Just watched the interview. Alex Jones came off as a well read, calm, reasonable human being. His elegant manors and ability to rationally debate have won me over.
Can't wait for 1776 Part 2, starring Captain Insano. He shows no mercy.
Perhaps. I just find it easier than differentiating between this gun and that gun in every post, particularly since none of us here are drafting legislation.
Aren't fully automatic weapons already illegal?
Not federally. The way I understand it is that in some states they are completely illegal, while being heavily regulated in others. In the latter case, I've read that there are extensive background checks (one person wrote that you essentially need a police chief speaking on your behalf), only certain types are obtainable, and those that are come with a price tag that is prohibitively expensive. Given all that, while I would never advocate for a full federal ban on fully automatic weapons, I also wouldn't find that to be an unreasonable compromise.
We're not drafting legislation, but we are having a dialogue. If you were making a case for banning all assault rifles, by all means go for it. But you'll find yourself having a difficult time getting points across if you're confusing people that you're speaking with.
I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.
“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.” ~Ronald Reagan
Increasing background checks, regulations for purchasing at gun shows, and eliminating semi-automatic weapons doesn't take away your right to own guns.
Taking away semi autos does. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
can people with major documented mental health issues buy guns? can ex-cons legally buy guns?
Re Holmes being batchit crazy and buying guns
There is no process in Colorado to screen out whether a severly mentally ill person is purchaing those guns
Re a felon...They can't buy guns legally but that is the point. Criminals do not follow guns laws.
Re Holmes being batchit crazy and buying guns
There is no process in Colorado to screen out whether a severly mentally ill person is purchaing those guns
Re a felon...They can't buy guns legally but that is the point. Criminals do not follow guns laws.
so your telling me that "shall not be infringed" is not correct? there are infringements?
honestly this wasn't started off as a thread to debate pro gun vs anti-gun just wanted to point out alex jones and the fact that he is a fucking insane but see what happens on the AMT.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
honestly this wasn't started off as a thread to debate pro gun vs anti-gun just wanted to point out alex jones and the fact that he is a fucking insane but see what happens on the AMT.
Good PR move by Smith. There is a niche market for this just like there is one for Steven A. Smith and Skip Bayless in the world of sports.
I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.
There are many semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles. Where would you come down on those?
alex jones has a shit load of facts he talks about. i like the guy. piers morgan... whatever
Alex Jones is a bright dude, but he really doesn't do himself any favors when he conducts himself in this manner. You can intellectually debate Piers Morgan's position; instead he started yelling at him out of the gate, threatened revolution, and challenged him to a boxing match. I'd really like to see him calmly debate points and scale back the self-promotion.
I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.
There are many semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles. Where would you come down on those?
Is there any legitimate reason for a citizen to possess a semiautomatic weapon? I say ban them, but that is in part because I have not heard any good argument from the other side.
I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.
There are many semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles. Where would you come down on those?
Is there any legitimate reason for a citizen to possess a semiautomatic weapon? I say ban them, but that is in part because I have not heard any good argument from the other side.
You will get into a lot of hairy areas if "need" and "legitimate reasons" are the standard. Try applying that to alcohol. From a practicality standpoint, though, if you're going to ban all semi-automatic weapons you run into problems when you dig into that idea:
Option 1: The ban goes into effect from a given date forward and all previous owners essentially have their weapons grandfathered in. In this case, the horse is already out of the barn. There is such a volume of semi-automatic weapons out there, that you can't expect this to have any reasonable effect on what you're attempting to prevent.
Option 2: All semi-automatic weapons are illegal here forward, including those currently possessed. Here's where things get reaaaalllly dicey. You would be advocating the seizure of property from citizens who have broken no laws. That's a dangerous precedent to set and would cost many upwards of thousands of dollars. All without any hard evidence that removing those weapons from a populace who own them at that volume will have any significant effect on the problem you're attempting to solve.
If you see another way to handle a full semi-auto ban, I'd love to hear it. In my opinion, it can reach a point where folks are answering the question "How can we can take people's guns away?" instead of "What steps do we need to take to reduce/eliminate the lives lost from violent crime?"
You will get into a lot of hairy areas if "need" and "legitimate reasons" are the standard. Try applying that to alcohol. From a practicality standpoint, though, if you're going to ban all semi-automatic weapons you run into problems when you dig into that idea:
Option 1: The ban goes into effect from a given date forward and all previous owners essentially have their weapons grandfathered in. In this case, the horse is already out of the barn. There is such a volume of semi-automatic weapons out there, that you can't expect this to have any reasonable effect on what you're attempting to prevent.
Option 2: All semi-automatic weapons are illegal here forward, including those currently possessed. Here's where things get reaaaalllly dicey. You would be advocating the seizure of property from citizens who have broken no laws. That's a dangerous precedent to set and would cost many upwards of thousands of dollars. All without any hard evidence that removing those weapons from a populace who own them at that volume will have any significant effect on the problem you're attempting to solve.
If you see another way to handle a full semi-auto ban, I'd love to hear it. In my opinion, it can reach a point where folks are answering the question "How can we can take people's guns away?" instead of "What steps do we need to take to reduce/eliminate the lives lost from violent crime?"
Option 1. Except have all grandfathered weapons registered. Owners receive cards or licenses for such weapons. Can only purchase ammunition with these cards. All unregistered weapons fall into illegal status and carry criminal consequences for the person who holds them.
Tax the shit out of ammunition so that bullets cost a
ton. Monitor ammunition sales. Audits periodically.
Just a few ideas off the top of the noodle. I'm sure smarter people are coming up with a reasonable solution in the form of compromise. It makes sense for a complete ban but militant Americans more interested in having wicked guns versus safeguarding their schools will throw hissy fits.
Just watched the interview. Alex Jones came off as a well read, calm, reasonable human being. His elegant manors and ability to rationally debate have won me over.
Can't wait for 1776 Part 2, starring Captain Insano. He shows no mercy.
when advocating that the average citizen should have open access to firearms it might hurt your position just a bit if you lose your shit on national television :fp:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Just watched the interview. Alex Jones came off as a well read, calm, reasonable human being. His elegant manors and ability to rationally debate have won me over.
Can't wait for 1776 Part 2, starring Captain Insano. He shows no mercy.
when advocating that the average citizen should have open access to firearms it might hurt your position just a bit if you lose your shit on national television :fp:
don't forget conspiracy theories about 9/11 and change to a bad english accent.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Option 1. Except have all grandfathered weapons registered. Owners receive cards or licenses for such weapons. Can only purchase ammunition with these cards. All unregistered weapons fall into illegal status and carry criminal consequences for the person who holds them.
Tax the shit out of ammunition so that bullets cost a
ton. Monitor ammunition sales. Audits periodically.
Don't they already require registration or is that just state-to-state? I know they do in Massachusetts. I really have no issue with the idea of guns being registered.
If you really stop and think about how you would implement an ammo plan like this, you'll run into administrative nightmares. (Mostly that a black market would immediately spring up and it would be impossible to control.) And by "taxing the shit out of ammo," it's really becoming more about a vendetta against gun owners than trying to find sensible solutions to violent crime. Again, black market.
Option 1. Except have all grandfathered weapons registered. Owners receive cards or licenses for such weapons. Can only purchase ammunition with these cards. All unregistered weapons fall into illegal status and carry criminal consequences for the person who holds them.
Tax the shit out of ammunition so that bullets cost a
ton. Monitor ammunition sales. Audits periodically.
Don't they already require registration or is that just state-to-state? I know they do in Massachusetts. I really have no issue with the idea of guns being registered.
If you really stop and think about how you would implement an ammo plan like this, you'll run into administrative nightmares. (Mostly that a black market would immediately spring up and it would be impossible to control.) And by "taxing the shit out of ammo," it's really becoming more about a vendetta against gun owners than trying to find sensible solutions to violent crime. Again, black market.
To reiterate... I just tossed something out there. With that said... it's not that bad of a plan. There has to be some work associated with gun legislation- of course.
Why shouldn't ammunition bear a heavy cost? It's not so much a vendetta as it is a user fee: your country could provide the opportunity to shoot a fucking assault rifle because it gives you a hard on... but it's costly to do so. Why should bullets cost nickels and food cost more?
The money generated from "taxing the shit out of ammunition" could be used to fund the safeguards necessary to keep your country as safe as possible given you refuse to turn in your toys. I say toys because come on... that's what they are. Not one gun owner has responded that a shotgun couldn't safely and adequately protect them and their loved ones. When pressed for a response... most on here have just yelled, "It's my right!" There is no need for them other than for leisure pursuits... or killing people.
With costly safeguards necessary... do you think it is the entire country's responsibility to pay that cost? Do you think the portion of your country that owns no guns should have funds diverted from other government programs to cover the costs associated with gun legislation so that you can have your hobby as cheap as it always has been?
Again... it's a suggested compromise: something you seem unwilling to do. You are no longer subtle in your effort to encourage the status quo.
Let me say this though: to promote the staus quo is tantamount to sticking one's head up their ass and denying there is a problem.
Short of saying your country is fucked and there's nothing you can do about it... what do you suggest needs to happen?
People think those black evil guns with the grips are the cause of all the problems in this country. I guess the feeble minded find it easier to blame an object than a person. After all people can't be held responsible for their actions.
Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:
People think those black evil guns with the grips are the cause of all the problems in this country. I guess the feeble minded find it easier to blame an object than a person. After all people can't be held responsible for their actions.
Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:
I agree that it's a larger societal issue. With being young, male and from a lower socioeconomic class as the biggest risk factors in determining whether or not someone will commit violent crime, this seems to indicate that there are issues with how young males are socialized and access to resources and opportunities (such as education, physical and mental health care, jobs, etc). There is an issue with those in society who are likely to commit violence having access to weapons that can cause the most destruction, and since that seems like it is the place to make quickest change, that is getting the focus. But those other areas need a lot of focus and really are at the core of this issue. What are your ideas for how we go about making those larger societal changes?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
why is shooting guns always about getting a boner for you? i don't get that, you usually come off with some sound reasonable opinions, then you toss in shit like that and i quit reading.
and for what it's worth my assault rifle bullets cost a dollar a piece not nickels, so it costs 30 bucks to fill a clip. no thanks on taxing that even more
Option 1. Except have all grandfathered weapons registered. Owners receive cards or licenses for such weapons. Can only purchase ammunition with these cards. All unregistered weapons fall into illegal status and carry criminal consequences for the person who holds them.
Tax the shit out of ammunition so that bullets cost a
ton. Monitor ammunition sales. Audits periodically.
Don't they already require registration or is that just state-to-state? I know they do in Massachusetts. I really have no issue with the idea of guns being registered.
If you really stop and think about how you would implement an ammo plan like this, you'll run into administrative nightmares. (Mostly that a black market would immediately spring up and it would be impossible to control.) And by "taxing the shit out of ammo," it's really becoming more about a vendetta against gun owners than trying to find sensible solutions to violent crime. Again, black market.
To reiterate... I just tossed something out there. With that said... it's not that bad of a plan. There has to be some work associated with gun legislation- of course.
Why shouldn't ammunition bear a heavy cost? It's not so much a vendetta as it is a user fee: your country could provide the opportunity to shoot a fucking assault rifle because it gives you a hard on... but it's costly to do so. Why should bullets cost nickels and food cost more?
The money generated from "taxing the shit out of ammunition" could be used to fund the safeguards necessary to keep your country as safe as possible given you refuse to turn in your toys. I say toys because come on... that's what they are. Not one gun owner has responded that a shotgun couldn't safely and adequately protect them and their loved ones. When pressed for a response... most on here have just yelled, "It's my right!" There is no need for them other than for leisure pursuits... or killing people.
With costly safeguards necessary... do you think it is the entire country's responsibility to pay that cost? Do you think the portion of your country that owns no guns should have funds diverted from other government programs to cover the costs associated with gun legislation so that you can have your hobby as cheap as it always has been?
Again... it's a suggested compromise: something you seem unwilling to do. You are no longer subtle in your effort to encourage the status quo.
Let me say this though: to promote the staus quo is tantamount to sticking one's head up their ass and denying there is a problem.
Short of saying your country is fucked and there's nothing you can do about it... what do you suggest needs to happen?
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
You will get into a lot of hairy areas if "need" and "legitimate reasons" are the standard. Try applying that to alcohol. From a practicality standpoint, though, if you're going to ban all semi-automatic weapons you run into problems when you dig into that idea:
Option 1: The ban goes into effect from a given date forward and all previous owners essentially have their weapons grandfathered in. In this case, the horse is already out of the barn. There is such a volume of semi-automatic weapons out there, that you can't expect this to have any reasonable effect on what you're attempting to prevent.
Option 2: All semi-automatic weapons are illegal here forward, including those currently possessed. Here's where things get reaaaalllly dicey. You would be advocating the seizure of property from citizens who have broken no laws. That's a dangerous precedent to set and would cost many upwards of thousands of dollars. All without any hard evidence that removing those weapons from a populace who own them at that volume will have any significant effect on the problem you're attempting to solve.
If you see another way to handle a full semi-auto ban, I'd love to hear it. In my opinion, it can reach a point where folks are answering the question "How can we can take people's guns away?" instead of "What steps do we need to take to reduce/eliminate the lives lost from violent crime?"
But alcohol isn't designed to kill, even though sometimes it does. Guns are. I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree that a ban would be difficult to enforce. However, that does not change the fact that these weapons are not necessary in American society. I have been in many of these debates since Newtown and am still waiting for a gun advocate to explain WHY these guns should not be banned and exactly what their purpose is.
why is shooting guns always about getting a boner for you? i don't get that, you usually come off with some sound reasonable opinions, then you toss in shit like that and i quit reading.
and for what it's worth my assault rifle bullets cost a dollar a piece not nickels, so it costs 30 bucks to fill a clip. no thanks on taxing that even more
Why don't you try answering some of the questions I posed instead of... in what has become the classic gun defender strategy... avoiding them? For example, Alex Jones yelled over Morgan; you chose to focus on the getting a boner from shooting your gun point (which, I contend, is legitimate). Wait a minute... you did answer a question. You said, "Fuck that!" to taxing bullets. You want your bullets cheap.
To your claim, I've used that expression two times in probably 50 posts (or more) relevant to this topic because... be honest: you have the gun for thrills, correct? It's a juvenille and self-gratifying hobby you have there and in order for you to have it... many people including your countries children are placed in harm's way. It's selfish to insist on preserving your lifestyle when you know damn well the counter argument has absolutely bludgeoned... I'm talking creamed... all feeble attempts to rationalize gun use and minimize the effects of gun use:
* gotta get ready for the government
* gotta be ready for home invaders (might be a good idea for an X-Box game)
* 300 years ago those guys told me I could have it
* alcohol kills more people (let's ban booze before guns!)
* old age kills more people (why don't we ban time?)
* drones (the latest one that might be the strongest!)
All idiotic. Sheer lunacy.
You sound like another non-compromising individual. How's this then: you live in a democracy... put it to a vote and live with the results: if the majority of the country says ban the guns then ban them... if the majority of the country says do not ban the guns then keep them- in which case you'd deserve them and every slaughter from here on.
Very simply put: can you admit there is a problem? And if so... what solutions do you present to do something about the problem? If not... please refer to my original post!
how about we put a 5 year moratorium on the manufacture, import and sale of combat ready ammo to regular consumers? you can have all the guns you want. people would be less likely to irresponsibly shoot people if they knew ammo was more difficult to get and that the supply was finite.
just throwing out ideas.
people are opposed to gun control, so why not try controlling the ammo supply?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
People think those black evil guns with the grips are the cause of all the problems in this country. I guess the feeble minded find it easier to blame an object than a person. After all people can't be held responsible for their actions.
Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:
Your right. Guns themselves aren't the source of the problem, but since we live in the society with the issues you described maybe we should look at ways to reduce the massacres. Seems like the guns used in these things were in fact purchased or originally obtained through legal means so maybe some smart laws that make sense could reduce the amount of schools and theatres that are being shot up by the mentally ill.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Comments
Can't wait for 1776 Part 2, starring Captain Insano. He shows no mercy.
I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
can people with major documented mental health issues buy guns? can ex-cons legally buy guns?
There is no process in Colorado to screen out whether a severly mentally ill person is purchaing those guns
Re a felon...They can't buy guns legally but that is the point. Criminals do not follow guns laws.
so your telling me that "shall not be infringed" is not correct? there are infringements?
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Hard to tell if he is nuts or a good promotor.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
here ya go. piers vs' alex
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
There are many semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles. Where would you come down on those?
Alex Jones is a bright dude, but he really doesn't do himself any favors when he conducts himself in this manner. You can intellectually debate Piers Morgan's position; instead he started yelling at him out of the gate, threatened revolution, and challenged him to a boxing match. I'd really like to see him calmly debate points and scale back the self-promotion.
Is there any legitimate reason for a citizen to possess a semiautomatic weapon? I say ban them, but that is in part because I have not heard any good argument from the other side.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You will get into a lot of hairy areas if "need" and "legitimate reasons" are the standard. Try applying that to alcohol. From a practicality standpoint, though, if you're going to ban all semi-automatic weapons you run into problems when you dig into that idea:
Option 1: The ban goes into effect from a given date forward and all previous owners essentially have their weapons grandfathered in. In this case, the horse is already out of the barn. There is such a volume of semi-automatic weapons out there, that you can't expect this to have any reasonable effect on what you're attempting to prevent.
Option 2: All semi-automatic weapons are illegal here forward, including those currently possessed. Here's where things get reaaaalllly dicey. You would be advocating the seizure of property from citizens who have broken no laws. That's a dangerous precedent to set and would cost many upwards of thousands of dollars. All without any hard evidence that removing those weapons from a populace who own them at that volume will have any significant effect on the problem you're attempting to solve.
If you see another way to handle a full semi-auto ban, I'd love to hear it. In my opinion, it can reach a point where folks are answering the question "How can we can take people's guns away?" instead of "What steps do we need to take to reduce/eliminate the lives lost from violent crime?"
Option 1. Except have all grandfathered weapons registered. Owners receive cards or licenses for such weapons. Can only purchase ammunition with these cards. All unregistered weapons fall into illegal status and carry criminal consequences for the person who holds them.
Tax the shit out of ammunition so that bullets cost a
ton. Monitor ammunition sales. Audits periodically.
Just a few ideas off the top of the noodle. I'm sure smarter people are coming up with a reasonable solution in the form of compromise. It makes sense for a complete ban but militant Americans more interested in having wicked guns versus safeguarding their schools will throw hissy fits.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
when advocating that the average citizen should have open access to firearms it might hurt your position just a bit if you lose your shit on national television :fp:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
don't forget conspiracy theories about 9/11 and change to a bad english accent.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC4C_Gcp_dM
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Don't they already require registration or is that just state-to-state? I know they do in Massachusetts. I really have no issue with the idea of guns being registered.
If you really stop and think about how you would implement an ammo plan like this, you'll run into administrative nightmares. (Mostly that a black market would immediately spring up and it would be impossible to control.) And by "taxing the shit out of ammo," it's really becoming more about a vendetta against gun owners than trying to find sensible solutions to violent crime. Again, black market.
To reiterate... I just tossed something out there. With that said... it's not that bad of a plan. There has to be some work associated with gun legislation- of course.
Why shouldn't ammunition bear a heavy cost? It's not so much a vendetta as it is a user fee: your country could provide the opportunity to shoot a fucking assault rifle because it gives you a hard on... but it's costly to do so. Why should bullets cost nickels and food cost more?
The money generated from "taxing the shit out of ammunition" could be used to fund the safeguards necessary to keep your country as safe as possible given you refuse to turn in your toys. I say toys because come on... that's what they are. Not one gun owner has responded that a shotgun couldn't safely and adequately protect them and their loved ones. When pressed for a response... most on here have just yelled, "It's my right!" There is no need for them other than for leisure pursuits... or killing people.
With costly safeguards necessary... do you think it is the entire country's responsibility to pay that cost? Do you think the portion of your country that owns no guns should have funds diverted from other government programs to cover the costs associated with gun legislation so that you can have your hobby as cheap as it always has been?
Again... it's a suggested compromise: something you seem unwilling to do. You are no longer subtle in your effort to encourage the status quo.
Let me say this though: to promote the staus quo is tantamount to sticking one's head up their ass and denying there is a problem.
Short of saying your country is fucked and there's nothing you can do about it... what do you suggest needs to happen?
Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
and for what it's worth my assault rifle bullets cost a dollar a piece not nickels, so it costs 30 bucks to fill a clip. no thanks on taxing that even more
But alcohol isn't designed to kill, even though sometimes it does. Guns are. I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree that a ban would be difficult to enforce. However, that does not change the fact that these weapons are not necessary in American society. I have been in many of these debates since Newtown and am still waiting for a gun advocate to explain WHY these guns should not be banned and exactly what their purpose is.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... d_facebook
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Why don't you try answering some of the questions I posed instead of... in what has become the classic gun defender strategy... avoiding them? For example, Alex Jones yelled over Morgan; you chose to focus on the getting a boner from shooting your gun point (which, I contend, is legitimate). Wait a minute... you did answer a question. You said, "Fuck that!" to taxing bullets. You want your bullets cheap.
To your claim, I've used that expression two times in probably 50 posts (or more) relevant to this topic because... be honest: you have the gun for thrills, correct? It's a juvenille and self-gratifying hobby you have there and in order for you to have it... many people including your countries children are placed in harm's way. It's selfish to insist on preserving your lifestyle when you know damn well the counter argument has absolutely bludgeoned... I'm talking creamed... all feeble attempts to rationalize gun use and minimize the effects of gun use:
* gotta get ready for the government
* gotta be ready for home invaders (might be a good idea for an X-Box game)
* 300 years ago those guys told me I could have it
* alcohol kills more people (let's ban booze before guns!)
* old age kills more people (why don't we ban time?)
* drones (the latest one that might be the strongest!)
All idiotic. Sheer lunacy.
You sound like another non-compromising individual. How's this then: you live in a democracy... put it to a vote and live with the results: if the majority of the country says ban the guns then ban them... if the majority of the country says do not ban the guns then keep them- in which case you'd deserve them and every slaughter from here on.
Very simply put: can you admit there is a problem? And if so... what solutions do you present to do something about the problem? If not... please refer to my original post!
just throwing out ideas.
people are opposed to gun control, so why not try controlling the ammo supply?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Your right. Guns themselves aren't the source of the problem, but since we live in the society with the issues you described maybe we should look at ways to reduce the massacres. Seems like the guns used in these things were in fact purchased or originally obtained through legal means so maybe some smart laws that make sense could reduce the amount of schools and theatres that are being shot up by the mentally ill.
"With our thoughts we make the world"