Nra

[sig45]

Originally Posted by renogaw
or they do the cowardly drive by, shooting up the whole neighborhood instead of a man to man shoot out. i'm not sure on the numbers, but i live inbetween springfield mass and hartford ct. i'm sure they aren't as high as miami or LA, but we have a ton of gun related crime every day.
i'd face off to a man with a knife or run away from him, but if someone has a gun--you're giving whatever that person wants when they want it or you could be killed from a distance. if it was harder for them to get the guns, then it would be harder for them to do the crimes.
there's nothing anyone can say that can dispute that.
your missing the point here these people robbing people do not have legal fire arms in most cases, stiffer gun control takes any defense out of the hands of an average joe trying to protect him and his family. it changes nothing for those who intend to harm a person with there law breaking fire arm.

 

[socal57che]

If guns are banned will I:
1. Be a criminal for owning guns?
2. Hand over my guns and drink Kool-Aid
3. Run for political office so I am exempt from the ban?
Here in the peoples republik of kalifornia we have senators who push gun control down our throats, but they themselves possess concealed weapon permits.

 

[sig45]

i have thought about this as well, if there was a gun ban i would sell all of my guns to my pops who is a cop for 1 dollar, and hold them for him.

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by socal57che
If guns are banned will I:
1. Be a criminal for owning guns?
2. Hand over my guns and drink Kool-Aid
3. Run for political office so I am exempt from the ban?
Here in the peoples republik of kalifornia we have senators who push gun control down our throats, but they themselves possess concealed weapon permits.
1) yes
2) whats wrong with koolaid?
3) i'd expect politicians, judges, police, etc to still be able to carry weapons, so sure i'll vote for you (since my vote doesn't count anyway )

 

[socal57che]

brief intermission.....load of zebra hermits just arrived....
KoolAid is fine if you know why you are in line. Zealots who stand in line to receive their cup of sweet juice without knowing why they are there is my concern. So many educators influence pupils without giving them enough ammunition from both sides creating a bias point of view without first-hand experience or grounds for their own opinion other than "I learned it in college" or "my fav. professor had six doctorates in philosophy."
Media plays the same game.
I am not dishonest enough to lead people as part of a governing body so I guess it's criminal life for me.

 

[kmc]

We had a bank robbed in Atlanta yesterday by two little girls with nothing more than a note.
I guess we need to ban sunglasses next.

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by kmc
We had a bank robbed in Atlanta yesterday by two little girls with nothing more than a note.
I guess we need to ban sunglasses next.

sad thing is they have done this in CT and MA. you cannot wear sunglasses, hats, or hoods when going into banks.

 

[sig45]

most banks here in florida have those signs stating no hats or sun glasses, well i always have sunglasses and sometimes a hat, i will go in walk by the bank cop, have a convesation with the cop, and they will never tell me to remove my hat and glasses. you can post it, but its not a law.

 

[renogaw]

thats cause they are afraid you'll pull a gun on em

 

[moneyman]

When the Constitution was inked, the Continental Army was made up of militia throughout the colonies. The militia consisted anyone with a gun and a heart. Some may have fought using one's own weapon. Thus, the right to bear arm may be beneficial for the nation.
The _fragmented_ Continental Army was succeeded by the _centralized_ US Army. There is no need for a "well regulated Militia" anymore. Unless of course, you form a little militia for your own little utopia ...

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by MoneyMan
When the Constitution was inked, the Continental Army was made up of militia throughout the colonies. The militia consisted anyone with a gun and a heart. Some may have fought using one's own weapon. Thus, the right to bear arm may be beneficial for the nation.
The _fragmented_ Continental Army was succeeded by the _centralized_ US Army. There is no need for a "well regulated Militia" anymore. Unless of course, you form a little militia for your own little utopia ...
While I agree that "a well regulated militia" is just plain fanatical, I don't see the harm in honest citizens being afforded the right to keep and bear. I have owned firearms most of my life as do many of my family members and I don't recall any of them commiting a crime with them. I possess a CCW, but rarely carry. The right to keep and bear doesn't require people to pack heat 24/7 or start a communistic compound of gun toting retards that give the rest of us gun owners a bad name.
ps....if there are any communistic gun toting retards viewing this I mean no (or at least very little) disrespect.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by socal57che
ps....if there are any communistic gun toting retards viewing this I mean no (or at least very little) disrespect.

 

[kmc]

none taken

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by renogaw
i'm sorry, but i think that amendment should be ammended. there's too many gun related crimes to let every joe-bob have a right to one. we don't need a well regulated militia anymore, we have policemen. if we would stop arming criminals then people would stop getting shot.
make laws tougher to get guns--why does someone need an automatic or semi automatic weapon to kill a bird or deer? cause they can't aim?
btw im not a democrat--i'm a realist.
Lets outlaw cars too because too many pedestrians get run over. Who regulates the police? sorry but I dont trust the government to do this job , they cant even secure our borders. Whats to prevent the police from taking your property? This is how the Nazi party got started, by first disarming it's citizens ability to resist. Sorry but the criminals arent buying their guns from sporting goods stores. Anyone who honestly believes what you are advocating would be a very easy target.

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Don't get me wrong, I'm very anti gun control. BUT I think we need to face the fact that guns crimes in America are out of control. I live near Dallas. You won't find me walking through much of it at night. I have however been to London, Sydney, etc. and felt much safer. The statistics seem to say I was.
Maybe punishment is the answer... I'm all for building a massive prison in Guantanomo Bay and shipping gun criminals there for life.
I think the reason gun crimes happen is because our country is too soft on punishment, (another by product of Liberalism). The people that commit these crimes should not be rehabilitated they should be deported to Cuba or have their hands amputated so that they cannot do it again. Incarcerating them places more of a financial strain on our taxpayers.

 

[ol'salty]

Criminals will get guns no matter what the law says--- remember they are criminals. Criminals don't really care about the punsihment either because jail is a joke to them. But...if the govt. started handing out life sentences and death penalties to violent crimes commited with firearms, maybe it would get through better. The day the govt. bans guns and picks them up, crime will run rampant through the streets. Robber try to find a pushover to rob. They don't run up in a house that they know is filled with guns and people who protect themselves. Once that fear is gone, they are not going to worry as much about who to rob. What do you think would cause less crime, for no honest man to own a gun, or for every honest man to own a gun? Someone stated above that the gun store robbed with a knife because none of the guns were loaded....i doubt it. They probably just couldn't get to one. I grew up in a pawnshop. Guns were one of our biggest money makers. We never were armed personally, but there were enough loaded guns in that place to take care of yourself. (most of the gunstores arround here wear guns all the time) The logic behind this was if someone cased your place out and saw that you were wearing guns, if they were crazy enough to rob you, they were going to come in shooting. With them just out of site, it would hopefully just be a holdup or smash and grab. Not having a loaded gun in a pawnshop or gunstore isn't safe. People are bringing guns in all the time to trade or sell or....hopefully not rob you. It took some getting used to...

 

[ajwiggz]

My uncle always used to say put a loaded gun on a table and leave it there and see how many people get shot by it when talking about guns and the 2nd admenment. Its not the gun that shoots people its the person that doesn't know how to use a gun or respect them for what they are that shoot people. Guns are no more harmful then any other weapon... infact if you know how you can use a straw to harm someone but you don't see people trying to outlaw straws. All you have to do to see that if guns weren't around but criminals would still kill people is to look at the confascated (sp?) weapons from a jail.

 

[f14peter]

we don't need a well regulated militia anymore, we have policemen. QUOTE]
Not being argumentative and I respect your opinion. Wanted to point out that there's another aspect of the concept in the Constitution about an armed populace besides the militia and the oft-mentioned idea that in the 1700s many people still hunted for sustinance and needed guns . . . government would be more inclined to follow the laws and serve the people properly if said population was armed. I believe the Founding Fathers thought this way as a means of helping keep leadership in line and beholden to their constituents . . . lest they risk an armed revolution.
The Revolutionary War, and the causes behind the revolution, were still quite fresh in their minds. After all, they knew that if England had acceded to what the colonists wanted and considered only fair and logical (Mostly economic freedoms, not so much the social/personal freedoms bandied about), most colonists, many of the Founding Fathers included, would have been happy to remain subjects of the throne. If the rulers treat their citizens well, fine and dandy . . . if not, then they may rise up and use force of arms to make things the way they feel they should be.

 

[shogun323]

Originally Posted by ajwiggz
Guns are no more harmful then any other weapon... infact if you know how you can use a straw to harm someone but you don't see people trying to outlaw straws. All you have to do to see that if guns weren't around but criminals would still kill people is to look at the confascated (sp?) weapons from a jail.
I lost an aunt to a drive-by strawing last year.
There are so many great points and this thread and I am bummed that I am getting in so late. I have to agree with the many previous posters on the fact that I attribute crime issues not to loose gun laws, but lack of punishment for offenders. Criminals know that all they get for a crime is a few years in jail with 3 square meals a day. It's rediculous.
How about the guy who recently lead police on a high speed chase where the police finally stopped him by spinning him out. Well the car flipped and he became a paraplegic. They are now sueing the police department for excessive force!!! WTH?!?!?! I am sorry but criminals have too many rights.

 

[ajwiggz]

Originally Posted by shogun323
I lost an aunt to a drive-by strawing last year.
I was trying to make the point that if someone wanted to hurt someone they don't need a gun to do it, or anything that even looks like a weapon for that matter.