Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

US gun laws:votes to loosen background checks


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

I own one of these, although I didn't pay near this price:

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/mp-15-22-sport

 

Also one of these:

https://www.mossberg.com/product/mossberg-international-715t-flat-top-red-dot-combo-37234/

 

Fun to shoot and since they are both .22's, the ammo is cheap. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 2/26/2017 at 11:23 PM, psyche101 said:

The main thing here is it does not necessarily have to affect the second. Nobody seems to want to admit that much? It's like the "Government might attack" excuse, that is all it is, an excuse.

 

LINK - Gun control doesn’t violate the Second Amendment!

I'm not going to go into it in great detail, but have you ever heard of Ruby Ridge, Waco, all the different things that have went on in this country? Government can be malicious, and downright evil. I love the excuse that those poor kids in Waco were being abused. Well they're much better off now that they're dead aren't they.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Myles said:

I own one of these, although I didn't pay near this price:

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/mp-15-22-sport

 

Also one of these:

https://www.mossberg.com/product/mossberg-international-715t-flat-top-red-dot-combo-37234/

 

Fun to shoot and since they are both .22's, the ammo is cheap. 

You got the pink one at the second link???

ssp11.gif

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rod64 said:

I'm not going to go into it in great detail, but have you ever heard of Ruby Ridge, Waco, all the different things that have went on in this country? Government can be malicious, and downright evil. I love the excuse that those poor kids in Waco were being abused. Well they're much better off now that they're dead aren't they.

Nobody is better of dead, but they weren't off to well with Koresh either, Mark England and Darlene McCormick alleged that Koresh had physically abused children in the compound and had committed statutory rape by taking multiple underage brides. You reckon we just let that play out, see if any other kids are messed with and leave him go on his merry way? With an egotistical psycho like Koresh in charge, it was never going to end peacefully. 

What does that have to do with regulation not affecting the 2nd? You think the kids should have all had machine guns? Not like anything could go wrong with that idea hey ........

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Nobody is better of dead, but they weren't off to well with Koresh either, Mark England and Darlene McCormick alleged that Koresh had physically abused children in the compound and had committed statutory rape by taking multiple underage brides. You reckon we just let that play out, see if any other kids are messed with and leave him go on his merry way? With an egotistical psycho like Koresh in charge, it was never going to end peacefully. 

What does that have to do with regulation not affecting the 2nd? You think the kids should have all had machine guns? Not like anything could go wrong with that idea hey ........

I hear you, put a thought like that into my head, like that's what I said. I don't think it was, my point was you're saying; never would government attack. I think you're wrong, they went in there like Stormtroopers. Why couldn't they have waited for them to come into town and get supplies? They could have handled that way differently, but nobody upstages the United States government.                                                                                           I also don't care what side of the spectrum you're from,  fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong. He was a fundamentalist, I'm not saying he wasn't dangerous. But don't put words into my mouth that I've never said. That's the whole problem with the left, as you always do this crap. You try to extrapolate on something someone says, and twist it into the way you need it to be worded. There's good and bad in both parties, until people find the good in both the Democrats and Republicans and apply them, and stop following these party lines, nothing is ever going to change.

Edited by rod64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rod64 said:

I hear you, put a thought like that into my head, like that's what I said. I don't think it was, my point was you're saying; never would government attack. I think you're wrong, they went in there like Stormtroopers. Why couldn't they have waited for them to come into town and get supplies? They could have handled that way differently, but nobody upstages the United States government.

Well, you may have the opinion that they could have handled it differently, fact is they did not because they had information saying the children were in danger, and they were. When the same methods were applied to the1985 siege in Arkansas involving The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, no fatalities happened. NO good reason not to try that method yet again. Mass suicide was a real threat, the Branch Davidians were heavily armed, and there was no good reason to discount the information, and although the Branch Davidians blamed the fires on the assault, I see nothing to indicate they did not light them themselves in a final act of defiance by Koresh akin to the mass suicide instigated by Jim Jones. 

That was not the Government attacking its people, it was the Government protecting people from fundamentalist religion. And the Branch Davidians did not fare to well in that instance despite being heavily armed and rather aggressive. 

5 hours ago, rod64 said:

I also don't care what side of the spectrum you're from,  fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong. He was a fundamentalist, I'm not saying he wasn't dangerous. But don't put words into my mouth that I've never said. That's the whole problem with the left, as you always do this crap. You try to extrapolate on something someone says, and twist it into the way you need it to be worded. There's good and bad in both parties, until people find the good in both the Democrats and Republicans and apply them, and stop following these party lines, nothing is ever going to change.

I have no idea why you're so wound up, I did not put words into your mouth, I have stayed within the parameters if the discussion you have initiated. Koresh is not a modern example of the Government attacking it's people, and let's face it, if the Branch Davidians did not have weapons we might not have had loss of life over the incident. It does not justify having a weapon "in case your Government attacks" and even if you wish to see it that way, we can see the futility in the exercise. The Branch Davidians did not emerge victorious despite being heavily armed. Regulation should keep deadly weapons away from such unstable people, and that would likely have benefited Waco, and those who perished there. Having the silly macho idea of taking on the Government with guns only got innocent people killed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2017 at 7:08 PM, Odin11 said:

You didn't understand the list did you? I don't know why I ask because it's clear you didn't. The ones that said they were borrowed or outright stolen were mark as not obtained legally. There are 85 shootings listed and in 67 of them the guns were not stolen or borrowed. 67 of the 85 used guns that they bought legally.

 

 

 

85 out of roughly 300 million?  If you're that concerned then go find a cave to live in.  If you want to guarantee the massive increase of gun violence, just try taking them away.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind.

Edited by Odin11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Well, you may have the opinion that they could have handled it differently, fact is they did not because they had information saying the children were in danger, and they were. When the same methods were applied to the1985 siege in Arkansas involving The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, no fatalities happened. NO good reason not to try that method yet again. Mass suicide was a real threat, the Branch Davidians were heavily armed, and there was no good reason to discount the information, and although the Branch Davidians blamed the fires on the assault, I see nothing to indicate they did not light them themselves in a final act of defiance by Koresh akin to the mass suicide instigated by Jim Jones. 

That was not the Government attacking its people, it was the Government protecting people from fundamentalist religion. And the Branch Davidians did not fare to well in that instance despite being heavily armed and rather aggressive. 

I have no idea why you're so wound up, I did not put words into your mouth, I have stayed within the parameters if the discussion you have initiated. Koresh is not a modern example of the Government attacking it's people, and let's face it, if the Branch Davidians did not have weapons we might not have had loss of life over the incident. It does not justify having a weapon "in case your Government attacks" and even if you wish to see it that way, we can see the futility in the exercise. The Branch Davidians did not emerge victorious despite being heavily armed. Regulation should keep deadly weapons away from such unstable people, and that would likely have benefited Waco, and those who perished there. Having the silly macho idea of taking on the Government with guns only got innocent people killed. 

I'm not arguing that they weren't fundamentalist, they were. However for you to say they were aggressive when the government came in with tanks and full body armor, yes the Davidian's were armed, but the Feds swarmed the place. That should have been treated as a hostage situation, plain and simple. You want to talk about Macho, that's the government. They're Macho, you don't upstage them. I knew what was going to happen after the initial assault failed. And yes you were trying to put words in my mouth,  when you were doing your hypothetical thing like I was implying that I think the kids should have had guns, didn't say that. And whether you like it or not the Constitution is what it is, the Second Amendment provides for Citizens being allowed to be armed to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rod64 said:

I'm not arguing that they weren't fundamentalist, they were. However for you to say they were aggressive when the government came in with tanks and full body armor, yes the Davidian's were armed, but the Feds swarmed the place. That should have been treated as a hostage situation, plain and simple.

The siege lasted 51 days, the place was finally stopped because there were very real fears that women and children were in grave danger and being abused.

Anyone decent human being would make the same decision, Government or not. 

And as I pointed out, the exact same tactics were used in Arkansas, and met with success. Why would you not try a method that has already worked? 

Quote

You want to talk about Macho, that's the government. They're Macho, you don't upstage them. I knew what was going to happen after the initial assault failed.

BS, that is justice. Fundamentalist whackos putting innocent people in danger, and the Government ended it. The Government's big mistake was not taking out Koresh much earlier, but due to the reverence religion receives from the general public, they would have to hold back to justify any initiatives at all. 

That is not macho, that is what they are paid to do. Defend the public. It is downright ridiculous to say ending a 51 day siege by heavily armed fundamentalists is an example of a corrupt government assaulting it's people. That is justice, nothing more. 

Religion was a MUCH bigger enemy than the Government was in that situation. 

Quote

And yes you were trying to put words in my mouth,  when you were doing your hypothetical thing like I was implying that I think the kids should have had guns, didn't say that.

No you did not say that, I had no  idea what you were implying hence the question. Now I know, but would not have had I not asked. You're being overly defensive. 

Quote

And whether you like it or not the Constitution is what it is, the Second Amendment provides for Citizens being allowed to be armed to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

And that time is long gone, and it is a perfect example of hanging onto worn out excuses that are not valid in order to convince yourselves that a deadly weapon is a necessity, it is not a necessity, it is not a right. And in fact, quite a few of the US posters I have debated the subject with have outright admitted it is a redundant excuse citing self defence as the "real reason". It makes about as much sense as policing Bingo Games and making sure they do not exceed 5 hours in North Carolina - that is an old useless law also still on the books. And it is delusional to think a gun in your cupboard is any sort of dence against the amazing array of modern weapons used in the latest conflicts. Citing an old siege is neither here nor there. All you have done is show you have an unreasonable opinion of your own Government that is not well supported. I doubt too many other Americans would say Koresh was unfairly treated by his own Government. 

The 2nd is not affected by gun regulation, see the link I left earlier on that. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deflect deflect deflect I hear you I didn't say he wasn't treated fairly I said it should have been treated like a hostage situation they went in there and stormed the complex. And big brother knows best they should be the only ones to have weapons and should be able to just mow us down and we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves. Obviously you have a vested interest in this. What organization do you work for? What branch of the government are you from?  You're obviously in some type of federal government I'm guessing. Why aren't you responding to the Ruby Ridge questions? That worked out so well too didn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rod64 said:

Deflect deflect deflect I hear you I didn't say he wasn't treated fairly I said it should have been treated like a hostage situation they went in there and stormed the complex. And big brother knows best they should be the only ones to have weapons and should be able to just mow us down and we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves. Obviously you have a vested interest in this. What organization do you work for? What branch of the government are you from?  You're obviously in some type of federal government I'm guessing. Why aren't you responding to the Ruby Ridge questions? That worked out so well too didn't it?

lol, you overestimated him, it is not vested interest, it  is conditioning, a perfect product of it.  also notice his location, very far from us

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 2/26/2017 at 8:55 PM, psyche101 said:

It is not a right. It is a privilege. 

How do you perceive it as a right? If so, should not everyone in the world agree with that? Seems more a personal view based on gun culture. 

Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?  Who cares if everyone in the world agrees?  

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.