Gun Control
- Thread starter Busa1166
- Start date
KokomoBusa
Banned
If only people would start taking resposibility for their actions...that'd be nice.
Let me start by saying I'm a gun collector and LOVE my weapons. But there's too many idiots in the world getting a hold of guns.
You and I both know that all the laws in the world aren't going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but I think forced registration of guns is a step in the right direction. For those who legally own weapons and are generally good citizens, having to register and being RESPONSIBLE for that weapon whether it's in your possesion or someone elses or even at home and no where near you has it's benefits. It can "train" people to lock their guns up, and help prevent or even eliminate accidental child shootings. I know there is an incredibly small number of child shootings each year, but one is too many. Not all kids can count on their parents to be responsible for any guns in the house.
I'd be more than willing to register all of my guns, if it'll mean harsher punishments on the irresponsible and enable the possibility of ending accidental shootings involving kids.
Just my thought....it's ultimately a step in a direction that I don't want to go in, but a sacrifice i'm willling to make nonetheless.
bronc3
Registered
I control my guns just fine, thank you.
Go ahead, pass all the laws you want. The fruit loops committing crimes with firearms aren't concerned with the law and they will always be out there, just like the firearms they use.
By passing strict gun control laws you simply reduce the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Take away law-abiding citizens' sidearms and the criminals won't even have to wonder what degree of resistance they are up against.
Now if you increase penalties for committing said crimes, you MIGHT see a decline. Of course the sentences have to be implemented as well, not just used as an idle threat. ???
Go ahead, pass all the laws you want. The fruit loops committing crimes with firearms aren't concerned with the law and they will always be out there, just like the firearms they use.
By passing strict gun control laws you simply reduce the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Take away law-abiding citizens' sidearms and the criminals won't even have to wonder what degree of resistance they are up against.
Now if you increase penalties for committing said crimes, you MIGHT see a decline. Of course the sentences have to be implemented as well, not just used as an idle threat. ???
Last edited:
The problem here is: Just What is an Assault Rifle ??? ? Congress defines it as a rifle that LOOKS like what the military uses. Which is the STOCK of the weapon and not a single shot or SIMI-Automatic. Definitions are very loose with the Government. I've seen where reporting of a AUTOMATIC pistol (a simi-automatic) was used. When infact, I've NEVER seen a real automatic pistol used anywhere (except in the military or on Miami Vice - UZI as an example). But anyway, making a law isn't going to stop anyone who wants one. It's just going to keep the HONEST people from buying one. Kinda like, Selling Drugs and having a weapon is AGAINST THE LAW. So, I guess no one does this
. It's just a FEEL GOOD law that the LAW MAKERS make themselves exempt from 
BusaBoy86
Registered
I agree...I heard about a town, i think in Arizona, that the sheriff made everyone take a gun safety course and allowed them to own a gun...they saw a significant drop in crime...this summer i worked in Iowa, and they were talkin on the radio how teachers want to be able to carry firearms to school. I am goin to be a teacher and with all of these recent shootings in schools, I personally would feel a heck of a lot better knowing I had something to defend myself with if a kid came into school shooting
Bah, All we need to do to keep "assault" weapons off the sights of the idiots is quit calling em' assault weapons...
I consider the AR a "Sport Utility Rifle" (My Term) just like Americans and their fascination with useless oversized SUVs/Penile compensator, the "assault rifle" is nothing more than entertainment. It gets dressed up like it's billy Bad@$ never mind the fact that so many owners rest it on their huge gut, their artificial hip, and trouble climbing stairs...
We buy all the bells and whistles, hi-cap magazines, etc because it's entertainment. At their hearts, are these "assault" weapons hardcore? Well yeah, but when you combine hardcore with sponge bob owner they are mostly harmless...
The media feeds the hype the average idiot believes and swallows... Thus Assault Rifles are "evil". Completely ignoring the fact that they are responsible for almost NONE of the gun related violence in America and regardless of the fact that the Assault weapons ban did nothing to curb any sort of crime...
So, instead of "Assault Rifle" how about we just call em "Sport Utility Rifles"... It should resonate with the average American and politician clambering outta their SUVs.
The fact that congress considers re-instating the assault weapons ban is a sad statement on the gullibility of the U.S. public and our supposed leadership.
I consider the AR a "Sport Utility Rifle" (My Term) just like Americans and their fascination with useless oversized SUVs/Penile compensator, the "assault rifle" is nothing more than entertainment. It gets dressed up like it's billy Bad@$ never mind the fact that so many owners rest it on their huge gut, their artificial hip, and trouble climbing stairs...
We buy all the bells and whistles, hi-cap magazines, etc because it's entertainment. At their hearts, are these "assault" weapons hardcore? Well yeah, but when you combine hardcore with sponge bob owner they are mostly harmless...The media feeds the hype the average idiot believes and swallows... Thus Assault Rifles are "evil". Completely ignoring the fact that they are responsible for almost NONE of the gun related violence in America and regardless of the fact that the Assault weapons ban did nothing to curb any sort of crime...
So, instead of "Assault Rifle" how about we just call em "Sport Utility Rifles"... It should resonate with the average American and politician clambering outta their SUVs.
The fact that congress considers re-instating the assault weapons ban is a sad statement on the gullibility of the U.S. public and our supposed leadership.
What about cars think about the millions of teens and "OMG THE CHILDREN" killed every year in "accidents". Yet there is no move made to BAN Big Rigs cause they are more lethal in accidents, nor any move to ban cars altogether.
We've got to nip the Nanny stuff soon or as a country we are screwed. Soft minded kids are already the result. Look at today's 20 somethings, listless, shiftless, unable to get excited or productive... Lot's of em' fit this bill and the younger ones are about as bad... No spirit, no real accomplishment or drive cause "we're all winners", and "everyone is exceptional"...
UrbanKnight
Registered
I think we have enough 'gun control' as it is. Disarm the criminals first....
StromBusa
Registered
I think it would be a good idea if all competent adults over 18 had a civic duty to responsibly cary their piece. They could be trained in school & required to pass competency. Someone once said that a gun society is a polite society. Be one heck of allot less crime if it was understood that all competent adults were carying, and expected to terminate convenience store holdups etc. etc. Ignorance feeds our fears. Be less mass shootings I think. & on top of that we wouldn't turn into a society of weenies.
Loki08
Registered
Well, we did elect Obama
No sir, YOU might have, but WE did not.
Thankfully, some of the people here do not make laws. ???
sweet comments and thanks for your opinions I was wondering how people felt about this subject.. turns into a pretty heated argument here in this home.. but we lock up the guns for the debate maybe they should ban cigarettes before guns, don't they kill more people than anything else out there
maybe they should ban cigarettes before guns, don't they kill more people than anything else out there
Last edited:
sweet comments and thanks for your opinions I was wondering how people felt about this subject.. turns into a pretty heated argument here in this home.. but we lock up the guns for the debate
They have banned smoking in Illinois (once again, Obama Land) unless you are in your house, 15 feet away from a building or in your car without a minor.
I haven't voted on this one and probably won't. Should be an option for "enforce current laws" I believe there needs to be some changes but those changes shouldn't be more anti gun legislation. To be honest we should go back to public hanging, commit a crime with a gun, swing at the end of a rope. Some of you will say that sounds harsh or we can't do that, then you haven't quite reached the point where you need to be on this issue then. Think of how harsh it is when that person uses as gun to commit a crime. These criminals aren't like you and I, they have no conscious and no remorse and there is NOTHING that society can do to change them. They are a product of the environment we have created. Until you give the proper deterent many will just continue doing what they do.
I can't count the number of times I've built cases on thugs who have stolen guns only for them to get a slap on the wrist. Then there are the ones that have a loaded gun while dealing drugs on the street corner, our prosecutor here will not push these crimes, usually gets pled down to a lesser charge which in my eyes is unacceptable.
Plenty of laws to deal with the problem. Only problem is, here our prosecutors are elected, and they keep putting liberal prosecutors in office. Then the public cries foul because the crime rate is so high but they are the victim of their own actions. Much as this whole country will be when they realize just what kind of change they voted for.
I can't count the number of times I've built cases on thugs who have stolen guns only for them to get a slap on the wrist. Then there are the ones that have a loaded gun while dealing drugs on the street corner, our prosecutor here will not push these crimes, usually gets pled down to a lesser charge which in my eyes is unacceptable.
Plenty of laws to deal with the problem. Only problem is, here our prosecutors are elected, and they keep putting liberal prosecutors in office. Then the public cries foul because the crime rate is so high but they are the victim of their own actions. Much as this whole country will be when they realize just what kind of change they voted for.
Vigosama
Registered
I found this the other day...speaking of gun control and stuff. Its attributed to a Mike Vanderboegh.
TO: Tom Eblen, a Kentuckian who ought to know better.
Dear Tom,
Let me introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Sez you:
"If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their "cold, dead fingers," eventually somebody's going to do it."
Ah, the big, bad gun "confiscation" boogeyman.
It may scare you. It may scare certain weak-kneed "sportsmen" willing to compromise our rights for theirs. And, perhaps, it may scare some poorly educated children under the age of twelve.
It does NOT scare us, the intended target of your editorial missive. The way we see it, "eventually somebody's going to TRY to do it." Liberals' biggest problem (and perhaps yours as well) is that they're always extrapolating from their own cowardice. They think that if the government told them to do something, they would do it, so everybody else will too.
Wrong.
Let's boil down the threat of gun confiscation to its mathematical essence:
1. There are as many guns in this country as there are people, something close to 300 million.
2. No matter what law you pass, some percentage of American gun owners will refuse to give theirs up, even if the penalty for doing so is death. Shall we say 3 percent of 100 million gun owners? That's the same percentage as active combatants in our first Revolution, so let's say that's 3 million "pry it from my cold dead hands" types.
3. Now, I'm sure you will agree (intellectually at least) that a man who is willing to die for his beliefs is most often somebody who is willing to kill for them too. This being the case . . .
4. When the government comes to take these citizens' guns, the citizens -- these 3 percenters -- will do their dead level best to kill the thugs sent to do so. Some of them will realize that killing the bureaucrats who sent the thugs is probably a good idea too, so a number of bureaucrats will die. Some of these citizens will also realize the justice of killing the tyrant politicians who told the bureaucrats to send the thugs, and that's even more dead added to the butcher's bill.
On a more personal note, an even smaller (yet still significant) percentage of these citizens will remember that Bill Clinton expanded the laws of warfare in the 90's to include the news media of your enemy as a legitimate target of war, so a number of reporters, editorial writers (uh, what did you say you do for a living?), anti-gun bloggers, and perceived "traitors to the Republic" will die as well, even if (as I'm sure it is in your case) they don't deserve it. I mean, I'd never shoot an editorial writer myself, I have too much love for the 1st Amendment. However, there are others out there who doubtless lack my scruples, especially when they're being shot at themselves. And since Bubba Bill already said it was OK, they'll think, "Hey, why not?"
All told, gunnies and gun grabbers, the casualties will be at least in the low millions making it the worst war America has ever fought -- indeed, the dead would total more than all of America's wars combined. This is especially true since we "cold dead hands types" intend to make it more than a one-to-one ratio. And, you may remember, we're the ones with the firearms already at hand and the ones more likely to know how to use them effectively.
5. Given that, and we understand it even if you don't, please refrain from trying to scare us "bitter enders" into compromising our God given rights. It can't be done. You can't convince us, you can't intimidate us and we're not going away. You can kill us, but you can't change our minds. Thus, stacking up millions of dead bodies in your proposed civil war seems an odd way to ensure "public safety," especially if one of those bodies is unintentionally yours. Is this really what you had in mind?
Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Sometimes, my young editorialist, there IS no principled middle ground and to stand there is to invite being shot at by both sides with equal gusto -- and I don't mean by mere words and phrases.
Thus endeth the lesson. I hope now that I've explained things in the light of day that you'll recover soon from your silly fright at the big, bad, bogus boogeyman of gun confiscation.
Because it ain't happenin' - not without the worst bloody fight you can possibly imagine.
Have a nice day. ;-)
TO: Tom Eblen, a Kentuckian who ought to know better.
Dear Tom,
Let me introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Sez you:
"If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their "cold, dead fingers," eventually somebody's going to do it."
Ah, the big, bad gun "confiscation" boogeyman.
It may scare you. It may scare certain weak-kneed "sportsmen" willing to compromise our rights for theirs. And, perhaps, it may scare some poorly educated children under the age of twelve.
It does NOT scare us, the intended target of your editorial missive. The way we see it, "eventually somebody's going to TRY to do it." Liberals' biggest problem (and perhaps yours as well) is that they're always extrapolating from their own cowardice. They think that if the government told them to do something, they would do it, so everybody else will too.
Wrong.
Let's boil down the threat of gun confiscation to its mathematical essence:
1. There are as many guns in this country as there are people, something close to 300 million.
2. No matter what law you pass, some percentage of American gun owners will refuse to give theirs up, even if the penalty for doing so is death. Shall we say 3 percent of 100 million gun owners? That's the same percentage as active combatants in our first Revolution, so let's say that's 3 million "pry it from my cold dead hands" types.
3. Now, I'm sure you will agree (intellectually at least) that a man who is willing to die for his beliefs is most often somebody who is willing to kill for them too. This being the case . . .
4. When the government comes to take these citizens' guns, the citizens -- these 3 percenters -- will do their dead level best to kill the thugs sent to do so. Some of them will realize that killing the bureaucrats who sent the thugs is probably a good idea too, so a number of bureaucrats will die. Some of these citizens will also realize the justice of killing the tyrant politicians who told the bureaucrats to send the thugs, and that's even more dead added to the butcher's bill.
On a more personal note, an even smaller (yet still significant) percentage of these citizens will remember that Bill Clinton expanded the laws of warfare in the 90's to include the news media of your enemy as a legitimate target of war, so a number of reporters, editorial writers (uh, what did you say you do for a living?), anti-gun bloggers, and perceived "traitors to the Republic" will die as well, even if (as I'm sure it is in your case) they don't deserve it. I mean, I'd never shoot an editorial writer myself, I have too much love for the 1st Amendment. However, there are others out there who doubtless lack my scruples, especially when they're being shot at themselves. And since Bubba Bill already said it was OK, they'll think, "Hey, why not?"
All told, gunnies and gun grabbers, the casualties will be at least in the low millions making it the worst war America has ever fought -- indeed, the dead would total more than all of America's wars combined. This is especially true since we "cold dead hands types" intend to make it more than a one-to-one ratio. And, you may remember, we're the ones with the firearms already at hand and the ones more likely to know how to use them effectively.
5. Given that, and we understand it even if you don't, please refrain from trying to scare us "bitter enders" into compromising our God given rights. It can't be done. You can't convince us, you can't intimidate us and we're not going away. You can kill us, but you can't change our minds. Thus, stacking up millions of dead bodies in your proposed civil war seems an odd way to ensure "public safety," especially if one of those bodies is unintentionally yours. Is this really what you had in mind?
Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Sometimes, my young editorialist, there IS no principled middle ground and to stand there is to invite being shot at by both sides with equal gusto -- and I don't mean by mere words and phrases.
Thus endeth the lesson. I hope now that I've explained things in the light of day that you'll recover soon from your silly fright at the big, bad, bogus boogeyman of gun confiscation.
Because it ain't happenin' - not without the worst bloody fight you can possibly imagine.
Have a nice day. ;-)
Similar threads
