weapons.

 

Yeah, and all my rich friends with zillion dollar Ferrari, Porsche, Lambo and Maseratti collections disable their cars by filling in the ignition switches with JB Weld. Thereby rendering them....inoperable.

 

Boy? Now you're really starting to fuking scare me. Your mindset, your political views, your desire to control others and your total naivette about Life are faaaaaar more dangerous to me and mine than any legal gun collector in America is.

 

Just. F'ng. Wow, I thought we had cut off the head of the Medusa that is East Coast College Liberalism back in the mid 90's....but I was obviously wrong...

Isn't that like owning a boat, but not having any sails? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there

 

 

This is the real issue.

 

Wesley is "terrified", of "unsecured" weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

"selfish" "close-minded" "antiquated" ?

 

Pot, meet kettle.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be where you're heading if Wes gets his way.

 

 

Any body want to mention why we as a human race came up with knives?? Pretty damn sure it wasn't to cut steaks.

 

A teenage girl went out in her school lunch hour to buy kitchen knives to arm a gang that stabbed a boy to death, the Old Bailey heard yesterday.

 

Victoria Osoteku, then 18, helped arm a mob of up to 20 youths who hunted down 15-year-old Sofyen Belamouadden and cornered him in the ticket hall of Victoria underground station in central London in March last year, it was alleged.

 

Sofyen suffered fatal wounds to his heart and right lung during the attack last year, carried out in front of ''scores if not hundreds of people going home’’.

 

Mr Heywood said the gang had arrived at the station shortly after 5.15pm. He added: ''They were heavily armed with a range of knives, including a whole set of kitchen knives purchased for the purpose that very afternoon by two students. One of those two who went on the purchasing expedition was this defendant Victoria Osoteku.’’

 

My link

 

 

Police recorded 15,313 robbery offences involving a knife compared with 13,971 in the 12 months to Sep 2010 - a 10% increase.

 

My link

 

Four police officers have been stabbed after being called to a disturbance in north-west London.

 

Witnesses said a man had been chased by police in and out of shops before he fled into a butchers, grabbed a knife and attacked the officers.

 

Two of the PCs were seriously hurt and one suffered a broken hand during Saturday's incident in Kingsbury Road.

 

My link

 

Facts about knife Crime

 

In 2007 - 27 Teenagers were stabbed to death in London

The first fatal stabbing that happened in the UK in 2008 was in the early hours of the new year!

3 More fatal stabbings happened in the UK within the first week

In the UK knife crime happens every 24 minutes< - in London it is every 50 minutes

From July 2007 - October 2007 there were 5,500 serious knife crimes

On May bank holiday 2006 (27th-29th May 06) the police recorded 50 Knife attacks

Most people who are at risk are Males aged between 14-24

 

 

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<snip>

 

A gun was designed to kill people and other things, the ones you describe above are simply off shoots of a killing weapon for sport.

 

A car was designed for transport and is only a killing machine when used incorrectly. A gun is a killing machine when used correctly.

 

~~~

 

Actually a car is a derivative of the military Armoured Fighting Vehicle, which came first, but other uses were later found for the killing machine. (just like military/civilian gun use)

 

tumblr_lvrdu0Z0W71r7cqsro1_500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

In other words you got nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please give me the Cliff Notes for this thread?

 

Remember the last Gun Control v. Gun Rights thread you read. It's like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A little graphic might illustrate my point well though as to where we could start in order to reduce risks:

 

800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png

 

 

 

 

Handguns need to be banned forever. Why? Because there is no need for a concealable killing machine. It's the same reason why Automatic Rifles were banned - there's no need.

 

 

 

Gun ownership, and particularly handgun ownership, has been growing for a long time now. More states allow concealed weapons than ever before, it is easier to get them in many states, and more states recognize each others permits than ever before. How do those facts square with your chart above?

 

By the way, automatic weapons are not banned for civilians, they are just restricted to rich people with clean records who are willing to go through some paperwork. The registry has been closed since 1986, but thousands of machine guns remain in civilian hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you have not outlined a plan. No outright proposals to be enacted as a matter of law. Nothing actionable.

 

If you're as clever as you imagine yourself to be, it's probably formulated in your mind already. Just write what you feel. Show us who's the better man. "How do we do this?"

 

1st is to start by banning the sale of the affected weapons..

 

2nd is to collect the ones already out there... which is tough. Buybacks have been shown to be effective in the past so that's a good place to start. As for those people who don't want to... I can't give you a good answer. Maybe have the police systematically go through the list of registered gun owners and confiscate or send away to modify the affected weapons? That sounds a bit too 1984-y for my tastes personally.

 

There is no list of registered gun owners, nor any list of guns. Suggestions like yours, and the lack of response to it by anyone other than gun nuts, are a reason why some of us oppose registries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here discussing this I got to thinking about my second ammendment rights; that I can keep and bear arms. The following is a hypothetical discussion and I know how ridiculous it sounds but oftentimes taking things to an extreme is a valid way of making an argument. Please keep that in mind while responding. I do NOT have any desire to do anything I've outlined.

 

Anyways, second amendment... " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

Therefore, hypothetically, I should be able to keep and use nuclear weapons.

...

 

And as a second hypothetical discussion point:

 

If there are laws preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon aren't those laws unconstitutional due to a violation of my second amendment rights?

 

While sitting there thinking about it, you might actually research the state of our constitutional law re the second amendment. Your question was already addressed in the Heller case.

 

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

 

Emphasis added. By the way, the same case presents a little problem for your handgun banning plan.

 

Held:

 

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

...

 

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru- tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday's example of an honest citizen with a concealed carry permit saving lives.

 

Go The Doc.....

 

Gunman killed after taking hostages at Colo. medical building; armed doctor helps others flee

 

Article by: Associated Press

Updated: February 29, 2012 - 11:57 AM

 

 

 

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A Colorado doctor with a concealed-weapon permit said he grabbed his gun and guarded an exit at a medical building as dozens of people fled from a gunman who had taken two hostages.

 

Authorities in Colorado Springs said the hostages were released before police shot and fatally wounded the gunman Tuesday. No one else was hurt.

 

Police identified the gunman as Dominic Oliver, 28, of Colorado Springs.

 

A doctor at the practice, Jeff Ferguson, told KKTV he retrieved his gun from its storage place and protected an exit as an estimated 50 people fled down a stairway.

 

"If this guy opens this door, I'm going to have to shoot him," Ferguson said. "I was absolutely prepared to shoot him, yes."

 

Police said Oliver showed up with a gun at the Urological Associates office at about noon. He was angry at a medical office employee and took her and another person hostage, The Gazette reported.

 

"(Oliver) said, `Everyone get on the ground,' and it was chaos after that, as you can imagine," Ferguson said. "When you heard his voice, I was expecting any second to hear the shots ring out. I thought, `OK, this guy's going to start shooting people right now.'"

 

Some of the patients were in surgical gowns or partially undressed as they left the building, Ferguson told The Gazette. When Ferguson left, the hostages were still inside.

 

Larry Kelberer and his wife, Arlene, were not hostages but were temporarily trapped in the building.

 

"There was screaming and yelling and everyone was yelling to call 911," Kelberer told The Gazette. "One woman was really upset and kept carrying on and saying, `Somebody hug me. Somebody hug me.'"

 

Kelberer uses a walker and was unsure if he could make it down the stairs, so he and his wife locked themselves in an office. After about a half-hour, his wife spotted a police officer. The officer moved the couple to a more protected office and later helped Kelberer get down the stairs.

 

Negotiators said they tried to get Oliver to surrender peacefully before officers moved in to try to rescue the three people who were still hiding in the building.

 

Police said an officer shot the suspect during an "armed confrontation" after a three-hour standoff. It's unclear if Oliver fired his gun.

 

He was rushed to Memorial Central Hospital, where he died hours later.

 

Court records show Oliver had minor run-ins with authorities over the years, including underage drinking and traffic offenses, The Denver Post reported. In 2007, he was charged with ownership of a dangerous dog causing bodily injury, but the charge was later dismissed, records show.

 

The officer who shot Oliver has not been identified but was placed on administrative leave, a routine procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact will always remain that when guns are readily available within the community poeple kill each other and themselves with them. When they are not readily availble people do not.

 

Most decidedly wrong. Please review the information available in this thread regarding Switzerland before you continue stating "facts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact will always remain that when guns are readily available within the community poeple kill each other and themselves with them. When they are not readily availble people do not.

 

Most decidedly wrong. Please review the information available in this thread regarding Switzerland before you continue stating "facts".

 

Apples and oranges, OGT. Lame, blind argument too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact will always remain that when guns are readily available within the community poeple kill each other and themselves with them. When they are not readily availble people do not.

 

Most decidedly wrong. Please review the information available in this thread regarding Switzerland before you continue stating "facts".

 

Apples and oranges, OGT. Lame, blind argument too.

 

Jocal, you do the debate no favours when you just throw out sayings like that with supporting them. Vague labels are no substitute for effectively articulated arguments, which your post is very short on.

 

Yes, there are differences between the U.S. and Switzerland, but notwithstanding, the general statement made by mezaire is still incorrect.

 

 

Mezaire's statement might be correct if it were re-stated as such:

 

"the fact will always remain [chances are far greater] that when guns are readily available [to irresponsible people] within the community, poeple will kill each other and themselves with them. When they are not readily availble people do not."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so fucking done with you political anarchy, 20 thousand post psychos. It's like talking to a brick wall and getting no civil responses back. Intelligent discussion has no meaning to you nutters and reading your shit just makes my blood boil at how selfish, closed-minded and antiquated your views are.

 

"..close minded" and "antiquated" views, you mean like the notion that every citizen is given the right to posses arms and as such is charged with taking up armed struggle in the event our government becomes to out of touch or repressive or tyrannical? Seriously wesley, you really need to do some reading and research and understand what The Constitution and Bill of Rights are about before you so quickly discard something as important as The Second Amendment.

Just because some thugs take up arms for their own selfish purposes. To make themselves look big, to act as bullies in pursuit of a blatant disregard for law and order, does not rise to the level of banning gun ownership. Even if successful, all you have really done is to remove legal arms. Illegal arms will still exist and criminals will still be criminals. Money, time and effort would be better spent on punishment and reform than on confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens.

Of course, like the little boy you are, you would rather stomp your feet, run off and declare, "I know what I know"....Which, by the way, is squat regardless of your efforts to make others think you know what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way the great Bill Hicks puts it

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MEzCtyRWP8

 

 

I'm sure you do. Fortunately (for us Responsibles) an English or Ozzie style mandatory handgun turn-in, forfeiture or seizure will NEVER fuking happen. Which is why I love this great country....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually a car is a derivative of the military Armoured Fighting Vehicle, which came first, but other uses were later found for the killing machine. (just like military/civilian gun use)

 

tumblr_lvrdu0Z0W71r7cqsro1_500.jpg

 

 

Shit like this is what makes trying to have an intelligent discussion impossible. If this discussion were happening face to face, you be laughed at, and completely discounted as a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

 

so, in conclusion, the guy in Canada whose house was being firebombed was probably justified in using his licensed handgun, and should not be charged by the RCMP.

 

thank you.

 

:lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

 

so, in conclusion, the guy in Canada whose house was being firebombed was probably justified in using his licensed handgun, and should not be charged by the RCMP.

 

thank you.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

 

What guy in Canada?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

 

so, in conclusion, the guy in Canada whose house was being firebombed was probably justified in using his licensed handgun, and should not be charged by the RCMP.

 

thank you.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

 

Oh yeah............. back on topic...........

 

 

If the laws of Canada and of his province/town/county allow for the use of deadly force against someone trying to burn down a person's primary domicile, then I see no distinction in this case whether he did it with a farm tractor or with his licensed handgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

 

so, in conclusion, the guy in Canada whose house was being firebombed was probably justified in using his licensed handgun, and should not be charged by the RCMP.

 

thank you.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Absolutely...he shouldn't of been charged in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

 

so, in conclusion, the guy in Canada whose house was being firebombed was probably justified in using his licensed handgun, and should not be charged by the RCMP.

 

thank you.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

And the Three Little Pigs were justified in defending their houses....."if someone tried to blow my house down I'd do the same".....

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A gun was designed to kill people and other things, the ones you describe above are simply off shoots of a killing weapon for sport.

 

A car was designed for transport and is only a killing machine when used incorrectly. A gun is a killing machine when used correctly.

 

How weird. I've shot upwards of a half-million rounds through a variety of these things, and have never killed anything yet. I must be doing it wrong?

 

A gun is "designed to kill people" in exactly the same way that a spoon is "designed to make people fat". Sure, it can be used for that end, but... it still depends on the user, the inanimate object has no ability (let alone a malevolent spirit) on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A gun was designed to kill people and other things, the ones you describe above are simply off shoots of a killing weapon for sport.

 

A car was designed for transport and is only a killing machine when used incorrectly. A gun is a killing machine when used correctly.

 

How weird. I've shot upwards of a half-million rounds through a variety of these things, and have never killed anything yet. I must be doing it wrong?

 

A gun is "designed to kill people" in exactly the same way that a spoon is "designed to make people fat". Sure, it can be used for that end, but... it still depends on the user, the inanimate object has no ability (let alone a malevolent spirit) on its own.

 

I just got done with the morning paper-----and I'm happy to report that none of my guns got arrested for murder last night.

 

Pheeeeew....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

 

so, in conclusion, the guy in Canada whose house was being firebombed was probably justified in using his licensed handgun, and should not be charged by the RCMP.

 

thank you.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

 

What guy in Canada?.....

 

Dosnt Wes have a place in Canada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Hey Kidz, here's an idea-----can any of you guys out near Wes-Land take our young, naive librul to a nice, outdoor shooting range for a day? And let him play with a wide variety of different toys? Just say the word and you can count me in for $10.00....

 

 

I'm happy to. He'd just have to keep his mouth shut for a little while. There's one just up the road from where he lives - a good one at that.

Share this post