AMEN! lol The point that I was trying to explain is that people so concerned with people not being hurt have a funny way of choosing their battles. Alcohol plays a role in many more deaths than guns, yet I doubt most of the anti-gun fear mongers would say "let's ban everyone from buying alcohol" The fact of the matter is that some people can't handle alcohol..............and some people can't handle guns properly.................Yet others can. People are so willing to pass laws that effect others in a negative way, but would never even dream of passing one that might have a negative effect on them. That sounds a little unempathetic...........or hypocritical. What's wrong with added security and medal detectors at college entrances? How does walking past an armed security officer effect your constitutional rights? Colleges have the money to better defend their campuses...........it seems like a good thing to budget for these days. A law banning guns may or may not have detered this person from shooting up Virginia Tech, but I'm willing to bet that him having to pass through a security checkpoint would have.........even if he was trying to bring a knife in. People need to get real..........guns are in the US and will be for a very very long time. This whole "guns are bad mmmkay" argument is unproductive.
AMEN. a voice of reason. i've seen many inner city high schools with metal detectors and security check points. why can't colleges do the same?
I agree with this...I'm not for banning guns...it's funny how when the topic of gun control comes up, those who are pro-gun automatically assume it means banning...no, it means stricter controls over guns...which can start with the manufacture...and work it's way down....
again:
banning - no
control - yes
but I do have to say, for the most part guns are bad news...they lead to death...that's the function of guns...
I agree, maybe the laws should be changed. And even though you are not against banning all guns, there are plenty of posts on this thread from people that will say "the will be no problems if we ban all guns" So many people think in black and white..........that's pretty narrowminded. And even though I am totally about having changes in gun control laws, I still question how effective that route would be. People will break whatever law is in place. I mean, it's been illegal for people to shoot each other for a long time if I rember right. I think that there could be better technology...............and there is. We have the technology to detect metal. We have the technology to put fingerprint safety locks on guns! The problem is that we have people on one saying "ban all guns" and on the other saying "issue everyone a gun"...............and nothing gets done because no one is willing to compromise and come up with a reasonable solution.
I agree with this...I'm not for banning guns...it's funny how when the topic of gun control comes up, those who are pro-gun automatically assume it means banning...no, it means stricter controls over guns...which can start with the manufacture...and work it's way down....
again:
banning - no
control - yes
but I do have to say, for the most part guns are bad news...they lead to death...that's the function of guns...
and how much more control can there be. we already have books of laws and many of them are repetative. for example; it is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits. megans law says it's illegal to discharge a gun into the air within city limits. wtf?
Are you against actually enforcing the laws that are in place? How the fuck do people think newer gun control laws are going to work without more police/enforcement? If people are wanting more strict laws and no further law enforcement......................well, they are pretty stupid people. Which side of the debate are you, my friend?
I agree, maybe the laws should be changed. And even though you are not against banning all guns, there are plenty of posts on this thread from people that will say "the will be no problems if we ban all guns" So many people think in black and white..........that's pretty narrowminded. And even though I am totally about having changes in gun control laws, I still question how effective that route would be. People will break whatever law is in place. I mean, it's been illegal for people to shoot each other for a long time if I rember right. I think that there could be better technology...............and there is. We have the technology to detect metal. We have the technology to put fingerprint safety locks on guns! The problem is that we have people on one saying "ban all guns" and on the other saying "issue everyone a gun"...............and nothing gets done because no one is willing to compromise and come up with a reasonable solution.
exactly...what's the harm of using technology....fingerprint safety locks makes nothing but sense...
Are you against actually enforcing the laws that are in place? How the fuck do people think newer gun control laws are going to work without more police/enforcement? If people are wanting more strict laws and no further law enforcement......................well, they are pretty stupid people. Which side of the debate are you, my friend?
when you feel like a slave in your own school, town, etc., that is unacceptable in a supposed "free society" like America
and how much more control can there be. we already have books of laws and many of them are repetative. for example; it is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits. megans law says it's illegal to discharge a gun into the air within city limits. wtf?
you're talking about laws...I'm talking about addressing the source and the purchase of guns...
however, something tells me you would be unwilling to listen to anything other than "I needs me gun to kill tweekers and snakes, gaul damit!"
when you feel like a slave in your own school, town, etc., that is unacceptable in a supposed "free society" like America
So you're against more strict gun laws? You are confusing me. Because you can't be for more laws and against more policing. There's a word for that........
So you're against more strict gun laws? You are confusing me. Because you can't be for more laws and against more policing. There's a word for that........
you cant? you cant have stricter laws about who obtain guns without having more policing?? please explain...
you cant? you cant have stricter laws about who obtain guns without having more policing?? please explain...
Who is going to uphold these laws? More laws saying that you can't buy guns from your neighbor are just words on paper if there isn't someone to enforce them. I still fail to understand how stricter laws dealing with obtaining them will keep them out of the hands of people who mean to cause harm with them. It was against the law to sell alcohol and cigarettes to 17-year-olds for a long time, but the only way it has been detered is by stronger law enforcement..............and it still hasn't been stopped. What laws to you support?
Who is going to uphold these laws? More laws saying that you can't buy guns from your neighbor are just words on paper if there isn't someone to enforce them. I still fail to understand how stricter laws dealing with obtaining them will keep them out of the hands of people who mean to cause harm with them. It was against the law to sell alcohol and cigarettes to 17-year-olds for a long time, but the only way it has been detered is by stronger law enforcement..............and it still hasn't been stopped. What laws to you support?
what are you for?? outlawing guns completely?? hate to tell you but if some psycho wants to kill people, he will kill people, guns or no guns.....i support making it tougher for people to get guns....thats it...
what are you for?? outlawing guns completely?? hate to tell you but if some psycho wants to kill people, he will kill people, guns or no guns.....i support making it tougher for people to get guns....thats it...
"What will make it tougher for people to get guns?" is my question. And no, I am a gun owner (two rifles and a shotgun), I am not for outlawing guns completely. I am for gun education, safety, and better technology. And I am all for tougher purchasing regulations, but I question how effective those regulations would be in detering people who wish to do harm to others.
you're talking about laws...I'm talking about addressing the source and the purchase of guns...
however, something tells me you would be unwilling to listen to anything other than "I needs me gun to kill tweekers and snakes, gaul damit!"
if you mean i'll defend my rights; then yes; i'll defend my rights AND your rights. and i'll respect the hundreds of thousands of men that gave their lives to protect our rights.
1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann, "Abschied vom Hessenland!"
"What will make it tougher for people to get guns?" is my question. And no, I am a gun owner (two rifles and a shotgun), I am not for outlawing guns completely. I am for gun education, safety, and better technology. And I am all for tougher purchasing regulations, but I question how effective those regulations would be in detering people who wish to do harm to others.
we are on the same page then....you have to clean them up on the streets first and yes, that would require more police power...then i think we need to start with tougher regulation
Who is going to uphold these laws? More laws saying that you can't buy guns from your neighbor are just words on paper if there isn't someone to enforce them. I still fail to understand how stricter laws dealing with obtaining them will keep them out of the hands of people who mean to cause harm with them. It was against the law to sell alcohol and cigarettes to 17-year-olds for a long time, but the only way it has been detered is by stronger law enforcement..............and it still hasn't been stopped. What laws to you support?
Even if we were to come to the sober conclusion that we would be better off without any guns, we must remember that it will be impossible to remove all of the guns from America without utterly destroying the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the process. The prohibition of alcohol, and now the totally ineffective "war on drugs" demonstrate the futility of attacking such problems with a supply-side prohibition. A larger black market in guns would create a new source of money for organized crime, and cause more violence, as the illegal drug trade has.To get rid of all guns would require using the sorts of gestapo-like police tactics used against Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians. These sorts of tactics, and such blatant disregard for the rest of the Constitution would be exactly the sort of tyranny the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent
1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann, "Abschied vom Hessenland!"
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
Saw things so much clearer
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
In the Netherlands to go hunting you also have to have a permit, handed out by the police. This can only be obtained when you suffice in a few rules:
- You have to be at least 18 years old
- You're required to have done an official hunter's course, followed by an exam
- You're required to have a special responsibility-insurance (don't know the exact english word)
- You're required to have a hunting-rental-agreement for an area situated in the Netherlands and at least 40 hectares big (1 ha is 100*100 metres)
- You can't have a criminal record
The hunter's course will take about 1 year and consists of 4 parts: 1 part theoretical, 3 parts practical, of which one is entirely about gun safety.
Most hunting in the Netherlands is done with lead-shot guns. Bullet guns are hardly used since you have to have a special permit to shoot animals that require a bullet (big game). These guns can be kept at home, but owners are strongly advised to store them in a special gun-safe which can only be opened by the owner. Besides that it is illegal to carry them outside when not in the hunting-area. (My uncle is one of the few hunters in the Netherlands; about 28.000 hunters on 16,5 mio people)
hot damn. I remember when I was 12. I went to a hunter training course for about 8 hours a day for a week. At the end we had to pass an exam, then we could go get a license and go hunting with adults. (Thats in Pennsylvania anyway, and about 11 years ago. things may have changed)
I have 2 rifles, 2 shotguns and a pistol. I haven't really used them in the past 5 years because I no longer hunt. But I guess I know I have them if zombies ever attack or the country goes in to total mayhem.
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
we are on the same page then....you have to clean them up on the streets first and yes, that would require more police power...then i think we need to start with tougher regulation
Yeah, and even making living conditions better in inner cities! It should throw up a red flag when on my block (where probably everyone owns at least 1 gun), there are never any incidents. Yet in some parts of town, where only a couple of houses have guns in them (mostly because they can't afford them) there are shootings and stabbings all the time. There's already a lot of laws in place that if were actually enforced might be effective...............but some of them are almost impossible to enforce.
Even if we were to come to the sober conclusion that we would be better off without any guns, we must remember that it will be impossible to remove all of the guns from America without utterly destroying the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the process. The prohibition of alcohol, and now the totally ineffective "war on drugs" demonstrate the futility of attacking such problems with a supply-side prohibition. A larger black market in guns would create a new source of money for organized crime, and cause more violence, as the illegal drug trade has.To get rid of all guns would require using the sorts of gestapo-like police tactics used against Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians. These sorts of tactics, and such blatant disregard for the rest of the Constitution would be exactly the sort of tyranny the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent
Who is going to uphold these laws? More laws saying that you can't buy guns from your neighbor are just words on paper if there isn't someone to enforce them. I still fail to understand how stricter laws dealing with obtaining them will keep them out of the hands of people who mean to cause harm with them. It was against the law to sell alcohol and cigarettes to 17-year-olds for a long time, but the only way it has been detered is by stronger law enforcement..............and it still hasn't been stopped. What laws to you support?
Currently in Ohio, I can sell my guns to any Ohio resident over the age of 18 ... although I'm not required to keep any records, so there's nothing to stop me from selling them to anyone at all. If I were required to keep records and held responsible for acts committed with my gun if I didn't, I'd be pretty highly motivated to keep those records. Would this completely solve the problem? Of course not, but it would take a LOT of guns out of the unregulated marketplace. It's ridiculous that I'm allowed to sell a gun to anyone with cash in his pocket and not even keep a record of where that gun went.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
but in a debate where the subject matter concerns [gun control; gun registration; etc]; it is important to look to history and learn from the mistakes in the past. several countries have since used these nazi tactics to "cleanse" their country of firearms. england; who viciously fought hitler; used this and other nazi tactics since the end of WWII. so this quote is quite appropriate in this debate.
Even if we were to come to the sober conclusion that we would be better off without any guns, we must remember that it will be impossible to remove all of the guns from America without utterly destroying the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the process.
How so?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
We discussing the pro's and con's of gun ownership here. Just so you know where I stand: (Since I'm European) I personally have a hard time agreeing with the pro arguments, especially where it comes to the "defending your home" etc argument which basically is in your constitution (Correct me if I'm wrong), but to some extend I understand your arguments. I'm not saying I agree... I understand.
Why don't we focus more on how we can make gun ownership safer instead of repeating ourselves? I.e. why has nobody (up untill now) come up with the idea to at least force gun manufacturers to fire every gun made and deliver the bullet together with the serial number to the government. When sold the serial number should be registered with the authorities (if that isn;t the case allready). In that way when a gun related crime occurs the government at least has less trouble finding the owner. Thus (perhaps) discouraging people to use them as fast as they do now.
Saw things so much clearer
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
Comments
Laws aren't everything.
**deeep inhale** Care for a toke?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
AMEN. a voice of reason. i've seen many inner city high schools with metal detectors and security check points. why can't colleges do the same?
laws are only to allow the government to prosecute. if laws deterred crime; there wouldn't be crime.
**i'll roll the next one**
and how much more control can there be. we already have books of laws and many of them are repetative. for example; it is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits. megans law says it's illegal to discharge a gun into the air within city limits. wtf?
welcome to America, the police state
exactly...what's the harm of using technology....fingerprint safety locks makes nothing but sense...
when you feel like a slave in your own school, town, etc., that is unacceptable in a supposed "free society" like America
you're talking about laws...I'm talking about addressing the source and the purchase of guns...
however, something tells me you would be unwilling to listen to anything other than "I needs me gun to kill tweekers and snakes, gaul damit!"
a slave...? oh, the drama....
we are headed that way...the government is taking rights away a little at a time....do you agree with the patriot act?
which part...?
you cant? you cant have stricter laws about who obtain guns without having more policing?? please explain...
any of it...
what are you for?? outlawing guns completely?? hate to tell you but if some psycho wants to kill people, he will kill people, guns or no guns.....i support making it tougher for people to get guns....thats it...
if you mean i'll defend my rights; then yes; i'll defend my rights AND your rights. and i'll respect the hundreds of thousands of men that gave their lives to protect our rights.
1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann, "Abschied vom Hessenland!"
we are on the same page then....you have to clean them up on the streets first and yes, that would require more police power...then i think we need to start with tougher regulation
Even if we were to come to the sober conclusion that we would be better off without any guns, we must remember that it will be impossible to remove all of the guns from America without utterly destroying the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the process. The prohibition of alcohol, and now the totally ineffective "war on drugs" demonstrate the futility of attacking such problems with a supply-side prohibition. A larger black market in guns would create a new source of money for organized crime, and cause more violence, as the illegal drug trade has.To get rid of all guns would require using the sorts of gestapo-like police tactics used against Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians. These sorts of tactics, and such blatant disregard for the rest of the Constitution would be exactly the sort of tyranny the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
hot damn. I remember when I was 12. I went to a hunter training course for about 8 hours a day for a week. At the end we had to pass an exam, then we could go get a license and go hunting with adults. (Thats in Pennsylvania anyway, and about 11 years ago. things may have changed)
I have 2 rifles, 2 shotguns and a pistol. I haven't really used them in the past 5 years because I no longer hunt. But I guess I know I have them if zombies ever attack or the country goes in to total mayhem.
The Sentence Above Is False
but in a debate where the subject matter concerns [gun control; gun registration; etc]; it is important to look to history and learn from the mistakes in the past. several countries have since used these nazi tactics to "cleanse" their country of firearms. england; who viciously fought hitler; used this and other nazi tactics since the end of WWII. so this quote is quite appropriate in this debate.
We discussing the pro's and con's of gun ownership here. Just so you know where I stand: (Since I'm European) I personally have a hard time agreeing with the pro arguments, especially where it comes to the "defending your home" etc argument which basically is in your constitution (Correct me if I'm wrong), but to some extend I understand your arguments. I'm not saying I agree... I understand.
Why don't we focus more on how we can make gun ownership safer instead of repeating ourselves? I.e. why has nobody (up untill now) come up with the idea to at least force gun manufacturers to fire every gun made and deliver the bullet together with the serial number to the government. When sold the serial number should be registered with the authorities (if that isn;t the case allready). In that way when a gun related crime occurs the government at least has less trouble finding the owner. Thus (perhaps) discouraging people to use them as fast as they do now.
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...