Gun control |
Post Reply | Page <1 12131415> |
Author | |||||||
636andy636
Moderator Group Joined: 30 November 2002 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 5891 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
right to bear arms.
bear arms are delicious! in canada we have some strickt firearm laws. wich obviously worked when thos police officers were killed in Edmonton. crimnals will ALWAYS get guns no mater what. yeah. law abiding people wont kill somone? yeah right. people change. they could be intoxicated and shoot somone with there firearms. or they can be shooting in a safe invorment like a range and they can still kill somone. ricochets are deadly people are WAY parinoied if they carry a firearm with you around town and stuff. how offen do you fell the need to use deadly force. and seriously. does anyone need a assalt rifle? Edited by 636andy636 |
|||||||
Clark Kent
Platinum Member Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Best sentence in this entire thread. NOBODY is simply against all gun control. NOBODY. The only question is "how much, and what kind"? If we truly had NO gun control, then a retarded 7-year-old felon would be able to walk into the local 7-11 and buy an RPG, and carry it around with him, pointing it wherever he pleases. Anybody who doesn't think that should be legal is not truly "against" gun control. Talking about being "for" or "against" gun control is just silly. |
|||||||
PlentifulBalls
Platinum Member Tons of em Joined: 14 July 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9800 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Three words.
Hitler. Switzerland. Amsterdamn. |
|||||||
sporx wrote: well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30. |
|||||||
WGP guy
Gold Member Quoted F and S bomb. Joined: 14 August 2004 Location: Lao People’s Dem. Rep. Status: Offline Points: 1333 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Well, technically you can't do that. You don't have all your rights when you are under the age of 18. When you are at school, the school is your ward. If they don't want you to say that, they can punish you for it. |
|||||||
Gatyr
Platinum Member Strike 1 - Begging for strikes Joined: 06 July 2003 Location: Austin, Tx Status: Offline Points: 10300 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Ha....im a moron. I guess he was just on my mind or something. I dont see why though. Anyway, you're correct. Its just annoying to see people using the bill of rights as an excuse to own assault weapons, or in school and use feedom of speech as an excuse to to call the teacher an asshole. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Hades
Moderator Group Joined: 10 May 2003 Location: Virgin Islands Status: Offline Points: 13014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Umm, we are not supposed to have free speech because we dont have a tyranic king to complain about any longer? Maybe the constitution writers liked to shoot animals, just not Brits and Indians. If guns werent supposed to be protected by the constitution then why didnt they take them away after the civil war when the citizens just killed each other... Edited by Hades |
|||||||
|
|||||||
BLand
Member Guested - Complete idiocy Joined: 29 July 2003 Location: Vatican City State Status: Offline Points: 2360 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Yeah, what? |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Bunkered
Platinum Member What AM I smoking? Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I'm confused...
I'm not Choopie... However, the Constitution can be interpreted several ways. As it stands, we DO have the right to keep and bear arms. It has never been ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court, and it's not likely to be any time soon. Until that day (or until the Constitution is amended to say otherwise), we DO maintain that right. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Gatyr
Platinum Member Strike 1 - Begging for strikes Joined: 06 July 2003 Location: Austin, Tx Status: Offline Points: 10300 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Chewp bring up a good point. Its in our constitution, so its one of our rights, right? right. But does anyone remember the simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun? Lisa says something to him about gun control, and homer says one of the most correct things he may have ever said, or ever will say. He sais that we have the right to bear arms in case the king of england comes in and begins pushing us around. I didnt realize it at the time, but he is correct. The reason we have the right to bear arms is because when the constitution was being written, we were trying to gain our independence...and the fathers of this country wanted us to be able to protect ourselves if the brittish showed up at our doorstep. They meant nothing of having guns for fun or because they looked cool. Hence, there should be a restraint put on some weapons. And chewp, im not calling you out or anything, but there has been alot of using the constitution as a protection for rights that wasnt meant for us to have by the writers of the document...such as free speech, right to bear arms...etc. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Bunkered
Platinum Member What AM I smoking? Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I just read a great piece that debunks just about every major argument you anti-gun folk spout out... It's called the United States Constitution. For those of us who believe in our rights, it is a great read.
Yes. Pot should be legalized and regulated.
If it's a semi-auto AK-47, who cares? The only thing "worse" about a semi-auto AK than a hunting rifle is the way it looks. It's not a question of "need." We don't NEED ginormous SUVs (which kill more people than guns every year), yet we're still allowed to have them, because we live in a free society. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Hades
Moderator Group Joined: 10 May 2003 Location: Virgin Islands Status: Offline Points: 13014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Maybe the solution is to teach or force better personal responibility upon people...
Hmmm... I am starting to think I might have a research topic for this semster. Guns and criminals. Edited by Hades |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I see, my bad. It's a good law, but I think something still needs to be done. However I do not have all the answers, and my ideas of policies are different being an officer than if I was an avid gun owner that did not use weapons for a profession.
|
|||||||
WGP guy
Gold Member Quoted F and S bomb. Joined: 14 August 2004 Location: Lao People’s Dem. Rep. Status: Offline Points: 1333 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Not exactly what I was saying. I want laws to stay the same. There is a 90 day waiting period (in NC) for concealed carry. there is a 30 day wait for a handgun liscence. If laws stay the same, gun violence should stay the same. I am not saying make it easier for people to obtain guns, but don't make it harder either. |
|||||||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
You're very correct. I used it as an example of a gun not normally used for any other reason. You are right, but distinctions need to be made between weapons and appropriate usages for them. Such as shotguns and high powered rifles, which do have the ability to kill anything, but are primarily used for hunting. I am not for taking all guns away, but cutting into their amount might cut down the violence. Therefore, you can better control the guns still out there. |
|||||||
5ptcontingency
Member Joined: 14 March 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 657 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
But, why does AK-47 come to mind when you think of a dangerous firearm? The only legal AK-47 (unless you have the appropriate license) are semi-automatic. Disregarding the type of round the gun fires, it is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle, or handgun at close range. |
|||||||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Counter criminals having them by giving them to "non-criminals?" Then you have cops getting shot at traffic stops by usual "non-criminals" that don't want to get a DUI. Putting more guns into the hands of even "non-criminal" people will cause gun violence to go up.
|
|||||||
WGP guy
Gold Member Quoted F and S bomb. Joined: 14 August 2004 Location: Lao People’s Dem. Rep. Status: Offline Points: 1333 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
No, the logic is criminals have them, we need to be able to counter it. And we don't have bans on many deadly things.
|
|||||||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I just don't see reasons as to why own so many guns unless your profession requires it. Hunting, of course, but there has to be a limit on something. There is no need for AK-47's to be on the street, even if they are fun to shoot. There is no possible way to ensure that only responsible people own guns, so talking in that manner is only a pipe dream.
|
|||||||
5ptcontingency
Member Joined: 14 March 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 657 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
The term "gun control" is too broad. As a responsible owner of several
rifles, shotguns, and handguns, I am completely against restrictions on
the types of weapons we can have. Especially restrictions on cosmetic
features. As long as they are semi-automatic or less, I think the type
of weapon we own is our own business.
However, I am all for the regulation of weapons. I will gladly pay a small fee every year to satisfy anti-gun lobbyists. I think every weapon should have a waiting period of several days before you can purchase it and take it home, not just handguns.I also think every gun owner, and anyone in that gun owners household (except kids, for obvious reasons) should have to be trained on the operation of their weapon to help insure that they use it correctly. Edited by 5ptcontingency |
|||||||
Tae Kwon Do
Platinum Member Best Forumer of the Year 2006 Joined: 30 July 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6120 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
So the logic is becuase the criminals are going to do it, we should be allowed to?
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 12131415> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |