Be a Supporter!

Gun confiscation

  • 5,044 Views
  • 218 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 04:13 AM Reply

At 1/12/13 10:51 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Like what?

It REALLY needs to be fucking explained? How about the Bill of Rights? The fact that they aren't breaking into your house and arresting you over the anti-government things you're saying on this site for instance? Geez...

History has proven multiple times, that a government with too much power, ends in very bad situations for it's citizens. Always.

This governments powers are still limited, though they have been scarily broadened over the last few decades. However this PARTICULAR issue has been completed radicalized and caused over reactions like few things I've ever seen. The government considers re-instating a law it already had to limit, or eliminate the sale of assault weapons, and all of a sudden everybody is screaming that they're coming for ALL guns. It's ridiculous and completely not the same thing.

Again, our government is heading down that road as is. And I guess if the mass public doesn't see it (even though it's blatantly obvious), than they're going about it the right way.

If it's so obvious, please provide concrete, irrefutable examples. Something tells me I'll be able to either shoot down every one, or it will be somewhat mullified when looked at for what it is vs. what the partisan media says it is.

Bullshit. Our last president, and the current one, are kidnapping people from their homes and throwing them in prisons without trial.

You know history is more then just two presidencies right? Also, since this was a DOMESTIC issue, I thought we were focusing on such policy really.

To pretend Barack Obama is somehow different than a Hitler or Stalin just because he's an American leader, is ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous is pretending he is. Reduction to Hitler is one of the most disgusting fallacies there is. If you don't see that, you really should just leave this board because your IQ isn't high enough to play here. My God that kind of ignorance pisses me off.

Imprisoning people without a trial sounds pretty fucking Nazi to me.

Bad deal sure, but remember that death camp thing? We're not doing that. Nor is it government policy to do this to a group simply because they're a member of that group.

Propping up industry with government money is very Mussolini.

Eh, the industry was expected to pay the government back and they did. So those were LOANS which were REPAYED.

And drone striking civilians without a declaration of war seems pretty damn 1930s Japanese.

They had drones in the 30's? Shit, how the fuck did we beat those guys then?

You aren't familiar with the whole "slippery slope" and potential for abuse, are you?

I am familiar with the "slippery slope"! It's a logical fallacy that should be avoided in actual debate and intelligent argumentation. Fallacy is fail.

No it just made the people think it was okay.

How can you say "no" and then basically agree with EXACTLY what I said? Stop being contrarian just to be contrarian.

Much like when Hitler talked about disarming the public would make for a safer Germany, or putting Jews in Ghettos would make Germany prosperous. You can make people swallow anytihng when they're afraid, poor or hungry

This is not the same thing at all. Because the public isn't being disarmed, nor are citizens being put in ghettos. The terrorism issue is an issue of whether are not all criminals should be equal under the law (especially non-citizen criminals). It's apples to oranges again with you.

Clinton administration.

The assault weapons one?

Exactly, and the reason he got away with what he got away with, is because the German people were broken, and placed their trust in government and Hitler himself. Which as we can see here, and in other points in history, is a bad idea.

Good thing that's not what's happening in America now. Now what's happening is basically laziness.

No, I think it is, which is why I'm disgusted at our President using it as an excuse for raising taxes.

Huh? When did that happen?

Just as I think it's disgusting for the left to use it as a soapbox to get their agenda passed.

That's politics. But in this particular case, there is some merit to the idea of responding to a gun crime by saying "hey, maybe it should be that much harder to get a crime. Might maybe help some". There IS some logic here.

Well, all I know is, when the Germans and Russians and Chinese started requiring registration and tracking of gun owners (under the pretense of national safety), it lead to confiscation, and we all know how that turned out.

We're not those countries, slippery slope again. Logical fallacies are fail.

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. Insisting it does doesn't change facts. I increasingly think there's no merit to anything you've said, it's just logical fallacies and paranoia.

Good. Then you're one of the few who are focusing on the actual problem. Unfortunately, the government, and their media arm, seem to be overlooking it.

You realize the media is actually owned by corporations with an agenda right? Not really the government? Let's keep the blame where it belongs. But the reason they won't focus on it is it's not an easy band-aid issue that would drive more money into their coffers as a side effect (like tougher gun regulation could).

There is no downside to a responsible, safe gun owner.

But there is downside to the ones who can legally get guns (the mother in Newtown) who allows access to the weapons (shooter son). The unsafe can get guns as well as the safe, and I think it's at least worth looking into trying to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands, even though the better and bigger fix here is to focus on the mental health aspect.

No and no.

You can't just deny facts dude. Even if they disagree with you.

What we should do, is allow people to defend themselves if they choose to.

If they choose to? That's it? No rules? No regulations? Again, you didn't address my point, and then stepped into another tricky cow flop of a sentence. Also, more armed people doesn't always lead to better outcomes.

Except the President. Don't know if you know this, but his opinion and ideas are kind of a big deal.

Only if Congress listens. Actually, up to now this President has been EXTREMELY gun friendly. Look at his record. You're friends at the NRA have been lying to you.

Um, duh.

Oh, common ground. Look at that.

Except the President

I believe the last I heard was he was only considering trying a ban through executive order, not that he was going to. But considering most of the sources are the same that have blatantly LIED about his stance on guns to drive sales, I'm not sure I can even trust that.

Adam Lanza wasn't licensed or trained. Didn't stop him. Licensing and training are irrelevant points, as those laws are already in effect.

They ARE relevant. A licensed and legal owner HAD the guns, and then Lanza being her son was able to OBTAIN them to a bad end. Same thing happened at Columbine and just about any school shooting. Legal owners who aren't responsible IS a problem.

Good. Please go away. Your baseless arguments are irritating me.

Did you just read my mind? I think you did...

No.

Oh? Do you know how and WHY guns were invented? I do. Hint: Intended to be a better way to kill.

Then those people are stupid.

Not really no. Isn't your whole assertion that we need people with guns to defend against people with guns? How then can it be stupid to be suspicious of someone with a bunch of guns?

As I've stated before...

Ah, ah. You're going anecdotal again, that is not real evidence.

No

That sure is shit has been the road you've gone down with me.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 04:29 AM Reply

My Racist Democrat Neighbor thinks something is wrong with interracial relationships even tho the idiot doesn't even realize our President is from an interracial relationship. So maybe there's racism every wheres. But if you mean racial words wise than of course that probably is more South than in New Jersey.

I could only imagine if my Neighbor saw me dating a Black woman how he'd react like it's wrong. So yeah, Racism will never die on both sides of the aisle. My neighbor is the minority tho, I think for the most part most people in New Jersey with the exception of Losers and Skinheads don't have a problem with interracial relationships.

My neighbor had a problem that Steve Urkel(Don't know his real name unless I google) was dating a White women! My Neighbor is white not black and he constantly watches that MSNBC trash and that fake News show on Comedy Central. He likes the race baiting nutjobs on that show such as Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton.


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 11:10 AM Reply

At 1/15/13 02:21 AM, TheKlown wrote: The government says that all you should have is a weak pistol when some murderer breaks into your house. So do you want to have a weak Pistol when the criminal could have a Pistol as well or would you rather have an AK47, so you can blow them to KINGDOM COME?

Believe it or not, I'd prefer the pistol over an AK-47...and this is coming from a guy who, when it was my only firearm, used an AK for home defense.

Even with hollow points, at close range, the AK would fire at a higher muzzle velocity that will prevent the bullet from expanding.

Furthermore, if we're talking about home defense you have the tactical advantage. You can lock yourself in your bedroom and cover the door. He has only way to come at you, but he doesn't know where you're at in the room. You have a better chance at hitting him than he you.

Finally, the Georgia shooting is an anomaly. Most firefights only use about 3 round each. So the rounds in the AK mag is really superfolous.

The ultimate home defense weapon is a tactical shotgun.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 11:52 AM Reply

At 1/15/13 04:13 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: It REALLY needs to be fucking explained? How about the Bill of Rights? The fact that they aren't breaking into your house and arresting you over the anti-government things you're saying on this site for instance? Geez...

The Bill of Rights? That doesn't mean shit to the government anymore, clearly, as many amendments are frequently overridden.

This governments powers are still limited, though they have been scarily broadened over the last few decades

There is hardly any limit. In case you haven't noticed, the government currently dictated what we eat, who we can marry, what we can own, dictates what we must buy, and dictates what consenting adults can consume. Fuck that shit. Not to mention the fucking Gestapo you have to deal with everytime you wanna fly somewhere...and thier insane amount of machine guns.

If it's so obvious, please provide concrete, irrefutable examples. Something tells me I'll be able to either shoot down every one, or it will be somewhat mullified when looked at for what it is vs. what the partisan media says it is.

Do you really need examples? There's an entire prison only a few miles away from florida, housing 100's of prisoners with no trial or due process.

The Patriot Act, wiretaps, etc

It's now a legal requirement to give money to large corporations/conglomerates.

We;re bombing every country that looks at us wrong.

You know history is more then just two presidencies right? Also, since this was a DOMESTIC issue, I thought we were focusing on such policy really.

It has gotten exponentially worse since the Bush adminstration, and will continue to do so.

No, what's ridiculous is pretending he is. Reduction to Hitler is one of the most disgusting fallacies there is. If you don't see that, you really should just leave this board because your IQ isn't high enough to play here. My God that kind of ignorance pisses me off.

OK, what makes him different? What exactly prevents him from becoming a dictator?

Bad deal sure, but remember that death camp thing? We're not doing that. Nor is it government policy to do this to a group simply because they're a member of that group.

It could happen. They have the power.

Eh, the industry was expected to pay the government back and they did. So those were LOANS which were REPAYED.

A) The loans weren't actually repaid (look back to your "actual events vs. media" argument)
B) There should be ZERO link between industry and the government

They had drones in the 30's? Shit, how the fuck did we beat those guys then?

Oh ok. Murdering people is okay, as long as the technology is different. Got it.

I am familiar with the "slippery slope"! It's a logical fallacy that should be avoided in actual debate and intelligent argumentation. Fallacy is fail.

Name a time when the government was given an inch, but didn't take a mile

How can you say "no" and then basically agree with EXACTLY what I said? Stop being contrarian just to be contrarian.

We don't agree here, what are you taling about?

This is not the same thing at all. Because the public isn't being disarmed, nor are citizens being put in ghettos. The terrorism issue is an issue of whether are not all criminals should be equal under the law (especially non-citizen criminals). It's apples to oranges again with you.

It is EXACTLY the same. You're missing the bigger picture here, and that's the problem. You don't see the potential danger. When the government is given power like that, they always abuse it.

The assault weapons one?

It was called that, yes. But the ban was actually based on cosmetic features of guns, much like this proposed one is.

Good thing that's not what's happening in America now. Now what's happening is basically laziness.

Exactly.

Huh? When did that happen?

The quote I posted a little while ago...paraphrase to the point of "It's the worst tragedy in our memories, so we owe it to the country to have some people give a little more..."

That's politics. But in this particular case, there is some merit to the idea of responding to a gun crime by saying "hey, maybe it should be that much harder to get a crime. Might maybe help some". There IS some logic here.

I don't know if you noticed, but criminals do not give a flying fuck about what is illegal or not.

We're not those countries, slippery slope again. Logical fallacies are fail.

And what separates us, exactly? We are human, are we not? There is nothing that makes America a special case. We're a human society, with a representative style government, with a select few in the government, going for huge power grabs and changes to the nations way of life. Just like Germany, China, and Russia.

FWIW, you know, the Europeans who said "It could never happen here" were fucking turned into ashes.

No, it doesn't. Insisting it does doesn't change facts. I increasingly think there's no merit to anything you've said, it's just logical fallacies and paranoia.

Then you're an ignorant fool.

You realize the media is actually owned by corporations with an agenda right? Not really the government? Let's keep the blame where it belongs. But the reason they won't focus on it is it's not an easy band-aid issue that would drive more money into their coffers as a side effect (like tougher gun regulation could).

Obama pays GE. GE owns NBC.

But there is downside to the ones who can legally get guns (the mother in Newtown) who allows access to the weapons (shooter son). The unsafe can get guns as well as the safe, and I think it's at least worth looking into trying to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands, even though the better and bigger fix here is to focus on the mental health aspect.

I agree. However, the government does not think see it this way. Hence why their trying to force a ban on guns based on cosmetics, instead of focusing on laws that keep guns out of unsafe hands.

You can't just deny facts dude. Even if they disagree with you.

You didn't post any.

If they choose to? That's it? No rules? No regulations? Again, you didn't address my point, and then stepped into another tricky cow flop of a sentence. Also, more armed people doesn't always lead to better outcomes.

There are regulations and rules already. Obviously, as we can see, it doesn't solve the problem. In fact, you could even say regulations like "gun free zones" contribute to the problem.

Only if Congress listens. Actually, up to now this President has been EXTREMELY gun friendly. Look at his record. You're friends at the NRA have been lying to you.

1) I don't support the NRA
2) The president does not need to listen to Congress, and has already stated he will go around them if he needs too
3) He hasn't done shit about guns one way or another...just like every other issue...until it's politically convenient for him

I believe the last I heard was he was only considering trying a ban through executive order, not that he was going to. But considering most of the sources are the same that have blatantly LIED about his stance on guns to drive sales, I'm not sure I can even trust that.

Joe Biden has said it on camera.

They ARE relevant. A licensed and legal owner HAD the guns, and then Lanza being her son was able to OBTAIN them to a bad end. Same thing happened at Columbine and just about any school shooting. Legal owners who aren't responsible IS a problem.

Exactly. And she should not have been allowed to own them.

This is a moot point because the government is talking about restricting guns based on LOOKS, instead of who can get ahold of them

Oh? Do you know how and WHY guns were invented? I do. Hint: Intended to be a better way to kill.

And yet, here we are, in 2013, with millions of guns that have never even been aimed at a human. Isn't that odd. YOu saying they're made to kill. And yet so many of them not being used to kill. Weird.

How then can it be stupid to be suspicious of someone with a bunch of guns?

If I have my own guns, I wouldn't care about the "other guy" with guns. Because I can defend myself

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 12:35 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 04:13 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: That's politics. But in this particular case, there is some merit to the idea of responding to a gun crime by saying "hey, maybe it should be that much harder to get a crime. Might maybe help some". There IS some logic here.

There is logic, but the problem is is that it is ground in ignorance instead of logic. The simple fact of the matter is that violent crime has gone down precipitously since 1992 while gun ownership has gone up...as well as the liberalization of gun laws. Also add to that, that the correlation between guns and crime is a spurious one and that crime's causes are found in other social dynamics.

To do anything more on the front of gun control will divert attention, effort, time and money from those sectors where society could see more benefit.


But there is downside to the ones who can legally get guns (the mother in Newtown) who allows access to the weapons (shooter son). The unsafe can get guns as well as the safe, and I think it's at least worth looking into trying to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands, even though the better and bigger fix here is to focus on the mental health aspect.

I don't think the answer is on the side of stopping the bad guys from getting weapons. They will get them no matter what. When they can't get guns they'll resort to explosives and chemicals.

Instead, we should harden our soft targets. Colleges in Colorado allow CCW permit holders to carry on campus...and have experienced reductions in crime without turning them into unsafe bastions of murder and accidental deaths. Holmes looked at three theaters before attacking the Galaxy...he passed them up because the other theaters allowed CCW.

If they choose to? That's it? No rules? No regulations? Again, you didn't address my point, and then stepped into another tricky cow flop of a sentence. Also, more armed people doesn't always lead to better outcomes.

1) "No rules or Regulations" I think the cow flop here is you. We have had CCW since 1992 (in Florida, even earlier) and there are rules and regulations. No one I've seen here is advocating for allowing everyone to carry at any time no matter what. So I think you're injecting something here that doesn't exist.

2) We have seen that more guns, as a trend, does lead to better outcomes. Yes, bad people do get a hold of guns and use them for nefarious purposes. But permissive laws allowing civilians to own firearms do not add to gun crime, however it has been proven that as a trend it reduces it.


They ARE relevant. A licensed and legal owner HAD the guns, and then Lanza being her son was able to OBTAIN them to a bad end. Same thing happened at Columbine and just about any school shooting. Legal owners who aren't responsible IS a problem.

True, but the one thing all mass killers since Columbine have in common is that these attacks took planning. They were not the random acts of a madman. Therefore, focusing on the weapons they get will do nothing but force them to find other means of murder. Meanwhile the good guys will be wasting time, money, and effort.

I get how people see the problem and look for answers...and they usually find simple answers. But guess what? These simple answers are often deceptively simple.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
JackPhantasm
JackPhantasm
  • Member since: Sep. 29, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:01 PM Reply

If all of the guns suddenly disappeared, wouldn't that make things better? All the guns, everywhere.

Answer that.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:11 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If all of the guns suddenly disappeared, wouldn't that make things better? All the guns, everywhere.

Answer that.

Nope because people can make zip guns easily and how is better for people who are weaker defending themselves.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:44 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If all of the guns suddenly disappeared, wouldn't that make things better? All the guns, everywhere.

Answer that.

Wouldn't it be awesome to have a money and gold tree? You just go outside and pick thousands from it when you need it?

I mean, I know it's off topic, but I figured as long as we're bringing up fantasies and completely unrealistic ideas, I thought I'd add mine.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:46 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 05:11 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
At 1/15/13 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If all of the guns suddenly disappeared, wouldn't that make things better? All the guns, everywhere.

Answer that.
Nope because people can make zip guns easily and how is better for people who are weaker defending themselves.

You can also make bombs and poison and traps but why would you or course you could just lock the fucking door like a normal person. Less guns among people means less crime. Guns are for uneducated rednecks and otherwise general ignoramuses and plebs even. I have nary the use of a gun in 28 years on this planet although I will admit I do have a Bow that I keep around in case I ever need to hunt game as a food source.


BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:47 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 05:11 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
At 1/15/13 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If all of the guns suddenly disappeared, wouldn't that make things better? All the guns, everywhere.

Answer that.

Nope !
Cause people can make pointy sticks !
or pick up a rock or brick, a blunt object like a 2x4 or other piece of wood AKA a club !

then there's bottles, pieces of metal, other things like knives & swords ... a glass bottle with a bit of burning rag sticking out of it & the rags on fire ! ! !

Cars, heavy objects droped from heights ........ It goes on & on


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:50 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 05:44 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/15/13 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If all of the guns suddenly disappeared, wouldn't that make things better? All the guns, everywhere.

Answer that.
Wouldn't it be awesome to have a money and gold tree? You just go outside and pick thousands from it when you need it?

I mean, I know it's off topic, but I figured as long as we're bringing up fantasies and completely unrealistic ideas, I thought I'd add mine.

Whats unrealistic about an unarmed society that say would promote education instead of ignorance and violence. Most of the people that preach gun advocacy never needed one in their life they wanted one for ego purposes.


BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:54 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 05:47 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 1/15/13 05:11 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
At 1/15/13 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If all of the guns suddenly disappeared, wouldn't that make things better? All the guns, everywhere.

Answer that.
Nope !
Cause people can make pointy sticks !
or pick up a rock or brick, a blunt object like a 2x4 or other piece of wood AKA a club !

then there's bottles, pieces of metal, other things like knives & swords ... a glass bottle with a bit of burning rag sticking out of it & the rags on fire ! ! !

Cars, heavy objects droped from heights ........ It goes on & on

Gun are efficiency killing devices which is why hey need to be reduced and or removed from society. There are already many ways to go about hurting people lets not make it super easy for them. In place of guns there are more human and civil methods such as but not limited to Bear mace, Tasers, as well as the most important and effective thing to keep yourself safe is a fucking brain you have one so use it and as well training and martial arts never hurt.


BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:57 PM Reply

Sick of all these morons with more egos than brains talking like they are John Wayne.


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 05:58 PM Reply

Are you suggesting that locked doors keep criminals out? What about buildings that don't allow you to change doors because you live in an apartment?

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 06:05 PM Reply

Obama renews executive order threat on gun control laws bypassing congress

if they try through congress Democrats who voted Yea will be ousted when house elections come again just like the what happened to the democrat controlled congress when the AWB passed (now Republican controlled) and republicans who voted yea will be ousted to.

if Obama tries Executive Order the Republican congress will fight it while the NRA and GOA will take the case to the Supreme Court Violating many Supreme court and federal rulings.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 06:17 PM Reply

If we completely stripped black males of firearms we'd have some of the lowest firearm homicide rates.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 06:19 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 05:58 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Are you suggesting that locked doors keep criminals out? What about buildings that don't allow you to change doors because you live in an apartment?

What do you live in Compton LA ? Change the dam building then if it doesent have good security and doors. Guy's stop bitching about if you live in a dangerous high risk area and move your ass to a safe local instead of using an excuse to illegitimately try to justify gun ownership.


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 06:22 PM Reply

So the poor and uneducated tend to execute the most acts of violence on each other. But you know, just change your door or move. So many of them want to live where they are though, clearly.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 07:04 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 05:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Whats unrealistic about an unarmed society that say would promote education instead of ignorance and violence. Most of the people that preach gun advocacy never needed one in their life they wanted one for ego purposes.

A) An unarmed society has never existed. Ever.
B) Let me ask you something. I am being robbed on the street, or at an ATM. How do you suppose I stop him?

As for your comment about gun owners, you couldn't be more wrong.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 07:19 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 06:19 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Guy's stop bitching about if you live in a dangerous high risk area and move your ass to a safe local instead of using an excuse to illegitimately try to justify gun ownership.

Yes, because people who live in shitty neighborhoods want to live there...

thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 07:26 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 06:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama renews executive order threat on gun control laws bypassing congress

if they try through congress Democrats who voted Yea will be ousted when house elections come again just like the what happened to the democrat controlled congress when the AWB passed (now Republican controlled) and republicans who voted yea will be ousted to.

if Obama tries Executive Order the Republican congress will fight it while the NRA and GOA will take the case to the Supreme Court Violating many Supreme court and federal rulings.

Tony take a look of what just passed in new york, you'll shit your pants it is so strict. It is unbelievable. 7round mags registration of weapons with 1 banned feature from the 1994 list (or a thumbhole or forward grip) within 364 days of it's passing or you're not allowed to own those firearms.


BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 07:27 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 07:04 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
A) An unarmed society has never existed. Ever.

Internet and other technologies have never existed until now but acording to you we should stay the same as the ancients LOL.

B) Let me ask you something. I am being robbed on the street, or at an ATM. How do you suppose I stop him?

If you have a gun pointed to your head you would have no chance to pull a gun LOL. Also the key is to use your brain and to not put it in a situation in where you are at a life threatening disadvantage. Are you a street person ?


BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 07:29 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 07:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/15/13 06:19 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Guy's stop bitching about if you live in a dangerous high risk area and move your ass to a safe local instead of using an excuse to illegitimately try to justify gun ownership.
Yes, because people who live in shitty neighborhoods want to live there...

Stop whining and making up excuses. You are an adult ? You make the bed you lie in.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 07:35 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 07:27 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Internet and other technologies have never existed until now but acording to you we should stay the same as the ancients LOL.

Technology is not the same as the human mind

If you have a gun pointed to your head you would have no chance to pull a gun LOL. Also the key is to use your brain and to not put it in a situation in where you are at a life threatening disadvantage. Are you a street person ?

Right. If my house gets robbed, it's my fault, right?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 07:43 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 07:29 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Stop whining and making up excuses. You are an adult?

And any adult nows that any sort of monetary comfort hangs by a thread and can be easily lost for reasons beyond a person's control.

You make the bed you lie in.

So it's too bad their neighborhood sucks, and they should just bend over and lube up?

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 07:57 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 07:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/15/13 07:29 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Stop whining and making up excuses. You are an adult?
And any adult nows that any sort of monetary comfort hangs by a thread and can be easily lost for reasons beyond a person's control.

Stop whining and get some insurance if you live in that much of a high risk area. The onus is on you to proactively and intelligently maintain your own safety bubble and nets.


BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 08:02 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 07:26 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: Tony take a look of what just passed in new york, you'll shit your pants it is so strict. It is unbelievable. 7round mags registration of weapons with 1 banned feature from the 1994 list (or a thumbhole or forward grip) within 364 days of it's passing or you're not allowed to own those firearms.

oh I know I have family in NY my uncle just made the remington team! but to own a pistol or even carry you have to see a psych then you have to fill out paper work then submit it, get it then you have to go to a judge place your case why you want it to be approved, then if the permit holder passes away (my uncle for example) my aunt has 30 days to get a permit or else the state confiscates the guns and the approval process take 60-90 days!

its set up to fail and fuck over legal gun owners in New York.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 08:59 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 07:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

:The onus is on you to proactively and intelligently maintain your own safety bubble and nets.

The government won't let me. They're trying to restrict the means by which I protect my home/family.

They also only allow you to have "safety nets" they allow

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 09:02 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 08:59 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/15/13 07:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The onus is on you to proactively and intelligently maintain your own safety bubble and nets.
The government won't let me. They're trying to restrict the means by which I protect my home/family.

They also only allow you to have "safety nets" they allow

That's a cop out BS excuse and you know it.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 11:16 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 09:02 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That's a cop out BS excuse and you know it.

But aren't you always saying how America is fascist and dictator?