Gun Control Poll

[Thorvir]

The solution to American culture... Seriously?

Actually, MORE places need to be like the US, to emulate American culture more.

Our friends in the world will remember themselves once they're threatened with annihilation again. Nobody will be complaining that some guy they don't know who lives 10,000 miles away has an AR-15. Oh, the bother!

Posters like to harsh on the US, but when it comes down to it, you're right. They'll come crawling back to us as usual for help, and we will gladly and loyally respond with that help as we always do. So much for our culture being "barbaric" and inferior. I'd point out the hypocrisy of it all, but...well, I just did.

[Yamato]

You did as you would do, sir.

[preacherman76]

That is very interesting, thank you for explaining that.

Sort of like Youth Marketing?

Whats youth marketing?

But I can understand. I don't see why a hobbyist would be put out by any bans that might be considered. Australia still has gun clubs, and you can register to hunt. One of the conditions of license was that the licensee has to justify the need for the firearm. Hunting, target shooting, collecting, club use or for primary production (farm use, culling etc) are considered legitimate justification.

I am not telling you how to live!! Have any of you read any of my posts or is this just one long knee jerk reaction by everyone who enters the thread? I don't believe the 2nd is valid, and I don't believe home invasion qualifies. How this all started was Daniel telling me that he will not own a gun, but he will stand for the rights of people to own firearms in case their Government attacks them. I honestly find that a very weak excuse, preposterous in fact. The reasons I have been given for people owning guns are not reasons, they are excuses, all I have said is be honest - you do not think the Government is going to actually attack you, that is a silly notion, you WANT a gun, just be honest. Goodness, I do not know how many times I have repeated that, but it is a lot!!

The government openly trains everyday to take on the American people. Since 9/11 they they have labled gun owners, returning vets, and Christians, along with anyone who has any strongly held political beliefs that dont match their own as terrorists. Above al CIA da. By every historical measuring stick, we are close to the government doing exactly what you find to be "silly". Homeland security has now bought over 2 billion rounds of ammo. Now im not saying they will definitly pull something. But it sure does seem like they find it a very real possibility. We would be foolish to dismiss what they openly tell us.

Many in governmnet have spoken of out right banning guns. If they had it their way, thats exactly what they would do. That alone is a attack. Psyche, government does everything by force. Everything implemented by them is done through the barrel of a gun.

BTW, the vailidity of the second amendment isnt a matter of belief. Its not only a constitutional amendment, but its also solidified in stone, through the Bill of Rights.

Also, "and I don't believe home invasion qualifies." is down right absurd. Tell that to all the people who's lives are saved everyday directly cause said victoms owned a gun.

Yes it does, the one fact nobody can deny. Since we introduced a gun ban, no more public massacres. That alone makes the idea worth considering in my opinion.

Is it that you just dont care that your murder rate hasnt gone down? Or that you dont believe it?

Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics

Reasonforforce ^

Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one

It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:

Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

[Yamato]

I like zalzan's comment: "Looks like China will have a nice South Pacific naval base/slave camp if they ever go to war with the west. They will be able to steamroll over the Aussies in a few days."

But that's okay, because the 'Muricans will come to save them.

[Thorvir]

Whats youth marketing?

The government openly trains everyday to take on the American people. Since 9/11 they they have labled gun owners, returning vets, and Christians, along with anyone who has any strongly held political beliefs that dont match their own as terrorists. Above al CIA da. By every historical measuring stick, we are close to the government doing exactly what you find to be "silly". Homeland security has now bought over 2 billion rounds of ammo. Now im not saying they will definitly pull something. But it sure does seem like they find it a very real possibility. We would be foolish to dismiss what they openly tell us.

Many in governmnet have spoken of out right banning guns. If they had it their way, thats exactly what they would do. That alone is a attack. Psyche, government does everything by force. Everything implemented by them is done through the barrel of a gun.

BTW, the vailidity of the second amendment isnt a matter of belief. Its not only a constitutional amendment, but its also solidified in stone, through the Bill of Rights.

Also, "and I don't believe home invasion qualifies." is down right absurd. Tell that to all the people who's lives are saved everyday directly cause said victoms owned a gun.

Is it that you just dont care that your murder rate hasnt gone down? Or that you dont believe it?

Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics

Reasonforforce ^

Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one

It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:

Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent

http://www.freerepub...t/2974487/posts

Oops, there you go completely destroying another person's argument with those evil facts and figures.

Not that psyche or the others had much of an argument to begin with...

[Yamato]

Even Ron Paul supporters were "terrorists" the moment after Ron Paul was winning. But all wasn't lost, because as soon as Ron Paul wasn't winning anymore, Glenn Beck became a libertarian again. How serious am I supposed to take our media about who a terrorist is after all that? People are so insulated by their own environments at the moment, they think that what they're enjoying today will last forever. That what's proven to happen to everyone throughout history eventually can't possibly happen again.

This government, the one that took my guns and kept me safe, is always going to be there for me forever, The End. That's some hella naivety. Maybe it's the winter in July or something?

[LaughingAtIdiots]

Despite the 2nd amendment causing criminals to have very easy access to guns, it's foolish to completely ban guns at this point in time. There's too many out there. Countries with strict gun laws have much less (violent/deadly) crimes, but that's because they have been gun-free/restricted for a long time.

I do think there should be some stricter laws, like having tests to prove you're not completely retarded (since a lot of crimes and accidents happen with legal guns), but banning them?, that wont work at all.

[Thorvir]

Despite the 2nd amendment causing criminals to have very easy access to guns...

...and there goes any chance of being taken seriously by me at least. Congrats on that.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[LaughingAtIdiots]

...and there goes any chance of being taken seriously by me at least. Congrats on that.

Congrats for closing your eyes for the truth then, lol

There's tons of illegal weapons going through the same routes as legal ones (plus some legal ones get used for crimes (either by the person that bought it, or by a person that stole it from a legal owner). And then you have the legal owners who go on a one-time spree before killing themselves.

Edited July 26, 2014 by PinkBanana

[Thorvir]

Congrats for closing your eyes for the truth then, lol

No, just on the uninformed. And on someone that joined these forums specifically to argue gun politics in a small sub-section of the overall site. I see how this is going to go already, just like the rest of this thread.

There's tons of illegal weapons going through the same routes as legal ones (plus some legal ones get used for crimes (either by the person that bought it, or by a person that stole it from a legal owner). And then you have the legal owners who go on a one-time spree before killing themselves.

Not sure what that has to do with the 2nd. Possibly just another anti-gun rampage about to begin based off hurt feelings and incorrect data, and once again it will be shot down like all of the others. Sigh...but that's been happening for pages upon pages now. Post away. Add to the pile. It doesn't change the truth nor the facts, nor will it make any more sense than usual.

But it is tiring, really, really tiring to hear/read the same, lame, unsupported anti-gun/anti-self defense crap. There is never variation or anything new to add to it.

[Yamato]

Yes we are. If you do not vote you get fined. They find you too - rates notices, school records all sorts of ways. And yes huge turnouts, the polls are flat out from 6am to 6pm. Often you have to stand in line to register your name to show you have voted.

So you've choked the freewill right out of your voting process and you're okay with that? It's not a choice anymore that people can make. Who cares about freedom to make your own decisions in life? Government puts you up against the wall. The politicians from which parties passed a law to make you do that? Not the party that nobody's ever heard of yet. How many names like that get on your ballot? Like disarming your population like they're untrustworthy children, here again your government has got you by the ballz.

[+and-then]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/26/emily-miller-federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional/

[Yamato]

They hear my 9 a poppin', an they all be duckin'

Can't dis dey girl coz they know who she been ...

Where's the five alarm fire at on NBC? They've lost a major battle in the war on guns. Since religion is so out of fashion, let's try out this Darwinism thing instead and see how that works.

Big Kudos to Judge Fred Scullin Jr. for knowing what the law is.

[LaughingAtIdiots]

No, just on the uninformed. And on someone that joined these forums specifically to argue gun politics in a small sub-section of the overall site. I see how this is going to go already, just like the rest of this thread.

Not sure what that has to do with the 2nd. Possibly just another anti-gun rampage about to begin based off hurt feelings and incorrect data, and once again it will be shot down like all of the others. Sigh...but that's been happening for pages upon pages now. Post away. Add to the pile. It doesn't change the truth nor the facts, nor will it make any more sense than usual.

But it is tiring, really, really tiring to hear/read the same, lame, unsupported anti-gun/anti-self defense crap. There is never variation or anything new to add to it.

There's no arguing with someone like you who is brainwashed by all pro-gun propaganda. Please inform yourself from both sides properly and then come back.

I am not anti-gun/anti-self defense at all. If someone breaks into your house, by all means, kill them, I would too, it's a risk of their "profession".

But there's so many idiots with guns out there, there needs to be some sort of control, it's too easy for idiots to get a gun. And you can't deny that having access to legal guns so easily makes it easier on the illegal market as well (criminals in countries with strict laws don't nearly as often have guns, and are much less violent on average).

But like I said, changing it now is foolish, the guns are already out there, banning or restricting it too much will only cause more problems.

[zebra99]

If someone breaks into your house, by all means, kill them, I would too, it's a risk of their "profession".

Or in the UK...remind the raving rapist murderer that his Sunday school teacher would be very disappointed in his behaviour.

[Yamato]

There's no arguing with someone like you who is brainwashed by all pro-gun propaganda. Please inform yourself from both sides properly and then come back.

I am not anti-gun/anti-self defense at all. If someone breaks into your house, by all means, kill them, I would too, it's a risk of their "profession".

But there's so many idiots with guns out there, there needs to be some sort of control, it's too easy for idiots to get a gun. And you can't deny that having access to legal guns so easily makes it easier on the illegal market as well (criminals in countries with strict laws don't nearly as often have guns, and are much less violent on average).

But like I said, changing it now is foolish, the guns are already out there, banning or restricting it too much will only cause more problems.

There needs to be change because of all the idiots, but changing it now is foolish, so, there needs to be foolish?

[LaughingAtIdiots]

There needs to be change because of all the idiots, but changing it now is foolish, so, there needs to be foolish?

My bad, maybe not the best sentence. Restricting it a little, to prevent some of the idiots getting them (like safety tests) would help prevent accidents. But restricting too much/banning guns would cause the criminals to have the upperhand over the responsible owners.

[Yamato]

Training is available if preventing some accidents is the concern.

http://www.handgunsafetycourse.com/

[dr no]

Or in the UK...remind the raving rapist murderer that his Sunday school teacher would be very disappointed in his behaviour.

Is that what you would do? I live in the UK I don't know anybody who would act like that

Edited July 27, 2014 by dr no

[CRYSiiSx2]

If you don't think guns should be allowed in the US and don't wanna live around them, pack your bags.

Again and again you are proven to be the minority. Guns aren't going anywhere. Cause 'Murica.

[aztek]

TALLAHASSEE — A federal appeals court has upheld the state's "docs vs. glocks" law, overturning an earlier court ruling that had blocked part of the measure from being enforced.

In a 2-1 ruling last week, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Florida Legislature had the right to pass the law, which includes provisions restricting doctors and other medical providers from asking questions about gun ownership during medical visits.

....

"In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear," Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote. "In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct — which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy — the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters."

The majority found that the National Rifle Association-backed law, known as the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, "has only an incidental effect on physicians' speech."

...

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the law, said in a statement that his organization was "astounded" by the ruling.

"Today's decision will keep doctors from asking reasonable questions and providing advice that could very well save lives," Simon said. "We expect the doctors who filed this case to appeal this decision and that this decision will ultimately be overturned."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-07-28/news/os-docs-vs-glocks-ruling-20140728_1_glocks-law-upholds-doctors

yea, overturned, lmao, keep wishing. as long as me and others like me fund nra it wont happen.

[Myles]

Seems Ok to me. If it is a rule then the doctors should not ask about gun ownership. They shouldn't ask about sexual preference or income either.

[aztek]

actually i can see how they might need to ask about income, as a matter of fact, imho, you should be informing doctor so he does not prescribe medecine you can't afford, however it should be your choice to talk about it, or not.

do not see how it is any of his buissnes if you own a gun or not, if he thinks you are phsyco, and has more than just gut feeling, he should be informing leos that you are phsyco and provide evidence, and it would be leos job to see if you have any regesterd guns to your name. because as strange as it sounds, phsycos are not stupid, and they wont tell doctors the truth anyway.

[+DieChecker]

TALLAHASSEE — A federal appeals court has upheld the state's "docs vs. glocks" law, overturning an earlier court ruling that had blocked part of the measure from being enforced.

In a 2-1 ruling last week, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Florida Legislature had the right to pass the law, which includes provisions restricting doctors and other medical providers from asking questions about gun ownership during medical visits.

....

"In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear," Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote. "In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct — which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy — the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters."

The majority found that the National Rifle Association-backed law, known as the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, "has only an incidental effect on physicians' speech."

...

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the law, said in a statement that his organization was "astounded" by the ruling.

"Today's decision will keep doctors from asking reasonable questions and providing advice that could very well save lives," Simon said. "We expect the doctors who filed this case to appeal this decision and that this decision will ultimately be overturned."

http://articles.orla...upholds-doctors

yea, overturned, lmao, keep wishing. as long as me and others like me fund nra it wont happen.

Seems to me that the doctors can ask gun questions if they like, but the patient is not required to answer. Even if I told my doctor that I had a bazooka at home, I'd expect confidentiality in such a conversation, especially if it was presented as being for health care concern reasons.

[Michelle]

When my doctor's nurse asked if I wear a seatbelt, which couldn't be associated with anything I was seeing the doctor for, I said you've got to be kidding me. That isn't a particularly personal question, but it was totally irrelevant and she didn't ask anything more that didn't actually pertain to my physical well being. She did have a list though, and I've often wondered what the rest of the questions were and to what purpose.