gun law reform... please!

M B P said:

there are a few legal firearms in my house. My gay partner owns them. They were his fathers. They are all locked in the gun safe. One of them is loaded. I know which one... in case anyone comes into my house. Its a totally different situation when I am out in society... where, IN AMERICA, everyone should be civil.

Click to expand...

Better take that gun out of the gun safe when you're home. Home invasions only provide you split seconds to arm yourself, and having a gun inside a safe when you're at home, is not a very bright idea, if that gun's purpose is to defend yourself.


It would be great if everyone was civil in society, but that's a pipe dream. If you value freedoms you have to understand that with those freedoms, it gives people the opportunity to be uncivil. I'm not talking about shooting places up or other violent acts, but just general, civil conduct.

If you're walking down the street, and someone says "hey you stupid prick" for absolutely no other reason than their freedom of speech, you have to appreciate the foundation of that comment foremost, as the freedoms in which allowed that person to call you names, also allowed them to be uncivil towards you. While it's uncivil, it's only allowed because of the freedoms provided in this country. In other words you should be greatful that others are inherently allowed to be uncivil towards you in a non-violent fashion.

I agree that it's bullshit, but it is what it is. I still have my guns.

The ATF released a statement a while ago concerning the issue, they made it pretty clear. In their eyes if your a medical user you cannot buy unless you lie on the federal form.

NLXSK1 said:

Nobody sane in the far left or right wants access to military grade weapons unchecked.

I think limiting guns to semi-automatics and keeping rocket launchers, working tanks, grenades, bombs, and other seriously heavy hardware to the military.

Click to expand...

Citizens already have access to all these things.

There is a big event in Tennessee every year where citizens with tanks, mortars, RPG's, howitzers, flak guns, machine-guns, mini-guns, and tanks, shoot the living shit out of everything at a target range.

The people who acquire these weapons have to go through rigorous paperwork, fees, and checks, before they are allowed to obtain ownership of these things. I'm sure some, or most of these weapons require a military-background in order to obtain them, but that is besides the point, because a military-person is still a civilian, and surely not any different from someone not in the military.

ink the world said:

I don't think that the founding fathers pictured a world with AK47's and other military grade weapons in the hands of the common man. They had absolutely no clue as to the firepower available today.

I was in the service and I own an AR15. Assault rifles are weapons of war, not hunting or target shooting. Surely there must be a middle ground so that someone doesn't have EASY access to such overwhelming firepower. Not an outright ban, some kind of screening.

Doing nothing at all hasn't worked, isn't the continuation of failed policy absurd?

Click to expand...

Maybe they didn't picture AK-47's exactly, but I'm sure they pictured, and intended for civilian ownership of "military-grade" firearms.

Remember, these were the guys who rebelled against a professional military force. Now you're telling me they didn't have the slightest clue or intent in regards to civilians owning "military" weapons? I would assume the logical approach to that question is a general "yes, they did".

An AR-15 is a weapon of war, just as it's a weapon of self-defense. A gun's sole intent is not hunting and target practice, it's personal protection. Intertwined with personal protection, a gun does serve a very strong purpose for hunting as well, which is the embodiment of a firearm's ability to "protect & preserve life".

No one can tell another person how many rounds they are allowed to protect their home with. Home invasions can happen with any amount of people, armed with any weapon. I have personally seen a home invasion on CCTV, based in LA county in California, where 4 guys with AR-15's and AK's stormed into a house during broad daylight. The guy in that home returned fire with some type of weapon, but he had every right to own an AR-15 with a 100-round drum-mag in case of a situation like that.

I'm not against a more in-depth approach to screening, as long as it does not cost extra money (which is and/or can be an infringement).

I do think though, that trying to weed out psychos is just as much so a failed policy as anything else. For every guy a system of such would catch, there is a perfect, law-abiding, citizen who just loses it, and as a result shoots a place up with an AR-15. Banning or further restricting AR-15's in such a situation would not solve the problem, as such a restriction has a fundamentally flawed foundation, both ethically and in regards to principle.

I think further screening may help, just not very much. The tax repercussions of such a system would likely outweigh the benefit - and I'm not trying to say that money is worth more than life.

It will take a war to strip Americans of their weapons. Too many of us willing to die before we hand them over for it to be easy to remove firearms from this society.

Now ammunition, thats where they could hurt us. Those of us who have guns, usually have enough for ourselves and 10 other families. But who here keeps their own reloading equipment around

Leading cause of death in america to the tune of 600k people heart disease... campared to the about 13k by guns... I think fast food should have more regulation than guns.

Also one great fact... Chicago has the highest crime and some of the strictest gun laws in the nation... we just need to start executing these fools by hanging to deture future events such as these. Just a thought.

InCognition said:

Maybe they didn't picture AK-47's exactly, but I'm sure they pictured, and intended for civilian ownership of "military-grade" firearms.


No one can tell another person how many rounds they are allowed to protect their home with. Home invasions can happen with any amount of people, armed with any weapon. I have personally seen a home invasion on CCTV, based in LA county in California, where 4 guys with AR-15's and AK's stormed into a house during broad daylight. The guy in that home returned fire with some type of weapon, but he had every right to own an AR-15 with a 100-round drum-mag in case of a situation like that.

.

Click to expand...

It was some cartel shit
And yeah the invaders came in pretty stupid

GanjaAL said:

Leading cause of death in america to the tune of 600k people heart disease... campared to the about 13k by guns... I think fast food should have more regulation than guns.

Also one great fact... Chicago has the highest crime and some of the strictest gun laws in the nation... we just need to start executing these fools by hanging to deture future events such as these. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Not me, I think aside from providing food that isn't tainted or diseased, the fast food industry should just be left the fuck alone like all other industries, and then let adults decide whether or not they want to eat food they know is going to make them unhealthy. Kinda like smokes, tobacco should be quality, but if people smoke and die, well wtf it's smoke and you are willingly inhauing it, you are an idiot and what happens is your own damn fault. You coughed the first time you smoked, what the fuck did you keep going for?

People need to regulate themselves, not have the government save them from themselves.

GanjaAL said:

Leading cause of death in america to the tune of 600k people heart disease... campared to the about 13k by guns... I think fast food should have more regulation than guns.

Also one great fact... Chicago has the highest crime and some of the strictest gun laws in the nation... we just need to start executing these fools by hanging to deture future events such as these. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

I'm pleased that fast food has a "shall-issue" business model. And the right to concealed carry, for, like, matinées. Oh and that hi-cap mag for assault fries. cn

remember when they killed the "super size" and tried to get people to eat smaller portions a few years back. Yeah, now the portions are even fuckin bigger. A small today is bigger than the large I was getting 10 years ago.

spandy said:

remember when they killed the "super size" and tried to get people to eat smaller portions a few years back. Yeah, now the portions are even fuckin bigger. A small today is bigger than the large I was getting 10 years ago.

Click to expand...

Where? Ime the big chains have held their portion sizes essentially intact for at least 25 years. cn

LOL.. I am a libertarian so of course I do not recomend regulation for fast food... however I posted that to prove a point that 600k vs 13k is much more of an issue.

The 2nd amendment was put in place so people would be armed to defend themselves against









The goverment

ChesusRice said:

The 2nd amendment was put in place so people would be armed to defend themselves against

The goverment

Click to expand...

this is exactly it. once established, government quickly grows from benevolent, non profit organization to feeling that it knows best for its citizens. it becomes monopolizing and tyrranical.

we bore the government, we feed the government, when the government tries to bite the hand that feeds it, the government must be disciplined. if you didn't have a baseball bat, how would you fend off the pack of German Shepherds that guard your house?

government is a necessary evil. we need it to protect our house, but without some way to discipline it, it tells you what to do instead of you telling it what to do. if you let them tell you what to do........well, slavery is illegal, but only if you can prevent yourself from being a slave.

Dr Kynes said:

there is a reason dingbats like this dont shoot up theatres or schools in the ghetto.

they prefer safer law abiding willingly disarmed folks who count on the po-po to protect them (ha ha ha ha)

Click to expand...

everytime i read one of your posts, i look at your avatar and then imagine that guy talking your post. man, i'm stoned, lol

M B P said:

what a touchy subject. I simply said that I'm sick of seeing mass shootings. Is there anything that can be done, short of taking everyone's guns away, to stop this type of stuff from happening. I've already been told to listen... and to fuck off...

Click to expand...

Since you asked the question, why don't you propose an answer? What do you think should be done?

desert dude said:

Since you asked the question, why don't you propose an answer? What do you think should be done?

Click to expand...

He invoked Canada. cn

M B P said:

there are a few legal firearms in my house. My gay partner owns them. They were his fathers. They are all locked in the gun safe. One of them is loaded. I know which one... in case anyone comes into my house. Its a totally different situation when I am out in society... where, IN AMERICA, everyone should be civil.

Click to expand...

MBP, you are in BIG trouble if an armed intruder enters your home. Your loaded firearm won't help you from the confines of a safe. In your case it is probably just as well that you don't have access to a gun. No offense, but you don't strike me as competent to use a gun.

OK, get your shit straight, a Sheik is like a noble or elder, it's an Arabic word, denoting a caste system or stratified society, nothing to do with the Sikh religion which is a Dharmic faith that stresses egalitarianism. In fact I have never met a Sikh who didn't despise Muslims more than the average US soldier, I know several and they are all law abiding, hard working, honest people with a warrior culture.

ink the world said:

I don't think that the founding fathers pictured a world with AK47's and other military grade weapons in the hands of the common man. They had absolutely no clue as to the firepower available today.

I was in the service and I own an AR15. Assault rifles are weapons of war, not hunting or target shooting. Surely there must be a middle ground so that someone doesn't have EASY access to such overwhelming firepower. Not an outright ban, some kind of screening.

Doing nothing at all hasn't worked, isn't the continuation of failed policy absurd?

Click to expand...

that retarded line has been the mantra of the gun grabbers since the 1968 omnibus crime bill.

in 1789 the US congress enacted the Militia Act with the following provisions:

every free man between the ages of 16 and 65 is required to keep a musket of not less that .75 ball, 5 pounds of shot cast to the appropriate size for that musket, and sufficient powder to charge those 5 pounds of shot. it was to be purchased, kept and maintained by the citizen with a special fund to assist those who were too poor to buy a musket and shot. they were required to drill occasionally as directed by their local militia commander, and there were fines and even jail terms for those who refused their duty to the militia.

in 1902 the congress enacted the Dick Act which amended the Militia Act as follows:

instead of a musket, every covered person (free men with no felons or insaniacs allowed) was required to purchase and maintain a rifle "of a type in common use during the time" and suficient ammunition and "other materiel" as would be required to go on duty with the militia for 30 days without resupply.

this Dick Act was re-revaluated every 44 years foir the next 100 years with no changes. during this time the Rough Riders were formed as a private militia and armed with machine guns, cannon, horses and cavalry swords by their commander and his financial backers. even their carbines were selected purchased and issued by their commander

the law specifically requires a modern weapon suitable for service in the militia, or the army. that category of weapons is fairly specific, and i am compliant with the militia act and the dick act. are you?

abandonconflict said:

OK, get your shit straight, a Sheik is like a noble or elder, it's an Arabic word, denoting a caste system or stratified society, nothing to do with the Sikh religion which is a Dharmic faith that stresses egalitarianism. In fact I have never met a Sikh who didn't despise Muslims more than the average US soldier, I know several and they are all law abiding, hard working, honest people with a warrior culture.

Click to expand...

a sheik is an arab hereditary title of tribal authority, it requires no elder status, no nobility, and no wisdom.

as far as sikhs "warrior culture" goes, why are fighting men to be commended when they are foreign, but derided when they are american?