150 replies to this topic

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 29 January 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

As long as there is the second amendment everybody has a right to have as many guns as he wants for whatever purpose. But that does not mean that they should be excused  from acting like grown ups with them. If we could achieve that we would not need these discussions.

Right. But you know full well yourself that most do act responsible. I've said before that you never hear stories of responsible people going about their responsible lives. Why would you? Who cares? It's boring and expected. You only hear the bad and while the bad stories are many they still don't paint a true likening of the big picture which is there are hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands and gun crimes only account in the thousands. The irresponsible are a minuscule percentage and we all stand with you against them.

[questionmark]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 January 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Right. But you know full well yourself that most do act responsible. I've said before that you never hear stories of responsible people going about their responsible lives. Why would you? Who cares? It's boring and expected. You only hear the bad and while the bad stories are many they still don't paint a true likening of the big picture which is there are hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands and gun crimes only account in the thousands. The irresponsible are a minuscule percentage and we all stand with you against them.

When that minuscule percent are capable to instill terror then it pertains the government to take action. And laws cannot be made for minuscule percents, but must be made for all.

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 29 January 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

When that minuscule percent are capable to instill terror then it pertains the government to take action. And laws cannot be made for minuscule percents, but must be made for all.

there are plenty of laws and they are made for all but so far those laws haven't stopped the minuscule percentage from ignoring them. Laws are good but enough is enough. If they aren't working something else must be tried. Piling on laws only further restricts the freedoms and abilities of those who can act responsible without them.

[HerNibs]

freetoroam, on 29 January 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

if I were a hunter hunting for food, I would say the same thing.

Not sure I understand your response.  I don't hunt to survive.  I do eat what I hunt but I don't have to for food.

I don't feel that anyone is comparing me or insinuating that I am equal to or the same as a gang member because I own a gun.

Nibs

[F3SS]

Maybe the problem with some laws are the penalties attached. When I was a kid an older cousin of mine had a boyfriend who was killed. Stabbed in the heart. He was in the wrong neighborhood late at night. Anyways, his killer turned himself in and got five years for straight up murder, not self defense. I don't think he even served his whole term and was released right back into the hood.

[questionmark]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

there are plenty of laws and they are made for all but so far those laws haven't stopped the minuscule percentage from ignoring them. Laws are good but enough is enough. If they aren't working something else must be tried. Piling on laws only further restricts the freedoms and abilities of those who can act responsible without them.

Naturally there are plenty of laws that are ignored, and there are even more that are as useful as tits on a bull. So far there is only one useful law, and that is the Brady Bill. The rest you can dump in a toilet. Now the Brady Bill has to be expanded to private sales and a law needs to be passed that makes people pay for the damage their guns cause. That could help.

[HerNibs]

questionmark, on 29 January 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

Naturally there are plenty of laws that are ignored, and there are even more that are as useful as tits on a bull. So far there is only one useful law, and that is the Brady Bill. The rest you can dump in a toilet. Now the Brady Bill has to be expanded to private sales and a law needs to be passed that makes people pay for the damage their guns cause. That could help.

It is helpful but I think the background checks need to be run on everyone owning/buying a gun.  

Nibs

[Sweetpumper]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 January 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

Maybe the problem with some laws are the penalties attached. When I was a kid an older cousin of mine had a boyfriend who was killed. Stabbed in the heart. He was in the wrong neighborhood late at night. Anyways, his killer turned himself in and got five years for straight up murder, not self defense. I don't think he even served his whole term and was released right back into the hood.

I was perusing Reddit and came across a guy who was robbed in his store, shot three times and is partially paralyzed.  I don't even know if this is the appropriate thread, but here it is anyway:



Q: What's your view on gun control? Did being shot change it?  


A: Every US citizen who passes a drug test, not convicted of a felony or taking some sort of mental medicine should be allowed to carry any gun they want anywhere they want. Had the law allowed me to have a concealed gun on me at that time, I would not have been shot that day and there would be one less criminal in this world.   


Q: How do you think the situation would have played out had you had a gun? I mean, you say below if I'm correct, that he walks in a points at you. Could a gun in your immediate vicinity have even the odds in any way concidering his "strategical" advantage?
I'm genuinely curious here.


A: I was ex-military. Had I had a pistol on me, he would not be in prison right now. When he missed his first shot, there was a few second delay between the 2nd and 3rd shots. Plenty of time for me to be able to draw and ventilate him.

[F3SS]

Sweetpumper, on 29 January 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

I was perusing Reddit and came across a guy who was robbed in his store, shot three times and is partially paralyzed.  I don't even know if this is the appropriate thread, but here it is anyway:



Q: What's your view on gun control? Did being shot change it?  


A: Every US citizen who passes a drug test, not convicted of a felony or taking some sort of mental medicine should be allowed to carry any gun they want anywhere they want. Had the law allowed me to have a concealed gun on me at that time, I would not have been shot that day and there would be one less criminal in this world.      


Q: How do you think the situation would have played out had you had a gun? I mean, you say below if I'm correct, that he walks in a points at you. Could a gun in your immediate vicinity have even the odds in any way concidering his "strategical" advantage?    
I'm genuinely curious here.        


A: I was ex-military. Had I had a pistol on me, he would not be in prison right now. When he missed his first shot, there was a few second delay between the 2nd and 3rd shots. Plenty of time for me to be able to draw and ventilate him.

That's an awesome testimonial. Though the drug test part is iffy. I might agree with it if it were anything but pot. You can smoke a joint and fail a drug test 3 weeks later and you can sniff lines every other night yet pass a drug test after mellowing out for a few days. Lastly, if a drug test is such a taboo subject concerning those who I pay for, ie entitlements, then it damn sure wont be a part of the conversation concerning a constitutional right. But I digress. In sum that is one awesome resilient man with his head screwed on straight.

[freetoroam]

HerNibs, on 29 January 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Not sure I understand your response.  I don't hunt to survive.  I do eat what I hunt but I don't have to for food.

I don't feel that anyone is comparing me or insinuating that I am equal to or the same as a gang member because I own a gun.

Nibs

Its not difficult to understand. If you hunt and you eat what you hunt, then fine, but if you murder animals for the fun of it, its not fine.
If you own a gun because you go hunting (and eat what you catch) then there is nothing wrong with that at all.

The main issue here was the multi million dollar company going out full force to advertise their guns, and seeing that is the gangs which are the problem in respect to no respect for guns, then surely its annoying for the genuine guns owners who do respect them.
I was saying that the multi million dollar company is taking advantage of a couple of incidents which have happened to promote their business, at the end of the day, all those responsible gun owners do not need someone telling them about guns, surely hunters know. But I still think that sending guns and ammo to youth clubs is manipulating the situation.

[freetoroam]

HerNibs, on 29 January 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

It is helpful but I think the background checks need to be run on everyone owning/buying a gun.  

Nibs

I still cant believe that this is not the case....but I know it is.
All those willing for a background check are more likely to be responsible with their guns, the gangs and criminals will not go through the routes of being able to get checked,  they all have guns and will still get hold of them somehow.

[Gummug]

Michelle, on 29 January 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

I said the same in another thread...I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would just once address black on black gang crime.

Maybe he's afraid he would lose their votes...a vote is a vote, after all, even if it is from a thug.

[Michelle]

Gummug, on 30 January 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

Maybe he's afraid he would lose their votes...a vote is a vote, after all, even if it is from a thug.

I had to log on to give you this....

[F3SS]

freetoroam, on 29 January 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

I still cant believe that this is not the case....but I know it is.
All those willing for a background check are more likely to be responsible with their guns, the gangs and criminals will not go through the routes of being able to get checked,  they all have guns and will still get hold of them somehow.

So your on the side of reason now? You understand that is exactly the reason more gun laws won't help, right?

[CrimsonKing]

freetoroam, on 29 January 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

I still cant believe that this is not the case....but I know it is.
All those willing for a background check are more likely to be responsible with their guns, the gangs and criminals will not go through the routes of being able to get checked,  they all have guns and will still get hold of them somehow.

This is what i have been saying all along!We have wide open borders,laws that will only effect law abiding citizens is foolish and stupid to back yet that is exactly what is happening!