Gun Control - For it or against it

This guy is an ass! http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html Ted Nugent - Right on the money! http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

personally i would feel better if i got to cc my 1911 around more places

More guns -less crime

You know...I'm kinda inbetween. I think we need gun control but not to the point of taking away guns for people who are responsible. I think just a little more gun control than we have right now would help. It's way to easy to get a gun.

Its easier for a criminal to get a gun illegally- then it is for a law abiding citizen to get one lawfully. Gun laws do not work- they have no effect on the black market. I agree: more guns = less crime.

:iagree: No matter how many gun laws they put in place, people are still going to find ways to get them, so it's a moot point. more guns = less stupid people taking up my oxygen. ;)

more guns and the ability to use them.:dthumb:

:iagree: With everyone here and I rep you all! (When I can)

:iagree: No matter how many gun laws they put in place, people are still going to find ways to get them, so it's a moot point. more guns = less stupid people taking up my oxygen. ;) :iagree:

more guns and the ability to use them.:dthumb: so you're saying everyone should be able to carry a gun (including minors and children) and it should be legal to shoot people?:scratch: Honestly I don't think more guns is going to solve anything. That's like saying more drugs will decrease the amount of people who use them.

so you're saying everyone should be able to carry a gun (including minors and children) and it should be legal to shoot people? When did he say that?

:iagree: With everyone here and I rep you all! (When I can) :withstupi Gun laws only remove those that are in the hands of the good.

When did he say that? more guns and the ability to use them.:dthumb: pretty much right there I just don't understand how putting more of something out there, which is also giving more psycho's access to one, will reduce the crime rate. All that I see happening is anarchy

That's like saying more drugs will decrease the amount of people who use them. There may be some truth to that. People either use drugs or they dont. Just because more drugs are available doesn't mean non-users would begin to use them. More drugs would lessen the crime rate- hence prohibition. When alcohol was illegalized- crime sky rocketed. Make all drugs legal- then punish those who abuse them. This brings up so many other possible arguments- but consider this- what right does the gov't have to decide what drugs are legal and what drugs are illegal? Alcohol and nicotene are drugs- but the gov't slaps tax on them and says heythese two are okay... not trying to steal your thread but the issues are related. The gov't has no legal right per the constitution to implement gun laws. Nor do they have the right to dictate what drugs are good and which are not- or which are not but worth the risk due to the amount of tax money generated. :2cents:

Although SVRider's statement was general, I'm going to presume he didn't intend for EVERYONE including minors to use them and for it to be legal to shoot people. Thats not what gun ownership is for. Its for the ability to provide yourself and your family (minors included) with protection. No, I don't believe a minor should be able to walk into a 7-11 and be able to pick one up; however, I would let my 12 year old daughter hold one along with my supervision and direction on the proper use.

so by that you are saying that the people who don't do drugs because they know it's illegal and wouldn't want to get caught....would still not do them if it was legal? Sorry but if they legalized drugs, the usage rate would go up. I just don't see how adding more of the problem will solve the problem

:iagree: amen brother. Tommy

I'm not saying outlaw them, or take them away. I'm just saying they should go about it at a different angle. Adding more of the problem to the problem will only create anarchy.

My dear, I said nothing about drugs, legalizing them, or the usage rate. I am only referring to my right to own a gun. I have not and would not make any presumptions on anyone else's behaviors. I can only control my own. I know that as a single mother with a daughter living on our own, I want the ability to be able to protect her by any means necessary. I'm 5 foot even and 100lbs soaking wet. My bare hands aren't going to do much good against a full grown man much less two. I am thankful everyday that I live in a country where I have the choice to purchase the tools to be able to provide her with as much safety as possible.

My dear, I said nothing about drugs, legalizing them, or the usage rate. I am only referring to my right to own a gun. I have not and would not make any presumptions on anyone else's behaviors. I can only control my own. I know that as a single mother with a daughter living on our own, I want the ability to be able to protect her by any means necessary. I'm 5 foot even and 100lbs soaking wet. My bare hands aren't going to do much good against a full grown man much less two. I am thankful everyday that I live in a country where I have the choice to purchase the tools to be able to provide her with as much safety as possible.:iagree: repped!

so by that you are saying that the people who don't do drugs because they know it's illegal and wouldn't want to get caught....would still not do them if it was legal? Sorry but if they legalized drugs, the usage rate would go up. I just don't see how adding more of the problem will solve the problem It's possible the usage rate would go up- but if these items were gov't controlled they would be so diluted the effects would be less harmful not to mention the food/drug administration would govern the contents. Example- illegal moonshine- modern day wiskey. The crime rate would drop cuz there would be no financial benefit for the crack dealers standing on the street if you could get what you wanted at CVS. again- your thread has a good topic and I dont want to steer away from it- I was simply pointing out gun laws = drug laws... implement all you want- the criminals dont care about your laws. :2cents:

My dear, I said nothing about drugs, legalizing them, or the usage rate. I am only referring to my right to own a gun. I have not and would not make any presumptions on anyone else's behaviors. I can only control my own. I know that as a single mother with a daughter living on our own, I want the ability to be able to protect her by any means necessary. I'm 5 foot even and 100lbs soaking wet. My bare hands aren't going to do much good against a full grown man much less two. I am thankful everyday that I live in a country where I have the choice to purchase the tools to be able to provide her with as much safety as possible. amen

I never said you said anything about drugs. My comment wasn't directed at you. I was just stating adding more of the problem to the problem doesn't fix the problem. And no I'm not saying all out gun laws or anything. But how easy is it to get a gun...seriously. Pretty easy. And no not all killers are psycho's, some are just average joe's. So like i said putting more of the problem out there isn't going to fix the problem.

It's possible the usage rate would go up- but if these items were gov't controlled they would be so diluted the effects would be less harmful not to mention the food/drug administration would govern the contents. Example- illegal moonshine- modern day wiskey. The crime rate would drop cuz there would be no financial benefit for the crack dealers standing on the street if you could get what you wanted at CVS. again- your thread has a good topic and I dont want to steer away from it- I was simply pointing out gun laws = drug laws... implement all you want- the criminals dont care about your laws. :2cents: except the government can't control it, just like they can't really control guns either. So then again no change.

Putting more out there allows the "would be victims" to defend themselves. Its a deterance.

my vote is in favor of gun control. I guess I'm probably the only one on this board. I don't like the idea of everyone or most people being able to carry around a gun. I would not want to walk into a classroom full of 30 people all carrying a pistol. I don't care how responsible they are... IMO yes responsible people should be able to buy a gun. maybe they use it for hunting, or for personal protection... there are legitimate reasons for owning a gun. BUT the screening should be way better. For example, in the recent shootings, the gunman "was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment, as he was suspected to be mentally ill and a danger to himself or others by a Montgomery County, Virginia district court." How did this man buy two guns a few months later? :wtf: :nonod: What about having a law that says any person that wants to buy a firearm has to not only pass the usual background checks but also has to have 5 ppl sign something like a petition. This wouldn't be to hold ppl accountable, but just something that will get people asking questions. If you are into hunting or ppl think you are a responsible person then you could easily get 5 signatures... Of course this won't go well with the gun advocates who will say that more background checking is an infringement of Second Amendment. Guns as a deterrent...you could say that nuclear weapons are a sort of deterrent in international diplomatic situations. we can all agree that every country should not have nuclear weapons, doesnt matter if they're Iran or Jamaica... Obviously a completely different scale but I think an applicable analogy. Of course thats just my opinion.

Putting more out there allows the "would be victims" to defend themselves. Its a deterance. I'm with this one. :iagree:

lol, umm ok. Oh well, we all have our opinions. Carry on

except the government can't control it, just like they can't really control guns either. So then again no change. EXACTLY- they cant control it- so why add laws that will make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy firearms.

my vote is in favor of gun control. I guess I'm probably the only one on this board. I don't like the idea of everyone or most people being able to carry around a gun. I would not want to walk into a classroom full of 30 people all carrying a pistol. I don't care how responsible they are... IMO yes responsible people should be able to buy a gun. maybe they use it for hunting, or for personal protection... there are legitimate reasons for owning a gun. BUT the screening should be way better. For example, in the recent shootings, the gunman "was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment, as he was suspected to be mentally ill and a danger to himself or others by a Montgomery County, Virginia district court." How did this man buy two guns a few months later? :wtf: :nonod: What about having a law that says any person that wants to buy a firearm has to not only pass the usual background checks but also has to have 5 ppl sign something like a petition. This wouldn't be to hold ppl accountable, but just something that will get people asking questions. If you are into hunting or ppl think you are a responsible person then you could easily get 5 signatures... Of course this won't go well with the gun advocates who will say that more background checking is an infringement of Second Amendment. Guns as a deterrent...you could say that nuclear weapons are a sort of deterrent in international diplomatic situations. we can all agree that every country should not have nuclear weapons... Obviously a completely different scale but I think an applicable analogy. Of course thats just my opinion. :iagree: :thx1: reps

i think we are on the brink of some major revalutions in the way the us is ran, and i hope its for the better:2cents:

my vote is in favor of gun control. I guess I'm probably the only one on this board. I don't like the idea of everyone or most people being able to carry around a gun. I would not want to walk into a classroom full of 30 people all carrying a pistol. I don't care how responsible they are... IMO yes responsible people should be able to buy a gun. maybe they use it for hunting, or for personal protection... there are legitimate reasons for owning a gun. BUT the screening should be way better. For example, in the recent shootings, the gunman "was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment, as he was suspected to be mentally ill and a danger to himself or others by a Montgomery County, Virginia district court." How did this man buy two guns a few months later? :wtf: :nonod: What about having a law that says any person that wants to buy a firearm has to not only pass the usual background checks but also has to have 5 ppl sign something like a petition. This wouldn't be to hold ppl accountable, but just something that will get people asking questions. If you are into hunting or ppl think you are a responsible person then you could easily get 5 signatures... Of course this won't go well with the gun advocates who will say that more background checking is an infringement of Second Amendment. Guns as a deterrent...you could say that nuclear weapons are a sort of deterrent in international diplomatic situations. we can all agree that every country should not have nuclear weapons, doesnt matter if they're Iran or Sweden... Obviously a completely different scale but I think an applicable analogy. Of course thats just my opinion. This is a great theory but how do you prevent the crack heads from buying guns from other crack heads? Gun laws would make sense if they could be enforced- but they can't.

EXACTLY- they cant control it- so why add laws that will make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy firearms. because it's not always the psycho that kills people, sometimes it's also the average joe. If you have nothing to worry about then there should be no problem and you should be able to get a gun easily then. yes there will always be a black market, but maybe a change in something would decrease it a bit instead of putting more guns into the black market also. because when you put more guns into the equation...there are more guns on both sides

my vote is in favor of gun control. I guess I'm probably the only one on this board. I don't like the idea of everyone or most people being able to carry around a gun. I would not want to walk into a classroom full of 30 people all carrying a pistol. I don't care how responsible they are... IMO yes responsible people should be able to buy a gun. maybe they use it for hunting, or for personal protection... there are legitimate reasons for owning a gun. BUT the screening should be way better. For example, in the recent shootings, the gunman "was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment, as he was suspected to be mentally ill and a danger to himself or others by a Montgomery County, Virginia district court." How did this man buy two guns a few months later? :wtf: :nonod: What about having a law that says any person that wants to buy a firearm has to not only pass the usual background checks but also has to have 5 ppl sign something like a petition. This wouldn't be to hold ppl accountable, but just something that will get people asking questions. If you are into hunting or ppl think you are a responsible person then you could easily get 5 signatures... Of course this won't go well with the gun advocates who will say that more background checking is an infringement of Second Amendment. Guns as a deterrent...you could say that nuclear weapons are a sort of deterrent in international diplomatic situations. we can all agree that every country should not have nuclear weapons, doesnt matter if they're Iran or Jamaica... Obviously a completely different scale but I think an applicable analogy. Of course thats just my opinion. wait a minute you make a valid point...I DO agree that medical records should be included in the screening. If someone has been convicted or suspected in stalking then that should also be considered when they are screen potential buyers. I don't believe that it should only take 10 minutes to get. When I got mine back in the day it shocked the hell out of me that I was able to walk in and out in about 20 minutes time....I did of course go get my CCW.

ha I couldnt decide which country was the most harmless...

there was not much to fill out when i got mine, i havent taken the ccw yet, but i hope its alot more indepth

Here's another example- why do criminals prey on women? or for that matter individuals that are alone? Because they consider them to be defensless- If the criminals knew you were packing- they would be much less likely to try to mug you, or car jack you, or invade your home. I agree screening is necessary- you dont want to sell a gun to just anyone who walks in the gunstore... but keep in mind- the majority of people committing crimes are not buying from gun stores.

jamaca, they are way too stoned to give to ****s, just sent munchies

ha I couldnt decide which country was the most harmless... repts were served for your previous post

Crooks and criminals don't buy there guns legally now that woundn't change reguardless of gun laws. you only make it more difficult for regular people to defend themselves against abuse, rape, robbery, and so on. I was taught gun saftey when I was 7 and practice shooting whenever I can. (It is a great stress reliever)

Crooks and criminals don't buy there guns legally now that woundn't change reguardless of gun laws. you only make it more difficult for regular people to defend themselves against abuse, rape, robbery, and so on. I was taught gun saftey when I was 7 and practice shooting whenever I can. (It is a great stress reliever) like it was hard to get the gun in the first place? yeah pretty hard, one person walked out in 20min, the other said he didn't have much to fill out at all. So what if it took you an extra day or even a week to get a gun. It would still keep a lot of guns out of some peoples hands that they have no business being in, in the first place. Maybe just a more extensive backround check, a different kind of check, maybe requiring a cert class or something. It still takes some guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place. And I'm not saying that criminals won't be able to get guns, but if you can walk out in 20min with a gun, then so can that guy. I know I'm going to continued to keep getting reemed for my views, but that's what they are, views. Just like your guys' opinions. I'm just saying they need to take a different angle with firearms.

like it was hard to get the gun in the first place? yeah pretty hard, one person walked out in 20min, the other said he didn't have much to fill out at all. So what if it took you an extra day or even a week to get a gun. It would still keep a lot of guns out of some peoples hands that they have no business being in, in the first place. Maybe just a more extensive backround check, a different kind of check, maybe requiring a cert class or something. It still takes some guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place. And I'm not saying that criminals won't be able to get guns, but if you can walk out in 20min with a gun, then so can that guy. I know I'm going to continued to keep getting reemed for my views, but that's what they are, views. Just like your guys' opinions. I'm just saying they need to take a different angle with firearms. I agree...it wouldn't hurt anyone who is law abiding to wait a few days or so while they check your mental background and your rap sheet.

I agree...it wouldn't hurt anyone who is law abiding to wait a few days or so while they check your mental background and your rap sheet. Yes, as long as the government doesn't use this to manipulate more of our rights and start to re-examine what constitutes as mental stability. For example, if I simply say I'm going to kill someone, it doesn't mean I'm going to and then my right to arms is voided.

Yes, as long as the government doesn't use this to manipulate more of our rights and start to re-examine what constitutes as mental stability. For example, if I simply say I'm going to kill someone, it doesn't mean I'm going to and then my right to arms is voided. :iagree: What I saying is if you get hit up for mental issue such as being a schiztso then well you should have to get further evaluated. Instead of saying ok here is your gun. it shouldn't disqualify you but it should at least take a lil longer to check you out. hell I went through more evaluation to get my pilots license then I did to get my gun. I had to get a mental eval and a physical. they check my mental history and my criminal hell they even check your MVR all of it for the last 10 years. then they finger print you and get all of your identifing characteristics (tats scars and such) all on paper just for the license. But I walked in and just gave them my social and showed them a copy of my drivers license and 10 minutes later I was walking out the door with my 45. Now the ccw had more stuff to it but there you go.

I'm not trying to reem you Kelly, I was just trying to explain the major problems with gun restrictions. Sorry if I came across like I was talking "at" you. :cheers: we'll just have to disagree on this one.

OK Breaking news on CNN. Gunman taking shots in the Johnson Space center in Houston. Now see if people were alllowed to carry this joker would have been put out of his misery after he fired the first shot.

Now see if people were alllowed to carry this joker would have been put out of his misery after he fired the first shot. Especially in Texas!

I'm not trying to reem you Kelly, I was just trying to explain the major problems with gun restrictions. Sorry if I came across like I was taliking "at" you. :cheers: we'll just have to disagree on this one. LoL don't worry it's cool. Everyone has their own opinions, there are specific reasons I have mine against weapons, so it's cool. Just a debate that's all.:buds:

Especially in Texas! You got that right Honey:cheers:

like it was hard to get the gun in the first place? yeah pretty hard, one person walked out in 20min, the other said he didn't have much to fill out at all. So what if it took you an extra day or even a week to get a gun. It would still keep a lot of guns out of some peoples hands that they have no business being in, in the first place. I don't know where you buy guns, but here in AZ to by a hand gun you have to wait 24 hours after a complete FBI background check to purchase a handgun legally.

If you already have a Cash and Carry permit, you can buy a gun in a matter of minutes but there is quite a background check to get the Cash and Carry.

I don't know where you buy guns, but here in AZ to by a hand gun you have to wait 24 hours after a complete FBI background check to purchase a handgun legally. yeah I don't buy guns. They aren't for me. Like I said I've got my own reasons why I don't like weapons. I'll leave it at that. But here is a question...you say everyone should have a gun. Ok. Well how are you going to do that? are you just going to GIVE everyone a gun? or will they still have to buy one? Because obviously there are reasons why some people don't have them, whether they don't approve, or they can't afford one or they just don't think they need one. These people have full access into getting a gun right now, but obviously there is some reason why they don't have one, so how would you make it easier? lower the price? LOL Yeah that'd work. how would you put a gun in the hands of everyone to support your theory that we should put more guns out there and everyone should have one? because even if you took away the backround check an things (which would give every criminal even easier access) then they'd still have to pay for it, and for some it's a money issue. So I'm really curious...how are you purposing we put a gun in everyones hand?

Im going with taters whore of an ex wife because we need some laws in place. Convicted felons shouldnt be able to purchase weapons. People with a history of violent crime. And people like taters whore of an ex-wife because she might kill him in his sleep. Well already she passes diseases to the world so she should be be considered a sex offender.

I think EVERYONE (over 18 non fellons) SHOULD have the ability to carry a gun... but it's their choice if they choose not to... but that POSSIBILITY of the intended victiom MIGHT be strapped... would keep a lot of the criminals at bay... but it won't eliminate ALL crime it's like an alarm or lock for your bike... it keeps the honest thieves honest... it'll reduce the amount of thefts but not eliminate it... if someone wants your bike... they'll take it... some way some how if someone wants to commit a crime... they're gonna do it... all you can do is make it harder.

Taters X-wife is hot though... just wear a jimmie cap! Thats what i did. :sorry: Tater.

Taters X-wife is hot though... just wear a jimmie cap! Thats what i did. :sorry: Tater. Yeah i think we all have thats why she has the title whore

Taters X-wife is hot though... just wear a jimmie cap! Thats what i did. :sorry: Tater. :lol: :lol:

I don't know taters whore ex wife, but that was my vote too. I'm kinda on the fence about the whole thing. All the complaining I do is not going to change anything, so I'll just watch politicians and gun lovers duke it out. I'll just sit back and enjoy the show. :)

I don't think theres been a real good study on the effectiveness of gun control on crime rates. Thats one problem in figuring out what should be done. The National Academy of Science has found no evidence that shows right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime. NAS suggests that new analytical approaches and datasets at the county or local level are needed to evaluate adequately the impact of right-to-carry laws.

Hire mercenaries to guard the schools

Hire mercenaries to guard the schools You know I think we might begin to see this in the near future. Its obvious the cops cant handle the job- they have become the "clean up crew" rather then a viable deterence of crime... I bet organizations will start to look more in the direction of private security in the near future. Armed security may end up being a very lucritive career. Finally something I would enjoy.

Look up black water security im thinking about doing it $$$$$$

You know a lot of it is also ignoring signs. Even as students some people ignore certain things being said. They just get dismissed as a joke or something.

Haha if you had guards wearing body armor and AR-15's the thoughts of shooting up the school wouldn't even cross thier minds... 7aRWmojkz8A

I'm 5 foot even and 100lbs soaking wet I got a great visual going on here....mmmmmmmmmmmmm :flush: but I digress..... God forbid a full scale war ever began on American soil... all the "I think all guns should be banned people will be holding up at my house when WWIII breaks out someday on American soil... what will you do if a foreign government's soldiers are breaking down doors and hauling people off to "camps" I'm gonna protect my home and my daughter........ the anti gun nuts put forth legislation that they have no idea what it is about... here is a great example http://www.deletedyoutube.ftvteen.com/?v=ospNRk2uM3U What's a barrel shroud???? I am submitting a bill that legislates weapons that have barrel shrouds... but I have no idea what a barrel shroud is........... OWNED!!!

Haha if you had guards wearing body armor and AR-15's the thoughts of shooting up the school wouldn't even cross thier minds... 7aRWmojkz8A LOLOL MATT DAMON!!!!!:lol: hahaha reps, that was the funniest thing I've seen all day

God forbid a full scale war ever began on American soil... all the "I think all guns should be banned people will be holding up at my house when WWIII breaks out someday on American soil... what will you do if a foreign government's soldiers are breaking down doors and hauling people off to "camps" I'm gonna protect my home and my daughter........ If an invading force somehow manages to defeat the #1 military in the world then I don't think having a handgun is going to make much of a difference. If I lived in Somalia then I might have a different answer...

If an invading force somehow manages to defeat the #1 military in the world then I don't think having a handgun is going to make much of a difference. If I lived in Somalia then I might have a different answer... again good point...if they get by our big brothers and sisters...then we have bigger issues to deal with.

But we can give them a gorillia war they cant win and eventually the ppl in their home nation will get fed up with their soldiers dying and leave our country

But we can give them a gorillia war they cant win and eventually the ppl in their home nation will get fed up with their soldiers dying and leave our country whoa... that just might work

"The best defense against gun violence is a gun of one's own." -Ted Nugent YES! Gonzo Rocks! Just thinking,:scratch: If just ONE student last week had a gun. Popped it off in the general direction of that dude... how many lives would have been saved? Just thinking. Ive already got about 6 guys at work that are going with me and getting a Concealed Handgun License here in Texas. Not that it is a "need" out of fear or anything like that. But just think, if people start getting their license, what's that going to say about this whole "majority wants gun control" nonsense.

I'd buy a gun. but prolly wouldn't buy ammunition.

But we can give them a gorillia war they cant win and eventually the ppl in their home nation will get fed up with their soldiers dying and leave our country umm...i do agree with you....but you lost me on that one...your not going to fight a gorilla war with handguns.... now....MINI guns on the other hand....:lol:

Firearms are just a backup for gorilla warfare when you cornered. Its all about traps and ways to demoralize your enemy while your still a safe distance away. Just think of the ways the Vietnamese people won their war and the Iraqi insurgents are studing from the same book. You can only conquer a country through fear and mass home population killing the replacing them with people from your own nation. Just think of the bible and King David and many other conquerers. Only when you kill off everyone of that nation will their be a time of no uprisings.

You can only conquer a country through fear and mass home population killing the replacing them with people from your own nation. Just think of the bible and King David and many other conquerers. Only when you kill off everyone of that nation will their be a time of no uprisings. I learned that from playing Rome: Total War. always click the "rape/pillage/massacre the local population and get 10,000 gold" button :lol:

"rape/pillage/massacre Ahh the pirate way you would make me shed a tear if a pirate cried

Its easier for a criminal to get a gun illegally- then it is for a law abiding citizen to get one lawfully. Gun laws do not work- they have no effect on the black market. I agree: more guns = less crime. :iagree:

all gun laws do is make it harder on legal gun owning citizens. registration, locks, etc....criminals arent going to use any of this and illegal guns are bought illegally. I find it really dumb how politicians think taking my gun rights away will lower crime......

You're poll is too limited. I am NOT for gun control, but I also don't believe everyone should have a gun. Some people are too stupid to own guns!!!

I'm not going to buy into this, I just have three points to bring up! 1. It has been stated on another thread, which I believe was a quote from a popular journalist, that in other countries, violent crime has gone "through the roof" after those countries adopted gun control. This is only true in one country, South Africa, and to be fair, that country has had much greater racial issues to deal with than either the US, or any other country in recent history. A simple google search will bring up a multitude of articles, stating both versions of the story, and after reading a few of them, I noticed that almost all of the articles proclaiming the above as true, came from within the US, or from Pro-gun organisations. 2. From reading a lot of these articles, I get the impression that the Second Amendment calls for the right of every individual to keep and bear arms as part of "a well-organised militia" That is a long way from saying that anyone can have a gun! To my mind, that means that everyone should be part of an organised militia group, which provides training and discipline, and that as a part of that organisation, they would then have the right to keep and bear arms at home. The concept of a well organised militia, also goes against the idea of guns for individual defence, which is precisely why most of you seem to be in favour of guns. 3. Most of the planet today is in some form of political conflict. Most large-scale acts of violence in the world have been politically motivated (terrorism, for instance). Totally random acts of multiple homicide have been limited to those countries without major political infighting, such as the US, Australia, Britain, Germany, etc. (Australia holds the record, with 35 dead at Port Arthur, Tasmania. See, we have to win at Everything!). Australia enacted stricter gun control laws after Port Arthur as a result of overwhelming public demand. Surveys indicated around 93% support for tougher gun laws. Nearly every other country has reacted the same way, with a huge public outcry against guns, to which the government listened and acted. except 1 For the record, I was against the gun control laws at the time, because I saw them as just another knee-jerk reaction. They haven't had any affect on my life, I't certainly hasn't changed my perception of any level of danger! I have many friends who hunt and shoot for recreation. The laws havent stopped them, they've merely forced them to look at security more seriously. No-one in Australia buys weapons for self defence... even before 1996.

Yeah these "articles" are their to sway what i call "dumb' america. They really have no real value structure left and no opinions of their own. They just read the biased left wing opinion (which is now the norm in most major publications) take it in as their own. They dont want involved in the decision making process of our the country. The take someone elses opinon and use it as their own because they really dont care what the effects could be it just sounds good. Like the whole i support the troops thing. Ask yourself what have you done to actually support us beside say it. We are turning into a totally blind and action less society which was never what the founders of this nation wanted. Everything you see is now through a filter of misinterpreted facts. They do it all to work their agenda while you feed off it. I cant stand to watch the news because of how the networks so the war and its not that way at all! Even if the war was about oil wouldn't that important resource would be worth fighting for? Where would America be without oil? Nations conquer for a reason and peace is never a constant. What kind of government would we have if it wasnt try do what it could to provide for our needs? Too bad in this mixed up society we have now they cant tell us the whole truth because because half the nation is a bunch of pussies and would roll over for peace until the USA didnt exist any longer. Were is your national pride at? Dont take away the liberties this nation was built on. If you really want to change it all maybe this isnt the nation you should be living in. Europe would be happy to accept you. Go to france so you can be in a nation without. your scary guns and ignore the fact that their government sells weapons to all the hotspot countries in the world. Sure we sell weapons as well, but we do it strategically so things play out for our nations best interest. France doesnt care as long as the money is there. They dont care who slaughters who. You can bring up giving weapons to Afghanistan to defeat the russians, but at the time russia was our main enemy and it ended up being russia's vietnam. Russia was the greater enemy at the time. Rant complete for now....

I just had about 15 quotes in here, with detailed responses to each one and a breif synopsis of my basic views on the subject, but somehow I closed out the tab. I am way too lazy to type all that chit again... So here we go: 1. Can't vote on this poll because the options are too simplified. 2. Drugs should be legalized because the benefits (less crime, better drug education, less tax burdon, and about 2 dozen others) outweigh the risks. 3. Guns are not the problem, it's people... More particularly OUR people. Canada has more guns than anyone and they don't have these problems. 4. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens increases the potential for crime (black market, helpless victims, etc). 5. That NAS quote and less guns = less crime statements go against every actual statistic I have ever seen. 6. It should be more difficult to get a gun, but not impossible. 7. If guns are banned, I seriously will consider becoming a criminal because it would be TOO EASY. 8. :twfrox:

Yeah these "articles" are their to sway what i call "dumb' america. They really have no real value structure left and no opinions of their own. They just read the biased left wing opinion (which is now the norm in most major publications) take it in as their own. They dont want involved in the decision making process of our the country. The take someone elses opinon and use it as their own because they really dont care what the effects could be it just sounds good. Like the whole i support the troops thing. Ask yourself what have you done to actually support us beside say it. We are turning into a totally blind and action less society which was never what the founders of this nation wanted. Everything you see is now through a filter of misinterpreted facts. They do it all to work their agenda while you feed off it. I cant stand to watch the news because of how the networks so the war and its not that way at all! Even if the war was about oil wouldn't that important resource would be worth fighting for? Where would America be without oil? Nations conquer for a reason and peace is never a constant. What kind of government would we have if it wasnt try do what it could to provide for our needs? Too bad in this mixed up society we have now they cant tell us the whole truth because because half the nation is a bunch of pussies and would roll over for peace until the USA didnt exist any longer. Were is your national pride at? Dont take away the liberties this nation was built on. If you really want to change it all maybe this isnt the nation you should be living in. Europe would be happy to accept you. Go to france so you can be in a nation without. your scary guns and ignore the fact that their government sells weapons to all the hotspot countries in the world. Sure we sell weapons as well, but we do it strategically so things play out for our nations best interest. France doesnt care as long as the money is there. They dont care who slaughters who. You can bring up giving weapons to Afghanistan to defeat the russians, but at the time russia was our main enemy and it ended up being russia's vietnam. Russia was the greater enemy at the time. Rant complete for now.... I agree with 99% of this. :cheers:

Point 4! The worlds 5 largest producers of weaponry are the only 5 permanent members of the UN Security council. USA China France The Russian Federation The United Kingdom Point 5! Only one country on the planet has EVER used nuclear weapons against an enemy. So tell me, when the rest of the civilised world sees a schoolyard slaughter, and reacts by calling out for tougher gun laws....... We've just got it wrong:idk:

Point 4! The worlds 5 largest producers of weaponry are the only 5 permanent members of the UN Security council. USA China France The Russian Federation The United Kingdom Point 5! Only one country on the planet has EVER used nuclear weapons against an enemy. So tell me, when the rest of the civilised world sees a schoolyard slaughter, and reacts by calling out for tougher gun laws....... We've just got it wrong:idk: The rest of the world just needs to mind their own damn bussiness

Point 4! The worlds 5 largest producers of weaponry are the only 5 permanent members of the UN Security council. USA China France The Russian Federation The United Kingdom Point 5! Only one country on the planet has EVER used nuclear weapons against an enemy. So tell me, when the rest of the civilised world sees a schoolyard slaughter, and reacts by calling out for tougher gun laws....... We've just got it wrong:idk: Because no other country was formed with the enharent right to bear arms! and 99% of the people wanting "tougher gun laws" want the guns GONE... I agree... it should be tougher for someone to get a gun... but I think the majority of the US public SHOULD be able to get a gun IF/WHEN they want...

And what is your point 4 about? Of course those are the 5 permanent members because they are the most powerful countries. Most people i talk to dont really give a crap about the UN and its antigun agenda's anyways. Whats better way to build a world nation the take away the means to resist away from the people?

Because no other country was formed with the enharent right to bear arms! and 99% of the people wanting "tougher gun laws" want the guns GONE... I agree... it should be tougher for someone to get a gun... but I think the majority of the US public SHOULD be able to get a gun IF/WHEN they want... I look forward to a day when no one can/is forced to buy a gun for anything but recreational (shooting range/ hunting) use. thats the desired end result, and that doesn't mean get rid of all guns. but thats JMO. Being able to resist an invading force might have been a problem in the days the constitution was written up but we have a powerful organized army for that now...

As we said before the crime rates would go through the roof when this happens because people in this country dont fear or respect our police forces at all. When criminals know that every household is now safe to rob we will all become victims at some point. How are you gonna stop an intruder in your house when knows he already he has a great advantage.

Being able to resist an invading force might have been a problem in the days the constitution was written up but we have a powerful organized army for that now... I completely disagree... We were the invading force back then. Just ask an American Indian. We dont need to worry about an "invading" force- they are already here... In our schools, at your workplace...Remember 9-11? That was nothing compared to what they would like to accomplish. Not to mention how do you protect yourself against a corrupt gov't if you are unarmed? Just look at police corruption- they are the leading edge of your local Gov't enforcment. These problems are not going to get better. Whens the last time you had a cop give you a BS ticket just because he could. There is more reason to arm yourself now then in the days of the constitution. Now it's us, in the Native Americans position. They failed to control immagration and now we are making the same mistake. I'm sure some of them laughed at first too- then looked up and realized they had underestimated the problem.

As we said before the crime rates would go through the roof when this happens because people in this country dont fear or respect our police forces at all. When criminals know that every household is now safe to rob we will all become victims at some point. How are you gonna stop an intruder in your house when knows he already he has a great advantage. hmm i guess what i meant was that the eventual goal should be that guns should not be freely available to everyone, unless its in a safe recreational environment. just seems to me that loosening gun control laws would be a step in the wrong direction. but you are right, in the short term we'd probably see an increase in crime.

hmm i guess what i meant was that the eventual goal should be that guns should not be freely available to everyone, unless its in a safe recreational environment. just seems to me that loosening gun control laws would be a step in the wrong direction. but you are right, in the short term we'd probably see an increase in crime. guaranteed! I think a better background check process needs to be implemented... but where the $$$ and the process comes from I don't know.

hmm i guess what i meant was that the eventual goal should be that guns should not be freely available to everyone, unless its in a safe recreational environment. just seems to me that loosening gun control laws would be a step in the wrong direction. but you are right, in the short term we'd probably see an increase in crime. I don't even believe it would be a short term effect. Once the drug smugglers pick up the arms smuggling business into full effect. It would lead the youth that are already involved in drug abuse and stealing ipod's out of cars to start packing because the same black market distribution channels will start pushing firearms and it would be the "cool" or "gangsta" thing to do. Another effect would be all of the legal firearms owners would now become criminals if they refused to hand in their handguns and assault rifles. Most of these owners are active duty/retired law officers and military service members. The people that served and protected you and your families. If you can have your types of recreation why cant we have ours? I think we should be more concerned with the higher death rates in our country like motor vehicular accidents. We have all the technology we need to automate our cars why don't we take care of that? Wait, you enjoy having the freedom to control your own car/motorcycle it even though so many people die doing it every year? 43,354 people died in traffic accidents in 2002. Maybe we should give up all our liberties so we can all get old and die from heart attacks. Wait why dont we make red meat and food high in cholesterol illegal too . 936,923 die from heart attacks. You go hide in your bubble of safety in America and I'm gonna move to Columbia and shoot monkeys out of trees everyday because its fun to me. Im all for gun control but it doesnt effect the criminals because they don't buy their weapons at the store.