Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Obama 'backs assault weapons ban'

441 posts in this topic

Right. Training. Something that ISN'T required to own or use a weapon.

But should be.

Nibs

Ah but the second amendment seez that every idiot can have a gun and shoot his foot so we have a well organized militia! :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but the second amendment seez that every idiot can have a gun and shoot his foot so we have a well organized militia! :devil:

*lol* If only "Darwin's law" kicked in more often.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I see. Lance was pretty meticulous about his methods, organizing his shop so that he would have convenient access to his weapons, if needed. He spent a lot of time at the range, and took a few classes I believe as well. He is correct though, his neighbors may have just bought a gun and then possibly would not have done any of the other preparedness things that he did, which would endanger their lives. He did end up getting shot 5 times as well by criminals. Anyone who has purchased a firearm needs to at least put in some time at a range and learn to use what they've acquired.

Edited by WoIverine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Training. Something that ISN'T required to own or use a weapon.

But should be.

Nibs

i agree, i would not mind if we had laws that would require you to pass yearly test to for ccw. but it isn't the agenda, the agenda is to ban\restrict guns, not to pass laws that require training.

=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree, i would not mind if we had laws that would require you to pass yearly test to for ccw. but it isn't the agenda, the agenda is to ban\restrict guns, not to pass laws that require training.

=

If done properly the two things would work together. Regular testing and training done by certified and experienced "teachers". The resources for people to get better help and monitoring for individuals seeming to suffer from mental issues and a secure (and functional and financed) process to notify authorities of concerns without destroying lives and/or being ignored.

The gummint isn't takin' ar guns. Not going to happen. Just a bunch of BS rhetoric will go on and on and on and on...

Extremism from both sides with no one actually working to solve the problem, only garner votes for their party.

Common sense will NOT prevail.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I see. Lance was pretty meticulous about his methods, organizing his shop so that he would have convenient access to his weapons, if needed. He spent a lot of time at the range, and took a few classes I believe as well. He is correct though, his neighbors may have just bought a gun and then possibly would not have done any of the other preparedness things that he did, which would endanger their lives. He did end up getting shot 5 times as well by criminals.

i know of many cases where jewelry stores were robbed, and workers killed. no body inside resisted,had no guns, and still got killed, two of such victims were someone i knew. they were shot with a shotgun point blank. now i want anti gun turds tell me how a gun , if they had it" would made their chances being shot higher.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gummint isn't takin' ar guns. Not going to happen. Just a bunch of BS rhetoric will go on and on and on and on...

blah, blah.....

that is what politician that enacted 1994 ban, said in the interview.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here,” Feinstein told MRC-TV in a 1995 interview.

so they aren't trying to take guns???? you are delusional. politician SAYS IT OPENLY, HE WANT TO TAKE GUNS AWAY, AND YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blah, blah.....

that is what politician that enacted 1994 ban, said in the interview.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here,” Feinstein told MRC-TV in a 1995 interview.

so they aren't trying to take guns???? you are delusional. politician SAYS IT OPENLY, HE WANT TO TAKE GUNS AWAY, AND YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

Back off with the name calling. It only destroys your own credibility.

I didn't say they aren't TRYING to take our guns. I said IT WON'T happen.

If you're going to debate or discuss with me please carefully read what I say.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back off with the name calling. It only destroys your own credibility.

lol, creditability does not depend weather you got offended by my post or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back off with the name calling. It only destroys your own credibility.

I didn't say they aren't TRYING to take our guns. I said IT WON'T happen.

If you're going to debate or discuss with me please carefully read what I say.

Nibs

He will not, after the second sentence he runs out of valid arguments and starts calling you names. I for one ran out of patience with him. Especially on the days he did not take his Prozac.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will not, after the second sentence he runs out of valid arguments and starts calling you names. I for one ran out of patience with him. Especially on the days he did not take his Prozac.

:) Well, he can discuss it with himself.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You kids play nice now, or I'm gonna have to babysit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You kids play nice now, or I'm gonna have to babysit.

Hmmmm..."babysat" by Wolverine...

this is punishment?

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) Well, he can discuss it with himself.

Nibs

deal, put me on ignore list, and i'll do the same for you, right next to your "i know all better' friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa!! Settle down there raging hormones! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deal, put me on ignore list, and i'll do the same for you, right next to your "i know all better' friend.

I don't use the ignore list.

Now, can we move on to the discussion like adults?

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm..."babysat" by Wolverine...

this is punishment?

Nibs

Whoa!! Settle down there raging hormones! :lol:

Aztek, I think the situation is definitely a slippery slope man, something to keep an eye on for sure.

Edited by WoIverine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to my previous point -

Various politicians can pontificate and demand all they want but American citizens won't have their guns taken from them for a variety of reasons.

1. You can't have three politicians in one room that will fully agree with each other on the colors of their ties much less a powder keg issue like this. Worst case scenario would be some federal laws that would most likely do nothing. It may be cliche but the citizens that follow all the laws aren't those causing the problems.

2. Supreme court challenges based on our Second Amendment rights would keep any law in limbo for ever.

3. Each state will make their own "amendments" to any law put in place which will only muddy the water more.

Sadly, the solution isn't even being discussed.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to my previous point -

Various politicians can pontificate and demand all they want but American citizens won't have their guns taken from them for a variety of reasons.

1. You can't have three politicians in one room that will fully agree with each other on the colors of their ties much less a powder keg issue like this. Worst case scenario would be some federal laws that would most likely do nothing. It may be cliche but the citizens that follow all the laws aren't those causing the problems.

2. Supreme court challenges based on our Second Amendment rights would keep any law in limbo for ever.

3. Each state will make their own "amendments" to any law put in place which will only muddy the water more.

Sadly, the solution isn't even being discussed.

Nibs

What surely is not the solution is to,as before, ban this or that type of weapon. That leads nowhere, especially if companies can sell modified assault weapons (that anybody not 10 thumbs could reconvert).

The only thing that could work is that there is a central gun register, make any gun not registered there illegal, slap a stiff mandatory sentence on everybody having an illegal gun and make gun owners responsible for the damage their guns do.

Everything else they might as well not bother with. Will lead nowhere.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What surely is not the solution is to,as before, ban this or that type of weapon. That leads nowhere, especially if companies can sell modified assault weapons (that anybody not 10 thumbs could reconvert).

The only thing that could work is that there is a central gun register, make any gun not registered there illegal, slap a stiff mandatory sentence on everybody having an illegal gun and make gun owners responsible for the damage their guns do.

Everything else they might as well not bother with. Will lead nowhere.

Agreed.

I'm a responsible gun owner. If one of my weapons was used in a crime it would ONLY be because of my negligence.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep

post-103357-0-13228400-1357433194_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same. Blunt objects (hammers) were generally accidents. As were most car "accidents". Guns have no other purpose than to kill another. Nice try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same. Blunt objects (hammers) were generally accidents. As were most car "accidents". Guns have no other purpose than to kill another. Nice try.

I hope the feds remember this when they come for them... :w00t::gun:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same. Blunt objects (hammers) were generally accidents. As were most car "accidents". Guns have no other purpose than to kill another. Nice try.

who cares, ppl did die from it, accedent or not makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not the same. Blunt objects (hammers) were generally accidents. As were most car "accidents". Guns have no other purpose than to kill another. Nice try.

What about defending yourself should (sadly and hopefully not) the need arises.

Besides, i can think of other purposes then to kill humans.

Target practice and hunting both come to mind. ;)

Also, dead is dead. It doesn't really matter how it happens :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.