Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Missouri democrats to confiscate firearms


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#16    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,325 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:54 PM

View PostStellar, on 14 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

The government also has rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, etc.
In Missouri?

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#17    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,960 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:54 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 14 February 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

In Missouri?
yea there too.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#18    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,325 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:04 PM

View Postaztek, on 14 February 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

yea there too.
tut tut Obama and his army.
Personally, if our bobbies had guns, after seeing a shrink to get over my fear for them, I would want one too. But I would do everything in my power to make sure they never do, even if i have to use your corrupt cops as an example.

Edited by freetoroam, 14 February 2013 - 10:06 PM.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#19    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,960 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:05 PM

do they still wear the tit??

my classmate, is a cop in cambridge, he wears normal hat,

Edited by aztek, 14 February 2013 - 10:07 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#20    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:07 PM

I really like the exclusion of any LEO or affiliated agency in that proposed Bill. Its called paramilitary force ladies and gents. And that IS against the Laws of this country.


#21    praetorian-legio XIII

praetorian-legio XIII

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola Beach

  • Beer; Now there's a temporary solution.

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:38 PM

Lets not forget the 450 million rounds of hollow point .40 cal mag rounds the DHS is stock piling(for domestic distribution)

Or the military suppling military assault weapons and machines to local law enforment agencys.

Or with NADA all the government has to do is call someone (american citizen) that has a assault style weapon a terrorist and its bye bye (hey where did johhny go?)


#22    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,914 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 15 February 2013 - 04:14 AM

seems like a sensible law. I hope it passes.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#23    Purifier

Purifier

    Psychic Eye

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • Wild Card

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:34 AM

So this new law, if it get's past in Missouri, means only ten people can be killed at a time, because of a 10 round limitation? Why 10 and not way lower than that? What about those who do decide to go on a killing ramapage and carry three or more guns (especially hand guns)? It's likely they got two hands. Or if they start duct taping 10 round clips together, or gluing two pistol clips end to end, which any trick like that could equal 20 to 30 rounds alltogether, how does that stop the 10 round kill ratio?


I don't get it. How does this stop mass killings when lots of people know tricks like that to get around the law they're trying to pass?

Study the past, if you would divine the future.
- Confucius

#24    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,179 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 15 February 2013 - 10:39 AM

View PostPurifier, on 15 February 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

So this new law, if it get's past in Missouri, means only ten people can be killed at a time, because of a 10 round limitation? Why 10 and not way lower than that? What about those who do decide to go on a killing ramapage and carry three or more guns (especially hand guns)? It's likely they got two hands. Or if they start duct taping 10 round clips together, or gluing two pistol clips end to end, which any trick like that could equal 20 to 30 rounds alltogether, how does that stop the 10 round kill ratio?


I don't get it. How does this stop mass killings when lots of people know tricks like that to get around the law they're trying to pass?

It is a law that won't do anything, but hinder legal gun owners. There are many ways to bypass this, but the 4 seconds to change out clips isn't going to change the amount of damage that can be done. The politicians are just pandering for votes while trampling the constitution in the process, because the populations doesn't know the true meaning and value of the constitution. We are not being taught about it in schools, we are being told it is a aged and relic of the past by the liberal college professors. Our children are being taught to give away our rights and liberties to our government by the people who suppose to teach them otherwise. There should be a law to make it unconstitutional for this to happen, it is manipulation on the highest level that betrays everything that this country is suppose to stand for. I stood up to a professor who was trying to teach me this, in front of the whole class, explaining why it is important to me and why it should be important to everyone the class room. I got thrown out of the college and pretty much shunned by other colleges. Because of this type of teaching, I personally felt the effect of being denied my rights by the liberals. So you can go on and on how the constitution is a age relic of the past, but if it was enshrined and practiced, I wouldn't have to stand up for it and have my ability to better myself taken away by a professor with a liberal agenda.

As for this unconstitutional law being passed by the politicians in Missouri, it should be fought with every ounce of dialog till every avenue is exhausted. If it is passed against the wishes of the people of the state, then they should stand up and say no more, by practicing their right to remove tyrants from office either by impeachment or by force if necessary to ensure the freedom of the people and the state.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 15 February 2013 - 10:51 AM.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#25    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 15 February 2013 - 11:35 AM

View PostStellar, on 14 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

The government also has rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, etc.

Yeah so people should have those things too.

TANKS FOR EVERYONE!

Edited by Coffey, 15 February 2013 - 11:35 AM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#26    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,761 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

View PostPurifier, on 15 February 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

So this new law, if it get's past in Missouri, means only ten people can be killed at a time, because of a 10 round limitation? Why 10 and not way lower than that? What about those who do decide to go on a killing ramapage and carry three or more guns (especially hand guns)? It's likely they got two hands. Or if they start duct taping 10 round clips together, or gluing two pistol clips end to end, which any trick like that could equal 20 to 30 rounds alltogether, how does that stop the 10 round kill ratio?


I don't get it. How does this stop mass killings when lots of people know tricks like that to get around the law they're trying to pass?

Not that I'm advocating a round limit---but you can only carry so many mags. If you carry 10 mags of 10 rounds, that's 100 rounds instead of 30.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#27    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,057 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:03 PM

View PostOverSword, on 14 February 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Depends on how you define personal security.

Are firearms legal in Spain keithisco?

Unless the laws have changed since the 70s, yes. It is not like anybody without training gets to own anything but a shotgun though.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#28    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,057 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:04 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 14 February 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

Wow, reading some on those comments on there, if the police have to go in armed to remove any of their guns, well, it could get bloody!

Are the police giving their guns in too or just those nice sweet sounding people who live there?

In very few cases, most, in general terms, just are vocal heroes.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#29    Purifier

Purifier

    Psychic Eye

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • Wild Card

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:23 PM

View PostUncle Sam, on 15 February 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

It is a law that won't do anything, but hinder legal gun owners. There are many ways to bypass this, but the 4 seconds to change out clips isn't going to change the amount of damage that can be done. The politicians are just pandering for votes while trampling the constitution in the process, because the populations doesn't know the true meaning and value of the constitution. We are not being taught about it in schools, we are being told it is a aged and relic of the past by the liberal college professors. Our children are being taught to give away our rights and liberties to our government by the people who suppose to teach them otherwise. There should be a law to make it unconstitutional for this to happen, it is manipulation on the highest level that betrays everything that this country is suppose to stand for. I stood up to a professor who was trying to teach me this, in front of the whole class, explaining why it is important to me and why it should be important to everyone the class room. I got thrown out of the college and pretty much shunned by other colleges. Because of this type of teaching, I personally felt the effect of being denied my rights by the liberals. So you can go on and on how the constitution is a age relic of the past, but if it was enshrined and practiced, I wouldn't have to stand up for it and have my ability to better myself taken away by a professor with a liberal agenda.

As for this unconstitutional law being passed by the politicians in Missouri, it should be fought with every ounce of dialog till every avenue is exhausted. If it is passed against the wishes of the people of the state, then they should stand up and say no more, by practicing their right to remove tyrants from office either by impeachment or by force if necessary to ensure the freedom of the people and the state.

If it hinders legal gun owners, it sure in the hell isn't much of a hindrance. And are politicians just "pandering for votes"? Yep, looks that way to me. Politicians make the best con-artists and the world is full of con-artists.

As to teachers trying to teach liberal idealogy in public schools and colleges, I've seen it and witnessed it, can't say it doesn't happen. But that's one of the reasons why we are able to have homeschooling and private schools, if some of us don't agree with their public teaching; along with the right of the parent to teach his/her child about the constitution. No biggie, there are ways around it, just like gun control...apparently.



View PostStellar, on 15 February 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Not that I'm advocating a round limit---but you can only carry so many mags. If you carry 10 mags of 10 rounds, that's 100 rounds instead of 30.

True and you can only carry so many hand guns, as well. But it still doesn't stop mass murders from killing say up into the teen numbers or more people, with the gunclip tricks I mentioned. I've seen gangbangers pull those tricks, of course their aim sucks from a distance. Probably the reason why they load up like that. I guess they think one bullet out of 30 or more will eventually hit their target, but the missed shots at their target usually hit innocent people nearby in the process.

It's just like Uncle Sam mentioned in part of his post, "politicians are just pandering for votes". But I think they want to have their cake and eat it to (more votes) by doing gun owners a halfass mercy favour too, with a useless gun law to get around. If they really cared, they'd do a helluva lot more than that. Because they know how people can get around these BS gun control laws that they propose. It's all just a BS'ing game to them, like I said: Politicians make the best con-artists.

Which they remind me somewhat of the Standup Philosopher, in this scene Mel Brooks and Bea Arthur performs :D....


Study the past, if you would divine the future.
- Confucius

#30    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:45 PM

Alot of hype for a proposed bill that has no possibility of being passed in Missouri.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users