Close

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 51
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,468
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    538
    Rep Points
    1,302.2
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Hope everything is ok.
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by E90SoFlo Click here to enlarge
    Hope everyone is ok.
    Everything seems fine now, thank you.

    To continue, I need to state that I have no idea how to solve this problem, but I do consider that it is becoming a problem. Do I want to ban guns from everybody? No I don't. But I do believe that civilians who wish to own guns need to jump through hoops of fire and swim through shark filled pools to get one, for the lack of a better explanation. In certain countries gun control works and in others it doesn't, for instance Mexico may have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world but they don't work if nobody enforces them, where the police and people in power are corrupt to the highest degree. Same goes for South Africa and any other 3rd world country.

    But then there are countries where strict gun control seems to work: Poland, Australia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Japan and few others are examples of it, or at least I believe they are. Can somebody pinpoint the actual reason for it? I don't think it can be just culture since Poland, Australia, and Japan are vastly different from one another in that category. In short I have no idea on how to solve it but if left alone I sincerely doubt that it will work itself out.
    Click here to enlarge

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Naples, FL
    Posts
    2,086
    Rep Points
    2,163.2
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
    Everything seems fine now, thank you.

    To continue, I need to state that I have no idea how to solve this problem, but I do consider that it is becoming a problem. Do I want to ban guns from everybody? No I don't. But I do believe that civilians who wish to own guns need to jump through hoops of fire and swim through shark filled pools to get one, for the lack of a better explanation. In certain countries gun control works and in others it doesn't, for instance Mexico may have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world but they don't work if nobody enforces them, where the police and people in power are corrupt to the highest degree. Same goes for South Africa and any other 3rd world country.

    But then there are countries where strict gun control seems to work: Poland, Australia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Japan and few others are examples of it, or at least I believe they are. Can somebody pinpoint the actual reason for it? I don't think it can be just culture since Poland, Australia, and Japan are vastly different from one another in that category. In short I have no idea on how to solve it but if left alone I sincerely doubt that it will work itself out.
    Its a social problem, not a gun problem. Thats what I have come to realize.




  4. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    4,053
    Rep Points
    2,634.3
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    27


    Yes Reputation No
    You can make the same analogy with genitals and rape.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,186
    Rep Points
    1,801.7
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
    Tell me why then isn't the United States the safest country to live in but one with one of the highest gun related deaths. Does more guns to you mean safer society? It doesn't seem to be working as it is.
    I could copy & paste several of my comments I've made in the other threads, but I won't. So here are some bullet points to challenge your claims (and anyone else who supports the elimination of the 2nd Amendment):


    1. The United States of America is the United States of America. To make a comparison about gun-related crimes in Russia, Poland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom or Uganda are all irrelevant because they're not the US.
    2. The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms has existed for over 200 years. Firearm related crimes have not been a prominent issue over that time frame, but instead a recent rising issue (I'll cite Virginia Tech as the start of these types of shootings in public places, took place in 2007).
    3. It is not a coincidence that with the advancement of science & medical technology, that society has decided instead of confronting & solving a personal problem, that we medicate ourselves, subdue the problem & increase our dosage when the problem resurfaces. Several (if not all) of the shooters from Virginia Tech, Rep. Giffords, Aurora/Batman & the Newtown School had personality disorders/medical conditions.
    4. Majority of the weapons used in these crimes were illegally obtained and/or not even registered weapons to the shooter.
    5. By outlawing guns, you take them out of the hands of the people who follow the laws & legally obtain them to defend themselves (the most common reason for purchasing a firearm: personal safety). People who look to commit these heinous crimes against humanity will still obtain the weapons they way most of them are already getting them: illegally.
    6. Adding legislation will not solve the problem. Look at the US's attempts at it's War on Drugs. We've spent millions of tax payer dollars trying to prevent illegal drugs from entering our borders, but you can go into nearly any city, find a "shady" area and buy drugs.
    7. There is also no coincidence that the city's that have outlawed the civilian possession of firearms (Washington DC, Chicago & NYC) have the highest amount of firearm related crimes (murders & attacks). Chicago was recently ranked as the most dangerous city in the world (determined by it's murder rate:population) - http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...163874546.html
    8. All of the recent murders that have taken place (VTech, Rep. Giffords, Aurora/Batman, Newtown, NJ Mall, etc.) have taken place in locations that are specifically targeted because they were firearm free areas. Once again, the sick people that committed these crimes committed them in locations where they knew they would have time to commit their crimes without concern for retaliation/people defending themselves.


    The bottom line (like someone already mentioned) is that it isn't a gun problem, it's a societal/people problem. Instead of living in a society where we acknowledge our flaws as people & confronting them, we instead choose to throw back some pills that the manufacturer tells us will make us feel better. The people committing these crimes (Rep. Giffords, the Redskins football player, Aurora, Newtown, etc.) are just mentally sick people looking to inflict damage, and if it's not a gun, they will find another way to hurt people. These are the people that need to be punished, not the thousands of legal gun owners who look to defend themselves.
    COBB AP ProTune by Bren of ///Bren Tuning
    Akrapovic DP | Helix FMIC | Alpina TCM Flash | Walbro 450LPH Fuel Pump


    "The moment money becomes your motivation, you are immediately not as good as someone who is motivated by passion and internal will." -A. Senna

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,468
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    /End Thread

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    538
    Rep Points
    1,302.2
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
    I could copy & paste several of my comments I've made in the other threads, but I won't. So here are some bullet points to challenge your claims (and anyone else who supports the elimination of the 2nd Amendment):


    1. The United States of America is the United States of America. To make a comparison about gun-related crimes in Russia, Poland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom or Uganda are all irrelevant because they're not the US.
    2. The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms has existed for over 200 years. Firearm related crimes have not been a prominent issue over that time frame, but instead a recent rising issue (I'll cite Virginia Tech as the start of these types of shootings in public places, took place in 2007).
    3. It is not a coincidence that with the advancement of science & medical technology, that society has decided instead of confronting & solving a personal problem, that we medicate ourselves, subdue the problem & increase our dosage when the problem resurfaces. Several (if not all) of the shooters from Virginia Tech, Rep. Giffords, Aurora/Batman & the Newtown School had personality disorders/medical conditions.
    4. Majority of the weapons used in these crimes were illegally obtained and/or not even registered weapons to the shooter.
    5. By outlawing guns, you take them out of the hands of the people who follow the laws & legally obtain them to defend themselves (the most common reason for purchasing a firearm: personal safety). People who look to commit these heinous crimes against humanity will still obtain the weapons they way most of them are already getting them: illegally.
    6. Adding legislation will not solve the problem. Look at the US's attempts at it's War on Drugs. We've spent millions of tax payer dollars trying to prevent illegal drugs from entering our borders, but you can go into nearly any city, find a "shady" area and buy drugs.
    7. There is also no coincidence that the city's that have outlawed the civilian possession of firearms (Washington DC, Chicago & NYC) have the highest amount of firearm related crimes (murders & attacks). Chicago was recently ranked as the most dangerous city in the world (determined by it's murder rate:population) - http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...163874546.html
    8. All of the recent murders that have taken place (VTech, Rep. Giffords, Aurora/Batman, Newtown, NJ Mall, etc.) have taken place in locations that are specifically targeted because they were firearm free areas. Once again, the sick people that committed these crimes committed them in locations where they knew they would have time to commit their crimes without concern for retaliation/people defending themselves.


    The bottom line (like someone already mentioned) is that it isn't a gun problem, it's a societal/people problem. Instead of living in a society where we acknowledge our flaws as people & confronting them, we instead choose to throw back some pills that the manufacturer tells us will make us feel better. The people committing these crimes (Rep. Giffords, the Redskins football player, Aurora, Newtown, etc.) are just mentally sick people looking to inflict damage, and if it's not a gun, they will find another way to hurt people. These are the people that need to be punished, not the thousands of legal gun owners who look to defend themselves.
    It's interesting that you even bother to make that post without even reading anything that I had said. Why your mind twists and skews my views to think that I support the elimination of the 2nd Amendment is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me and I find it quite offensive. Below I'll be offering a counterargument to each of your statements.

    1. The United States of America is a melting pot which includes people from Russia, Switzerland, UK and so on, and we're all human beings, no it does not make it irrelevant just because it's the United States.

    2. The gun related crimes have existed in the United States far longer, it's not a recent issue so it's not fair to use 2007 as the beginning of these problems. Just because something is 200 years old doesn't make it untouchable and sacred.

    3. The United States considers itself to have the number 1 healthcare and everybody is up in arms because they say that Obamacare will ruin it. Well apparently if we have a lot of mentally ill people with access to guns is both a failure of healthcare and gun control.

    4. Lately that doesn't support your case. And I'll say this, no gun starts off as an illegal gun off the production line, they are all perfectly legal, it's the people who are supposedly trustworthy who make them illegal, by not keeping them safe in their house while it gets robbed or any other irresponsible thing they shouldn't be.

    5. No I don't because I don't support the elimination of the 2nd Amendment, you would know that if you bothered to read anything I said. You should probably keep that in mind if you decide to respond to me.

    6. Pure speculation on your part, the reason for the Constitution and it's ability to add and change Amendments is so that it keeps up with the current times. Why is the 2nd Amendment so special and so sacred that you don't think legislation is going to fix it. It seems to work in other parts of the world.

    7. Read the same article, and read about Tokyo, gun control (although I don't support the full ban just in case you forgot) seems to work fine just there doesn't it? So what if it's in Japan, last time I checked they had humans living there just as in Chicago. We're not talking about being on another planet here, only a couple of thousand of miles away.

    8. Who knows why it happened there, you wrote you entire post with these bullet points as if they're not debatable or refutable. But they pretty much are, anything is debatable and refutable, especially in politics. According to you Sydney, Tokyo, and other cities around the world should be right up there with Chicago but they're not. And no you saying that I can't use that as an example because it's not the United States doesn't refute that as fact one bit. I can use it and I will use it.

    Maybe this country is over medicated, maybe it's not. People committing these crimes are mentally unstable and sick people but they probably wouldn't be as successful as they are if they didn't have such easy access to purchase firearms. Again if they used a bomb or a knife is still just speculation on your part, the bombings in the United States are not as easy to commit since the police force has found a way how to get to the people trying to commit crimes in such a way and thwarting them before they happen. They seem to not have the same ability when guns come into play.

    The point here is not to punish these people after they perform a mass murder, the idea here is to stop them before it happens. After all they're not criminals until they commit a crime. Some of these people as you put it were and probably still actually are legal gun owners who seem to go off the hinge and then decide to kill a bunch of people. And again just to remind you so you have no further conflicts about what my agenda you think I have:

    STRICT GUN LAWS DOES NOT MEAN ABOLISHMENT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT. AND I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN OF FIREARM OWNERSHIP BY CIVILIANS.
    Click here to enlarge

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,186
    Rep Points
    1,801.7
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
    It's interesting that you even bother to make that post without even reading anything that I had said. Why your mind twists and skews my views to think that I support the elimination of the 2nd Amendment is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me and I find it quite offensive.
    If you weren't prepared for the possibility that you would be offended, you shouldn't of contributed. My response was a general, "blanket response" addressed to you and anyone who shares a similar mindset of increased regulation/full ban -- Don't take it so personally.

    While the US is a cultural melting pot, our Government system is not. So like I previously said, applying something that works in Japan (a constitutional monarchy) does not mean it'll translate over & successfully be put into practice in the United States (a constitutional republic) and the individual states/towns (who's governing systems vary, but are consistent with some form of democracy).

    Do you have an earlier example of firearm related crimes in a public venue where it was a firearm-free zone? That is why I referenced Virigina Tech, an incident where innocent lives were taken by a mass shooting in a gun-free zone by a mentally unstable person.

    Even under the current system and the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare), something that makes America unique is that we offer people choices. This means there are a lot of people who's mental health should be monitored will not be because we cannot legally (and should be legally allowed to force anyone) force them to see a doctor.

    A gun has no legal or illegal designation until it's sold. While a legally sold firearm is specifically registered to an individual owner, who is forced to complete an application process (background check, etc), an illegal firearm doesn't deal with this. If you have the cash, you can buy an illegal firearm in any state in this country. I don't understand what you're trying to see in the 2nd part of your rebuttal.

    With your suggestion of modernizing some of the original, founding principles of the Constitution, why don't we modify the section of "Freedom of Speech" since that seems to be a much more regulated right that it used to be? I also don't think you realize how difficult it would be (and the potential public uprising that would follow) from just proposing a change to an original section of the Bill of Rights.

    Once again, your example of another country that has a completely different governing system, culture in it's society and preexisting stance on firearms cannot accurately apply to the United States' situation. BUT if you want to take foreign examples into consideration, here's an interesting scenario: In the United Kingdom (another country that forbids citizen possession of firearms), firearm related crimes increased 35% in 2003 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html). IN 2009, firearm related crimes increased 89% (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html). The significant increase in firearm related crimes are all a result of illegally obtained firearms.

    There is no way to legally defend against crimes of this nature before they occur (unless you infringe upon an individuals rights or catch them red-handed), whether they are with firearms or not. There are thousands of stabbings (knives), shootings (this specific situation) and bombings (Timothy McVeigh, the attempted Times Square bombing, and 9/11) until they are taking place. You're confidence in preventing a crime before it occurs is very hopefuly, but unrealistic. Until legal firearm owners start committing crimes & shooting innocent people, you really have no justification for why their rights (the 2nd Amendment) should be changed, restricted or abolished.

    **Once again, this isn't just a specific response to the points you tried making, it's a response to anyone who shares a similar or more anti-gun/increased regulation perspective.
    COBB AP ProTune by Bren of ///Bren Tuning
    Akrapovic DP | Helix FMIC | Alpina TCM Flash | Walbro 450LPH Fuel Pump


    "The moment money becomes your motivation, you are immediately not as good as someone who is motivated by passion and internal will." -A. Senna

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Guys it's easy. I've said it before. Guns are not the problem - people are the problem. People are ALWAYS the problem. There are always going to be criminals and the mental deranged or people who one day snap and lose their $#@!. The only way to stop these people from using a gun or guns to kill people, is to ban all guns. That is NOT what I want.

    But there are ways to make it so that when someone goes on a shooting spree, less people die. And that means changing the types and the kind of guns that we can own. It's takes everyone coming together to agree on this because it is the ONLY way we as a society can make an impactful difference. More bull$#@! laws are not going to help. More bull$#@! cosmetic gun laws are not going to help. REAL change is needed if we want to stop gun violence in this country. I'm not saying that we can eliminate it totally...but we can certainly bring it way down from the absurd levels that exist today.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,468
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    hhmm.. this certainly changes things:

    in short, ccw holder did NOT shoot criminal due to awareness of the background... BUT criminal did see CCW aimed in, and turned rifle on himself.. an "assault" rifle.. you know those things that only criminals use to kill multiple people.. but wait, this guy only got 2 in before ccw intervened and criminal "bowed out".. interesting.. didnt see this reported in the media


  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    538
    Rep Points
    1,302.2
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
    If you weren't prepared for the possibility that you would be offended, you shouldn't of contributed. My response was a general, "blanket response" addressed to you and anyone who shares a similar mindset of increased regulation/full ban -- Don't take it so personally.

    While the US is a cultural melting pot, our Government system is not. So like I previously said, applying something that works in Japan (a constitutional monarchy) does not mean it'll translate over & successfully be put into practice in the United States (a constitutional republic) and the individual states/towns (who's governing systems vary, but are consistent with some form of democracy).

    Do you have an earlier example of firearm related crimes in a public venue where it was a firearm-free zone? That is why I referenced Virigina Tech, an incident where innocent lives were taken by a mass shooting in a gun-free zone by a mentally unstable person.

    Even under the current system and the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare), something that makes America unique is that we offer people choices. This means there are a lot of people who's mental health should be monitored will not be because we cannot legally (and should be legally allowed to force anyone) force them to see a doctor.

    A gun has no legal or illegal designation until it's sold. While a legally sold firearm is specifically registered to an individual owner, who is forced to complete an application process (background check, etc), an illegal firearm doesn't deal with this. If you have the cash, you can buy an illegal firearm in any state in this country. I don't understand what you're trying to see in the 2nd part of your rebuttal.

    With your suggestion of modernizing some of the original, founding principles of the Constitution, why don't we modify the section of "Freedom of Speech" since that seems to be a much more regulated right that it used to be? I also don't think you realize how difficult it would be (and the potential public uprising that would follow) from just proposing a change to an original section of the Bill of Rights.

    Once again, your example of another country that has a completely different governing system, culture in it's society and preexisting stance on firearms cannot accurately apply to the United States' situation. BUT if you want to take foreign examples into consideration, here's an interesting scenario: In the United Kingdom (another country that forbids citizen possession of firearms), firearm related crimes increased 35% in 2003 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html). IN 2009, firearm related crimes increased 89% (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html). The significant increase in firearm related crimes are all a result of illegally obtained firearms.

    There is no way to legally defend against crimes of this nature before they occur (unless you infringe upon an individuals rights or catch them red-handed), whether they are with firearms or not. There are thousands of stabbings (knives), shootings (this specific situation) and bombings (Timothy McVeigh, the attempted Times Square bombing, and 9/11) until they are taking place. You're confidence in preventing a crime before it occurs is very hopefuly, but unrealistic. Until legal firearm owners start committing crimes & shooting innocent people, you really have no justification for why their rights (the 2nd Amendment) should be changed, restricted or abolished.

    **Once again, this isn't just a specific response to the points you tried making, it's a response to anyone who shares a similar or more anti-gun/increased regulation perspective.
    Why shouldn't I take offense to you generalizing me into a group of people with whom I don't share the same ideas? Am I generalizing all gun owners into gun toting rednecks from the south? No, I'm not, so please be courteous enough to return the same level of an open mind, instead of telling somebody, using incorrect grammar that they should not contribute to discussion.

    You didn't make it clear that you were looking for gun related crimes in firearm free zone but I believe the shooting that took place in Columbine in 1999 will be a good enough of an example.

    What happens that makes a gun illegal? An illegal sale by the current owner who acquired it in a legal manner? A careless owner who didn't take proper precautions and lost his weapon? A careless owner who didn't carefully lock his weapon when his home became burglarized? You may see those as unfortunate incidents where anything can happen but I see that as people being careless, I don't want people who are careless owning firearms. They are what I consider a risk to the society.

    The Freedom of Speech has been already effected in other ways. The Patriot Act is one Act that walks the fine line and it actually does effect free speech in more cases than one under false pretenses:

    http://www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php

    So in your original statement I still can't use other countries to form my opinions but you all of a sudden decide to break down to use the United Kingdom as an example (which includes more than one country) Either way you're still behind in numbers, you'll have to name a few more countries before you break even with me. But then again I'm sure I'll be able to find a lot more countries where strict gun control works, so I can see how you will want to steer the conversation away from that.

    I will agree with you that we have thousands of shootings, and stabbings, but I'll stop way short of bombings. Not sure which USA you live in but in the one I am there certainly haven't been thousands of bombings or anywhere nearly remotely close to that amount. At first I thought you made a mistake in writing that sentence but then you use McVeigh. Using McVeigh is not an example that backs your argument but it actually benefits my. How many bombings have we had in this country since that occurred? We have had attempted bombings and plots which were thankfully foiled and stopped, so yes, they can stop a crime before it happens it's not just wishful thinking on my part.

    If you're quoting my statements and then reply to me "anybody else who supports the elimination of the 2nd Amendment" You're being quite direct with a statement like that, and not general at all. You can address everybody directly with the multi-quote system and their separate views avoiding grouping people into where they obviously do not belong.
    Click here to enlarge

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    538
    Rep Points
    1,302.2
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    hhmm.. this certainly changes things:

    in short, ccw holder did NOT shoot criminal due to awareness of the background... BUT criminal did see CCW aimed in, and turned rifle on himself.. an "assault" rifle.. you know those things that only criminals use to kill multiple people.. but wait, this guy only got 2 in before ccw intervened and criminal "bowed out".. interesting.. didnt see this reported in the media

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLgO4wo4xI
    This is the perfect example of the guy I don't have anything against owning a gun. But tell me how you feel about this guy owning one:

    Click here to enlarge

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,468
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
    This is the perfect example of the guy I don't have anything against owning a gun. But tell me how you feel about this guy owning one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPteJHPWyt0
    lets be clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. BUT that is using common sense that persons were taught from a young age how to care and use a firearm.. common sense has long since dwindled away. IN THAT respect, having to take a certified class on the firearm that you purchase/going to purchase is a great idea.

    So, we agree that the people themselves are the problem, not the method in which criminal chose to inflict violence.
    SMALL additionall laws, im for, as above
    BETTER enforcement of the current laws, IM all for.
    CCW to be "SHALL ISSUE" in all states is a good thing, given the above


    for above, luckily noone got hurt, but do you see that as evidence he was about to commit mass murder, or just uneducated? whats the right thing to do? BAN ALL GUNS, or educate the populace again to the levels of "common sense" that all people had in the 1700's?

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,186
    Rep Points
    1,801.7
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
    What happens that makes a gun illegal? An illegal sale by the current vendor who acquired it in a legal manner
    You answered your own question. And like any other commodity, guns can be & are stolen on a regular basis as well.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
    but I see that as people being careless, I don't want people who are careless owning firearms. They are what I consider a risk to the society.
    Negligent ownership is a problem, but that is a problem with the specific individual.

    [QUOTE=sr20seb;364782]So in your original statement I still can't use other countries to form my opinions but you all of a sudden decide to break down to use the United Kingdom as an example (which includes more than one country)

    I introduced the UK example to argue your non-US examples.


    Also, both violent crimes & firearm-related crimes are both on the decline while gun sales & ownership still continues to increase. This article, written today (http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ings-john-fund) reinforces the arguments that I have made and/or agree with:
    • The mental-health of the shooters is the main culprit (the Newtown shooter was denied the sale of a firearm just days before it took place)
    • The recent shooting have taken all taken place in gun-free zones (schools, malls, movie theaters, etc), where people are left defenseless
    • Added legislation will not magically fix this problem, but will instead be counter productive by leaving more Americans vulnerable to these types of crimes



    I'd also like to mention how DISGUSTING the media is for shoving their cameras & microphones into these childrens' faces, releasing the names of the victims (which only further burdens & invades the privacy of the families affected) AND of course immediately politicizing this event instead of doing their job & reporting specific, factual information.
    COBB AP ProTune by Bren of ///Bren Tuning
    Akrapovic DP | Helix FMIC | Alpina TCM Flash | Walbro 450LPH Fuel Pump


    "The moment money becomes your motivation, you are immediately not as good as someone who is motivated by passion and internal will." -A. Senna

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,879
    Rep Points
    31,857.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Naples, FL
    Posts
    2,086
    Rep Points
    2,163.2
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Click here to enlarge
    Her common sense was so much more then his..

    He is correct that they where not meant for the guns of now, but they where meant for the guns at that time. Which as times change, so do weapons and so should the weapons we are used to defend ourselves with.




  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,879
    Rep Points
    31,857.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by E90SoFlo Click here to enlarge
    Her common sense was so much more then his..

    He is correct that they where not meant for the guns of now, but they where meant for the guns at that time. Which as times change, so do weapons and so should the weapons we are used to defend ourselves with.
    It wasn't meant for guns at all it was meant to protect you from government no matter how weaponry evolves.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    So by this Carol Roths statement we should all be able to purchase mini guns, tanks, aircraft carriers and the jets to land on them? I mean, that is exactly what she just said. Or, did she just mean guns ? If so, then we should all be able to have full auto MP5's and a Barrett M107 .50 cal sniper rifle with depleted uranium rounds, right ? Wrong. What that stupid $#@! said makes no sense whatsoever.
    The 2nd Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the type of arms civilians are allowed to own. It simply states "bear arms". That's it. Her interpretation of it is idiotic at best.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,468
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LZH Click here to enlarge
    So by this Carol Roths statement we should all be able to purchase mini guns, tanks, aircraft carriers and the jets to land on them? I mean, that is exactly what she just said. Or, did she just mean guns ? If so, then we should all be able to have full auto MP5's and a Barrett M107 .50 cal sniper rifle with depleted uranium rounds, right ? Wrong. What that stupid $#@! said makes no sense whatsoever.
    The 2nd Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the type of arms civilians are allowed to own. It simply states "bear arms". That's it. Her interpretation of it is idiotic at best.
    what on that list cant you buy with the right cash and permits?
    btw depleted uranium rounds are not designed for the m107, well vice versa. although you can use it, it will destroy the barrel

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,879
    Rep Points
    31,857.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't mind a tank.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    what on that list cant you buy with the right cash and permits?
    btw depleted uranium rounds are not designed for the m107, well vice versa. although you can use it, it will destroy the barrel
    F22 Raptor. Or, an F14 Tomcat - the pentagon went so far as to destroy all of them when decommissioned so no one could get their hands on them....including us citizens. A buddy of mine is a very wealthy dude who loves plans of all sorts. He tried to get an F14 before they were destroyed and pulled lots of strings but was politely told no way in hell.
    But you are right about the full auto guns although its not easy to get a Class3 FFL and the guys who have them are usually dealers and highly regulated.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,468
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    the classified equipment is usually why you cant buy those tanks and aircraft. even the ones we sell to other countries do not come with all the goodies

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    the classified equipment is usually why you cant buy those tanks and aircraft. even the ones we sell to other countries do not come with all the goodies
    Exactly - they told my buddy that most of the avionics would be removed if they could even sell it to him. He did some research and said it would prob cost him around $10mm just in avionics. It was just too cost prohibitive but man when he told me he was trying to buy one I could already see myself sitting in the back seat LOL. He has a T38 trainer - one of 3 owned privately and let me tell you it's the coolest $#@! I have EVER seen.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,468
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    damn.. i need to get on you' guys level..

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    damn.. i need to get on you' guys level..
    HA, well he's on a whoooooooole different level. Anyway....back on topic....

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •