 abrxax
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 71 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:40:19 AM
On another note, Unless you buy a gun from a private individual you have to have a background check. At gun shows all the vendors there will do background checks per state and BATF rules and regulations. As a gun owner I support background checks for ALL firearm transfers, private or though a dealer. |
|
abrxax
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
71 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:34:20 AM
Lets think about this for a moment. A loaded gun sitting on a table will harm no one. A loaded gun in the hands of law abiding citizen will harm a criminal or a crazy with a gun. A loaded gun in the hands of criminals or crazies will harm a law abiding citizen. So pass a law taking away the guns and only criminals will have them. The crazies will continue to do crazy poo BUT they won't shoot people. Instead they will drive a moving truck packed with explosives to large government building and blow it up. Or send letter bombs. Or set fires. Or stab people. Or rape them and stab them. Or stab them THEN rape them. So...With that being said, we need to address the issues within our society that are causing these incidents. Then and only then will we be able to solve the problem.
|
|
 MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
2405 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:14:15 AM
markust123-"Why a civilian needs anything larger than a pump action rifle/shotgun I will never understand."
Your undestanding is not required. |
|
 Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9511 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:59:37 AM
Why a civilian needs anything larger than a pump action rifle/shotgun I will never understand.
Being my old liberal self I'd tell you there are certainly times when the police cannot be trusted to respect your rights or your property. Course that would probably make more of an anarchist. |
|
 Draculya
Male, 30-39, Asia
6671 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:05:35 AM
*gets popcorn out* |
|
 McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10540 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:45:10 AM
@markust123
Shotguns are a much larger caliber than an AR-15. There's literally millions of them in the US because what they won't tell you is it's a top notch target rifle used in competitions by many. It's a good rifle for many things. |
|
 markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
3783 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:23:05 AM
Obama's plan is probably to limit Magazines to 10 rounds. He understands that the semi-automatic ban will never make it through the house. But the health care debate taught him that you can't start with what you want. With the kids in congress you have to go in extreme and cut back to what you want. And that is because we keep electing jackasses to the House and Senate. They really are like children. |
|
MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
2405 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:12:37 AM
hi2pi-"the female uterus is more regulated than assault weapons are in your country. that, in itself, is an obscenity"
And that statement, in itself, is an absurdity. A rifle can cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars and you have to fill out reams of paperwork to get one legally. The female uterus can be had for the cost of a happy meal.
Musuko42-"They need them, and I don't."
So you actually feel they are more important than you, and more valuable than you.
Way to be a peon. |
|
MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
2405 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:10:57 AM
patchgrabber-" follow the law when I drive a car, so why should I have to get a license?"
Because you purchase a license for the PRIVILEGE of driving on the public roadways and infrastructure.
Driving a vehicle on the roads is not a right. Not comparable.
patchgrabber-"I find it odd it's easier to get a gun as a civilian than it is as an active duty member of the military."
What gives you the idea that active duty memebers have a harder time getting a gun? They don't. They can get anything a civilian of the same age can.
Oh, you mean 'on the job'. Well, in your job, you're told if you can have a new bar-code scanner or not, right? |
|
markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
3783 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:08:58 AM
The AR-15 was designed specifically for the military. Why a civilian needs anything larger than a pump action rifle/shotgun I will never understand. I'd be embarrassed bringing an AR-15 up hunting. That's like showing up to a game with your face painted. Well not really but I couldn't think of a better analogy. For your house if you need anything larger than a pump action rifle/shotgun or a handgun you should move immediately. The AR-15 definitely shouldn't be in the hands of militias/patriot groups because, well, they're nuts. They think people are out to get them. Militias are the last people we should be arming with semi-automatic riffles. |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10540 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:00:47 AM
The British Royalty don't arm themselves for defence. The POLICE defend them with armed officers.
While you have to fend for yourself how convenient. |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10540 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:59:39 AM
The Sandy Hook shooter WAS a law-abiding citizen right up until the shootings.
The guns were not legally his now how would more laws prevent something that was already illegal? |
|
 Finker
Male, 40-49, Europe
482 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:50:09 AM
@5cats, the royalty would definitely be described as right not left in the UK. It is elected parliament that really makes the laws the Royals have very little input, if that is the best argument you have then you are struggling. |
|
 Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
2109 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:15:09 AM
@5Cats
"THAT is what the left desires most: A "European" system where the Royalty (ie: the left) has one law and the "peasants" have another."
The British Royalty don't arm themselves for defence. The POLICE defend them with armed officers.
If I were a high-profile public figure who were likely to be threatened and attacked, I would have armed police defending me too. I'm not, and they are, so that's why they have armed police outside their homes, and I don't. They need them, and I don't. |
|
Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
2109 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:03:37 AM
@dang007
"Are you saying that banning assault rifles (what ever that is) will prevent law abiding citizens from massacring children in a school? If so I suggest that you may be focusing on the wrong problem."
The Sandy Hook shooter WAS a law-abiding citizen right up until the shootings.
Law-abiding citizens going on shooting sprees is EXACTLY the problem that you face. |
|
 Palfas
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
410 Posts
|
Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:23:19 AM
5cats can't find a good reason to attack any of these reasonable proposals so he claims they're too expensive and cumbersome. Oh man, if that was a reason not to do things, this whole country, nay the whole world would cease functioning.
Laws are only for law abiding people! So don't obey they law, get you're self arrested, fine by me. Besides, I'm sure you've never ever broken any laws ever.
But criminals will still break the law! Everyone's a law abiding citizen until they break the law. There's no such things as "criminals" as a class of people, unless you're being a racist a-hole. When you say "lawful citizens" and "criminals" you just prove how willfully ignorant you are.
These proposals are ineffective, they wont stop gun violence! You're right, but they will probably help. Is that now the bar for all new laws, if they aren't 100% effective, then they're useless? If at first we don't succeed, then fark it. |
|
 diylobotomy
Male, 18-29, Western US
1621 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:41:18 PM
SCfan and all other gun nuts who are butthurt about this: He's not taking all your guns. You can still shoot things. Calm the drat down and stop posting stupid pro-gun poo on facebook, the rest of us are sick of it. |
|
 hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
738 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:47:32 PM
the female uterus is more regulated than assault weapons are in your country. that, in itself, is an obscenity. |
|
 SCfan
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
1679 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:30:02 PM
$500 million to once again use the constitution as his personal toilet paper. drat you Obama. |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
17455 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:26:22 PM
@dirtysteve: Oh sure! Still own weapons?
The "rich" will.
The "elite" will.
Like David Gregory for example: who waved an ILLEGAL weapon (a 30-round magazine) in Washington DC but was NOT prosecuted. But others who had them in the trunks of their cars and were driving through? THEY went to court!
Like Rosie Odonnel: Who demanded all firearms be banned, but employed armed security guards for herself!
THAT is what the left desires most: A "European" system where the Royalty (ie: the left) has one law and the "peasants" have another.
Let them eat cake! |
|
dirtysteve00
Male, 30-39, Europe
316 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:08:48 PM
'What happened to "...and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?
He's breaking his oath of office and should be arrested and impeached.'
You do realise that people will still be able to bear arms right?
Calm your tits. |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
17455 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:07:07 PM
Obama's Gun Control Package
Obama's Gun Package
Obama's Package...
I gotta stop watching hentai... it's melting my brainz!  |
|
 Scuzoid
Male, 30-39, Western US
1270 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:06:02 PM
I find it odd it's easier to get a gun as a civilian than it is as an active duty member of the military. With that said:
To those anti-gun legislation, lets assume the "military style assault ban" is a bargaining chip, and you either ban "those" guns or require mental health evaluations for everyone seeking to purchase any gun (in addition to the background check) which would you choose?
To those pro-gun legislation, lets assume the proposed "military style gun ban" turns out to be ALL guns are banned OR a mental health evaluation is required to purchase any gun a civilian is currently able to purchase. Which would you choose?
I frequently question why US civilian laws and legislation are seemingly years behind US military laws and legislation. |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
17455 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:05:25 PM
[quote">Whatever happened to Madest?
I miss him in times like these.[/quote">
@AJ: Like a toothache!
It's so easy to predict exactly what he'd say, he doesn't need to say it. Just use the words "retard" "Republican" and "Canadian" as an insult, all in the same sentence? There you go!
Eye Candy: Kodomo no Jikan Safe, just large and off-topic. Eye-bleach to remove the thought of @madest's comments. |
|
rosieodonnel
Male, 18-29, Western US
27 Posts
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:38:29 PM
@tedgp You do realize that the AR15 has been on the market since the 60s, right? Owners will most likely be grandfathered in. It would be a nightmare trying to remove them from people who legally purchased them. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}