Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/22/03 01:28 PM, maggiethatcher wrote: People say that if you were attacked with a gun and you had no gun because of guns being banned are missing the point.
Take away the right to buy guns and take them off people and there WILL be less killing. It doesnt matter if people still have knives coz theres still the same amount of knife killings with guns banned as there are without. Think of how easy it would be for a terrorist to buy and ak and seriously fuck up your home town or whatever.

Criminals could still easily get guns over a black market and then they would have much more power. One of the main reasons why criminals think twice about knocking over a liquor store or a 7-11 is because they know that if they do then they might get blown away by the cashier.

Also their is a more important point, if we take away the second ammendment it sets a precident that the bill of rights can be altered...after that whats going to go next? Cruel and unusual punnishment or freedom of speech?

Also their is a more important point, if we take away the second ammendment it sets a precident that the bill of rights can be altered...after that whats going to go next? Cruel and unusual punnishment or freedom of speech?

Just because the Bill of Rights can be altered, doesn't mean it will. Infact a Bill of Rights which is less entrenched could be a good thing, allow the country to move with the times. In Britain we don't have a Bill of Rights, per se. We have just a lot of bills hanging around. And they can be easily changed due to Parliamentary sovereignty. Bah, two extremes.

Keeping the Bill of Rights how it is will work for a short period of time, probably long enough for most of us to get old and collect social security that isn't there. It will need to be revised over time, though.

At 2/22/03 02:49 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Keeping the Bill of Rights how it is will work for a short period of time, probably long enough for most of us to get old and collect social security that isn't there. It will need to be revised over time, though.

Have you read the first ten ammendments? There isn't one of them that isn't vital. They are more important than the fucking constitution. They are all that safeguards the government from trampeling on our rights

I think instead of bearing arms we should bare some asses and get that love groove on. All I am saying...is give sex a chance.

At 2/23/03 02:01 AM, agent66 wrote: I think instead of bearing arms we should bare some asses and get that love groove on. All I am saying...is give sex a chance.

no one wants to hear you run your moronic mouth.

At 2/23/03 05:39 PM, swayside wrote:

At 2/23/03 02:01 AM, agent66 wrote: I think instead of bearing arms we should bare some asses and get that love groove on. All I am saying...is give sex a chance.

no one wants to hear you run your moronic mouth.

From now on, if someone says something stupid, we should just probably ignore it.

He's kidding.
If nudity was compulsory, and you went to knock over a 7-11, what would you be more afraid of? A shotgun blast to the face, or the clerk blowing it in your eye?

At 2/24/03 07:11 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: He's kidding.
If nudity was compulsory, and you went to knock over a 7-11, what would you be more afraid of? A shotgun blast to the face, or the clerk blowing it in your eye?

i hope your not saying 'get rid of guns and get naked'

I'm not. I'm joking, too.

At 2/24/03 07:26 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: I'm not. I'm joking, too.

ok.

You can pry my guns outta my cold, dead fingers!! *clings to her fave rifle* ^.^

At 2/23/03 02:01 AM, agent66 wrote: I think instead of bearing arms we should bare some asses and get that love groove on. All I am saying...is give sex a chance.

YES!! lofl... ^.~

At 2/24/03 07:11 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: He's kidding.
If nudity was compulsory, and you went to knock over a 7-11, what would you be more afraid of? A shotgun blast to the face, or the clerk blowing it in your eye?

Actually, that raises a good question, somehow relating to the Tolerance thread, too. Something about getting a load on your face?

I have to agree here, guns should not be banned entirely, however, there should be higher standards set as to the monitoring of guns, and for these standards to be taken quite seriously and properly watched. Because I have small children, I personally do not own any guns, however, in the future when they are out of the household, I would like to be able to have the right to own one should I choose to do so.

Criminals can get guns. Normal people are the only people harmed by gun control. Give 'em the guns. Somebody needs to fight off the scum infesting our metropolises.

And, well...

Fuck it. It ain't gonna be me.

You mean besides the police/FBI/army/other private law enforcement firms?

At 2/25/03 12:19 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Criminals can get guns. Normal people are the only people harmed by gun control. Give 'em the guns. Somebody needs to fight off the scum infesting our metropolises.

Thank you so much. Some people are paranoid that if we loosen up on gun control then there will be an all out war between criminals and regular people. Just randomly shooting eachother.

Has anyone, anyone at all considered the fact that it's a bigger step to buy a gun on the black market then in a legal shop on the corner. Especialy for a beginning criminal (someone who isn't a criminal yet but he's considering it) who doesn't own a gun yet.

here are two situations:
(without gun control)
Broke guy: thinking "damn I'm broke, I really need to get me some money, now were can I find some easy money? I know, I'll go to Billy Bob's gun Boutique, buy myself a nice Smith & Wesson and hold up ol' mister Wongs Noodle Shop.

(with gun control)
Same broke guy: thinking "damn I'm broke, I really need to get myself some money, now where can I find some easy money? If only I could get a gun somewhere without having to contact criminals. Nah, I'd better get a decent job.

^^^^^^I'm sure that happens^^^^^^

At 2/25/03 12:37 PM, Sirterox wrote:

At 2/25/03 12:19 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Criminals can get guns. Normal people are the only people harmed by gun control. Give 'em the guns. Somebody needs to fight off the scum infesting our metropolises.

Thank you so much. Some people are paranoid that if we loosen up on gun control then there will be an all out war between criminals and regular people. Just randomly shooting eachother.

It's basically already a war. Hell, we've already got War on Drugs™ and War on Terror™. Why not War on Guns™?

At 2/25/03 03:18 PM, EvilEgbert wrote: Has anyone, anyone at all considered the fact that it's a bigger step to buy a gun on the black market then in a legal shop on the corner. Especialy for a beginning criminal (someone who isn't a criminal yet but he's considering it) who doesn't own a gun yet.

here are two situations:
(without gun control)
Broke guy: thinking "damn I'm broke, I really need to get me some money, now were can I find some easy money? I know, I'll go to Billy Bob's gun Boutique, buy myself a nice Smith & Wesson and hold up ol' mister Wongs Noodle Shop.

(with gun control)
Same broke guy: thinking "damn I'm broke, I really need to get myself some money, now where can I find some easy money? If only I could get a gun somewhere without having to contact criminals. Nah, I'd better get a decent job.

^^^^^^I'm sure that happens^^^^^^

Well, I concede that gun control laws may deter some people from buying guns, but they won't deter everybody. With gun control laws, there may be someone willing to get a gun off the black market to knock over Mr. Wong's Noodle Shop. Without gun control laws, sure, someone could go to any gun shop to get a gun to knock over Mr. Wong's Noodle Shop, except--whoops!--Mr. Wong has a gun too!

Thanks you evilone. I was about to make the exact same point when I noticed your post.

Besides. If you're broke, I dunno if you can tell, but guns usually aren't cheap, if purchased legally.

At 2/25/03 11:50 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: Well, I concede that gun control laws may deter some people from buying guns, but they won't deter everybody. With gun control laws, there may be someone willing to get a gun off the black market to knock over Mr. Wong's Noodle Shop. Without gun control laws, sure, someone could go to any gun shop to get a gun to knock over Mr. Wong's Noodle Shop, except--whoops!--Mr. Wong has a gun too!

But the broke guy will shoot first if he sees mr Wong go for his gun because he's allready aiming.

Most robbers don't want to commit murder. I know, plenty do, and don't care, but I'm sure that simply being broke wouldn't go that far. A spun out crack addict, maybe, but gun control wouldn't stop him anyway.

At 2/26/03 04:09 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Most robbers don't want to commit murder. I know, plenty do, and don't care, but I'm sure that simply being broke wouldn't go that far. A spun out crack addict, maybe, but gun control wouldn't stop him anyway.

Most robbers dont care if they commit murder. There statement when there in court is "if he just gave me the cash, then i wouldnt have shot him. Its his fault he is dead". Theres their main way of thinking. They think that if they say that they will shoot the clerk if he dont give him the cash then its his fault that he died. Then they cant figure out why they are in trouble when they get caught.

At 2/23/03 02:01 AM, agent66 wrote:

:I think instead of bearing arms we should bare some asses and get that love groove on. All I am saying...is give sex a chance.

I wonder why he is lvl 28..... Sure as hell isnt for posting.

At 2/26/03 12:24 PM, Sirterox wrote:

At 2/26/03 04:09 AM, PreacherJ wrote:

Most robbers dont care if they commit murder. There statement when there in court is "if he just gave me the cash, then i wouldnt have shot him. Its his fault he is dead".

Armed robbery gives you what? At most, 15 years, right?

Murder gives you at least twenty to life, and that's in my sissy-ass state of California. Try murdering someone in a place half as liberal, like Texas, and say "Hi" to everyone's favorite killing device, the electric chair. Hopefully you'll get to listen to Metallica while you're "Riding the Lightning" so to speak.

At 2/25/03 03:18 PM, EvilEgbert wrote: Has anyone, anyone at all considered the fact that it's a bigger step to buy a gun on the black market then in a legal shop on the corner. Especialy for a beginning criminal (someone who isn't a criminal yet but he's considering it) who doesn't own a gun yet.

here are two situations:
(without gun control)
Broke guy: thinking "damn I'm broke, I really need to get me some money, now were can I find some easy money? I know, I'll go to Billy Bob's gun Boutique, buy myself a nice Smith & Wesson and hold up ol' mister Wongs Noodle Shop.

(with gun control)
Same broke guy: thinking "damn I'm broke, I really need to get myself some money, now where can I find some easy money? If only I could get a gun somewhere without having to contact criminals. Nah, I'd better get a decent job.

^^^^^^I'm sure that happens^^^^^^

Oh seriously, assmunch! Like a crimal wannabe actually conciders getting a decent job! Mu god, don't you leave the house? Do you know what reality is?

We fought for this damn counrty against the British.. and WON! You think we fought off the Red Coats with pitchforks? No... This country was won with guns, and that's how it should stay. Besides, gun control will only make the "gun problem" (like there even is one!) much worse than all of you think it already is now!

At 2/27/03 12:46 AM, kittie_cross wrote: Oh seriously, assmunch! Like a crimal wannabe actually conciders getting a decent job! Mu god, don't you leave the house? Do you know what reality is?

We fought for this damn counrty against the British.. and WON! You think we fought off the Red Coats with pitchforks? No... This country was won with guns, and that's how it should stay. Besides, gun control will only make the "gun problem" (like there even is one!) much worse than all of you think it already is now!

MY GOD!!! Did you fight for your country agianst the British? How old are you?
Just because your great great grantfather shot a Brit doesn't automaticly mean you should have the right to carry a gun. If that was the case than every Brit should have the right to carry a sword and a battleaxe because the Normans fought off the Saxons with them. (If I'm wrong about the Normans kicking out the Saxon please correct me but my point stays)

At 2/27/03 06:01 AM, EvilEgbert wrote: MY GOD!!! Did you fight for your country agianst the British? How old are you?
Just because your great great grantfather shot a Brit doesn't automaticly mean you should have the right to carry a gun. If that was the case than every Brit should have the right to carry a sword and a battleaxe because the Normans fought off the Saxons with them. (If I'm wrong about the Normans kicking out the Saxon please correct me but my point stays)

Our Founding Fathers™ saw the right to carry guns as a very important right. The reason: they felt that taking away guns was the first step toward tyranny, as the citizens would then not be able to fight back. They felt that the defense of the nation should be the responsibility not of a standing army, but of a militia consisting of the entirety of the armed citizens. They would defend the rights of the people and the individual states against tyranny, whether it would come from abroad or from a government that tried to trample their rights at home.

Yes, times have changed. We do have a standing army. Individual states still have National Guard units, and supporters of gun control believe that the Second Amendment only means that the states have the right to have arms for militia units, not private citizens. But still, don't you think that other nations would be reluctant to invade a country where everyone and their dog carried a weapon?