439 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

Stellar, on 13 January 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

So once again, are you saying there's no point in controlling who has a gun?

Excellent question..

[and then]

Stellar, on 12 January 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

And you're saying that therefore controlling who has guns is unnecessary?



They are more likely because guns are so easily accessible.

The only way to accomplish what most in the gun control crowd want is to have all the guns turned in or otherwise confiscated.  It just isn't going to happen - ever.  There are other, reasonable actions that can be taken - and should be taken.  But that will never solve the problem totally and it will also never satisfy the GC crowd.  We live in a grossly violent culture and guns are a part of that.  Measure to make the problem better need to include the media and movies first and foremost but I doubt seriously that this will happen because they are buddies of the crowd that want to remove the guns.  All I can say is that if honest dialogue and REAL change on fundamental levels is the goal then I'm all in and I think most gun owners will support reasonable solutions.  But if it is truly about a gun grab?  Bring the pain and we'll all just share it.  THIS ONE they will have to bleed for.

[Hawkin]

Stellar, on 13 January 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

Care to answer my question any time soon? Or is your sole purpose in this thread to derail the topic with references to abortion?

I'm using abortion just for a basis of comparison and making a point like B_M was with toothpaste and shampoo.
What I was attempting to tell you earlier is that a weapon is useless, unless a human hand is on the trigger and
a human brain to think to carry out the crime. If someone is hell bent on committing a violent crime they will carry
out the task with or without a gun. Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) and Timothy McVeigh proved that by inflicted
mass casualties making bombs out of household items. But nobody was screaming to ban fertilizer, wire, pipes,
nuts and bolts to keep people from building bombs. But if guns were used, then there would be an outcry for
a ban. It's a Double Standard. Instead of people thinking for themselves, they allow the media to influence their minds.

[aztek]

Beckys_Mom, on 13 January 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

Excellent question..

and i'll answer.

no, there is no point to try to control who has a gun. absolutely waste of time.

you physically can not control who has a gun, plain and simple. crooks buy guns on black market,  how are you thinking controlling their guns.???

you can't, so you and others from "safe country" think you need to take my guns away, cuz if i don't have them crooks wont have where to get them, or steel from, this is absolute fallacy. it is proven all over the world, in countries where guns are banned criminals still have them. they can not be stealing them from legal owners, there aren't any. there is no way for straw buys to occur, how do they get them????

[Hawkin]

aztek, on 13 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

and i'll answer.

no, there is no point to try to control who has a gun. absolutely waste of time.

you physically can not control who has a gun, plain and simple. crooks buy guns on black market,  how are you thinking controlling their guns.???

you can't, so you and others from "safe country" think you need to take my guns away, cuz if i don't have them crooks wont have where to get them, or steel from, this is absolute fallacy. it is proven all over the world, in countries where guns are banned criminals still have them. they can not be stealing them from legal owners, there aren't any. there is no way for straw buys to occur, how do they get them????

Agreed aztek. During the Prohibition Years between 1920-1933 when alcohol was prohibited to the public it went underground
and Organized Crime (Al Capone) bootlegged it and setup Speakeasies and people went to these establishments to drink.
A lot of people even died and went blind drinking alcohol made with rusty radiators. Eventually FDR dissolved the law.
My point to those that don't understand is that if they have a Prohibition on Guns, the same will happen as it did with alcohol.
And most likely Organized Crime will have the black market on guns (making big money) as it did with alcohol.

[Yamato]

Mag357, on 13 January 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Agreed aztek. During the Prohibition Years between 1920-1933 when alcohol was prohibited to the public it went underground
and Organized Crime (Al Capone) bootlegged it and setup Speakeasies and people went to these establishments to drink.
A lot of people even died and went blind drinking alcohol made with rusty radiators. Eventually FDR dissolved the law.
My point to those that don't understand is that if they have a Prohibition on Guns, the same will happen as it did with alcohol.
And most likely Organized Crime will have the black market on guns (making big money) as it did with alcohol.

Law enforcement can't even keep guns from the criminals, who in many cases are already prohibited from having guns.  The FAILure is undeniable.  The prohibitionists are betting that maybe if we keep doing more of the same, and extend their rose colored expectations that they can keep guns out of the hands of every undesirable if they can only include the entire population of the country, then they'll have success!    They want less guns, less gun crime, a more vulnerable population and more violent crime.   I wonder if some of these people are so gung ho about assaulting our 2nd Amendment because of their politics and wanting to stick it to their fake stereotype of the typical gun owner they read about on their liberal blogsite.

[Hawkin]

Yamato, on 13 January 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

Law enforcement can't even keep guns from the criminals, who in many cases are already prohibited from having guns.  The FAILure is undeniable.  The prohibitionists are betting that maybe if we keep doing more of the same, and extend their rose colored expectations that they can keep guns out of the hands of every undesirable if they can only include the entire population of the country, then they'll have success! They want less guns, less gun crime, a more vulnerable population and more violent crime.   I wonder if some of these people are so gung ho about assaulting our 2nd Amendment because of their politics and wanting to stick it to their fake stereotype of the typical gun owner they read about on their liberal blogsite.

Exactly. The prohibitionist ideology is something like this...To remove a cancer off someones arm is to amputate the entire arm instead of surgically removing the cancer.

[aztek]

might as well try yo control rotation of the earth, you'll be just as successful.

[Stellar]

aztek, on 13 January 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:

so you have no answer,   just as i tough.
oh, btw, this is INTERNET, grow some skin. if you can't take that, no wonder you scared sh,,less of guns and ppl that want to keep them.

  do you enjoy arguing with yourself and claiming you won? I have all the answers I need, I personally don't care if you feel you've won any sort of argument. If you want my answers you can answer my questions first. Otherwise, I don't really care.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

  do you enjoy arguing with yourself and claiming you won? I have all the answers I need, I personally don't care if you feel you've won any sort of argument. If you want my answers you can answer my questions first. Otherwise, I don't really care.

Actually its a dead issue that will result in dead people if persued.

[Stellar]

Mag357, on 13 January 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

I'm using abortion just for a basis of comparison and making a point like B_M was with toothpaste and shampoo.
What I was attempting to tell you earlier is that a weapon is useless, unless a human hand is on the trigger and
a human brain to think to carry out the crime. If someone is hell bent on committing a violent crime they will carry
out the task with or without a gun. Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) and Timothy McVeigh proved that by inflicted
mass casualties making bombs out of household items. But nobody was screaming to ban fertilizer, wire, pipes,
nuts and bolts to keep people from building bombs. But if guns were used, then there would be an outcry for
a ban. It's a Double Standard. Instead of people thinking for themselves, they allow the media to influence their minds.

So are you saying we shouldn't control access to guns?

[Stellar]

aztek, on 13 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

and i'll answer.

no, there is no point to try to control who has a gun. absolutely waste of time.

you physically can not control who has a gun, plain and simple. crooks buy guns on black market,  how are you thinking controlling their guns.???

you can't, so you and others from "safe country" think you need to take my guns away, cuz if i don't have them crooks wont have where to get them, or steel from, this is absolute fallacy. it is proven all over the world, in countries where guns are banned criminals still have them. they can not be stealing them from legal owners, there aren't any. there is no way for straw buys to occur, how do they get them????

Finally an answer. So then by your argument, we should remove background checks and just allow anyone, criminal or psychopath, walk into wal mart and walk out with a gun?

[AsteroidX]

Under the original process of delinquent behavior and the 2nd Amendment a criminal was given there gun back after they served there time. The right to bear arms could only be removed by a special judicial process that and ultimately was determined on a case by case basis. I dont beieve the insane have ever been allowed to own and use firearms. But I could be wrong though on that. I believe a couple states still have this law although the feds trumped it.

[Hawkin]

Stellar, on 13 January 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

So are you saying we shouldn't control access to guns?

Here's your answer.

http://lumosity.com

[aztek]

Stellar, on 13 January 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Finally an answer. So then by your argument, we should remove background checks and just allow anyone, criminal or psychopath, walk into wal mart and walk out with a gun?

that is not my argument, that is your imagination again., we already have background checks in place, there is no argument as to remove them, i personally question their effectives, since crooks don't get their checks run on black markets, and it is their guns you want to control, not mine, i did pass background checks, and my guns are registered,  and i do have enough trainig, at least  enough for range masters to sign of on my range card. but for the sake of shutting up clueless anti gunners, i would leave background checks in place.

Edited by aztek, 13 January 2013 - 07:04 PM.