Gun Debate

1…2223252728…38

Comments

  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    inmytree wrote:
    what the fuck are you talking about now...are you saying there are no laws pertaining to booze and guns...?

    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.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    PJPOWER wrote:
    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?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    gue_barium wrote:
    Laws aren't everything.

    **deeep inhale** Care for a toke?

    laws are only to allow the government to prosecute. if laws deterred crime; there wouldn't be crime.

    **i'll roll the next one**
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    inmytree wrote:
    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.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    inmytree wrote:
    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?
  • jrb112476
    jrb112476 Posts: 43
    onelongsong wrote:
    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?


    welcome to America, the police state
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    jrb112476 wrote:
    welcome to America, the police state
    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?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    PJPOWER wrote:
    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...
  • jrb112476
    jrb112476 Posts: 43
    PJPOWER wrote:
    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
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    onelongsong wrote:
    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!"
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jrb112476 wrote:
    when you feel like a slave in your own school, town, etc., that is unacceptable in a supposed "free society" like America

    a slave...? oh, the drama....
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    jrb112476 wrote:
    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........
  • jrb112476
    jrb112476 Posts: 43
    inmytree wrote:
    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?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jrb112476 wrote:
    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...?
  • jrb112476
    jrb112476 Posts: 43
    PJPOWER wrote:
    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...
  • jrb112476
    jrb112476 Posts: 43
    inmytree wrote:
    which part...?


    any of it...
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    jrb112476 wrote:
    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?
  • jrb112476
    jrb112476 Posts: 43
    PJPOWER wrote:
    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...
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    jrb112476 wrote:
    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.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    inmytree wrote:
    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!"

Categories