Discussion: The Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know if you know this or not but getting items from the Black Market is alot harder than going to Wal Mart.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Technically, illegal drugs are also bought on the Black Market. Now, is buying drugs really that difficult? What makes you think guns would be any different?
 
Technically, illegal drugs are also bought on the Black Market. Now, is buying drugs really that difficult? What makes you think guns would be any different?

Here in Houston, anywhere you are at, you could probably drive within 2 maybe 3 miles and buy both a gun and drugs at the same house, apartment, etc.
 
Fine, close down gun shows.

IMO, we don't need stricter restrictions, we just need to effectively use the ones we have on the books already.....

But, to think that we will ever have a time where guns will be totally off the street, is extremely naive....a wonderful thought, but very naive. Will Mexico do the same? doubtful, will Canada do the same, if it happens it will happen their first, BUT will they strengthen their borders to keep others from "using" them to get guns into the US.

A grand, but naive thought.

Nooooooo!! Then I won't get to hear the Bill Goodman's Gun and Knife Show jingle on the radio, again.

"Bill Goodman's . . . Gun and Knife Show. Call a buddy! Bring a friend!" :woot:
 
Fine, close down gun shows.

IMO, we don't need stricter restrictions, we just need to effectively use the ones we have on the books already.....

They don't need to shut down gun shows for stricter guidelines. Just get a wing specifically for psychologists and agents who can check their history to evaluate gun buyers before they get them. If it takes to long for the gun owner to pass that day have the government authorize the seller to send the gun through the mail.

I do agree the current guidelines need to be followed better but they do have to many weaknesses in its current state IMO.

But, to think that we will ever have a time where guns will be totally off the street, is extremely naive....a wonderful thought, but very naive. Will Mexico do the same? doubtful, will Canada do the same, if it happens it will happen their first, BUT will they strengthen their borders to keep others from "using" them to get guns into the US.

A grand, but naive thought.

Agreed.
 
Well I'm naive then. And I'm proud of it.


Car related deaths are different from gun related deaths, Malice, because of the intent. Most don't intend to kill with a car. Most do with guns. It's the guns primary function.

As for drugs. If I want to kill myself with drugs that's not really your business. Me killing you with a gun... IS.



:doom: :doom: :doom:
 
Well I'm naive then. And I'm proud of it.


Car related deaths are different from gun related deaths, Malice, because of the intent. Most don't intend to kill with a car. Most do with guns. It's the guns primary function.

As for drugs. If I want to kill myself with drugs that's not really your business. Me killing you with a gun... IS.



:doom: :doom: :doom:

And you should be proud of that thinking...I'm not meaning to put you down for it....I'm just pointing out that its just not going to happen. I want all of my students to desire to learn, love coming to school, have parents who support their education......I want those things, and I'll do whatever I can to make all of those things happen. But, I KNOW it won't happen, but I will keep walking in that direction. BUT, I realize the reality...
 
They'll have to pry my caffeine from my hands if I ever stand still
 
You can't modernize them they are timeless they are a form of expression unlike guns which change. Ill tell you this our forefathers would not have created such a law if they new how deadly our modern weapons would be. If they knew that a child could easily use a gun.............we always have to change for the modern times...conservatives will never understand this.

You start by saying these are timeless concepts then you talk about modernizing the ones you don't agree with. WTF?

That's not true at all. At that time you could own a cannon or as much dynamite as you would want (considered at that time to be the most dangerous substance on the planet). So back then you could legally own more powerful ordinace than you can today. The truth is they wanted people to be able to rise up and defend against the gov. if it came to that. How could that be accomplished by insuring the citizens cannot do that?

Children can always easily use a gun, you just pull the trigger, not much has changed in that.

I like that last part about conservatives, it's adorable how people jump to partisan nonsense when they run out of argument. I'm an independent, more liberal than conservative, I just believe in freedom and the constitution.
 
13. “Who needs an assault weapon?”
In asking that question, gun-prohibitionists demonstrate that they misunderstand more than just the right to arms. The question is illegitimate. Asked in the context of any other right—religion, political expression and assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, protection against double jeopardy and forced confessions, and trial by a jury—its absurdity is apparent.

In America, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, but upon those who wish to restrict them. It is well-established that only a small percentage of criminals ever used these guns in crimes. And gun prohibitionists have not presented any evidence that any criminals are affected by a law that dictates the shape of gun grips, prohibits variable-position stocks, bayonet lugs and flash suppressors, and limits the size of ammunition magazines.


More appropriate questions are:
  • “Why should we prohibit guns that operate the same as millions of other guns, provide no advantage to criminals, are rarely used by criminals, but are widely used for legitimate purposes, including legitimate self-defense?”
Or, more importantly:
  • “Are the rights and liberities of millions of law-abiding citizens to be dictated by the acts of a small criminal element?”
http://www.clintongunban.com/FAQ.aspx

I'm sure some of you will discredit the source but at least they post statistics.

Here's a few more sites

http://geekpolitics.com/assault_weapons_ban_is_baloney/

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/
 
Against it. All you will achieve by having gun control is removing them from the hands of honest, law abiding citizens. you will NEVER keep them out of the hands of the criminal element. I dont care how hard you try. It would take an army to achieve that.

If u want to ban something, then ban cars. I bet more people are killed by drunk drivers each year than by firearms. Its the same principle isnt it? I mean a normal, sober, person behind the wheel of a car, thats properly trained, is no different than a normal, properly trained person holding a firearm. Properly controlled, neither are a threat.

BUT, get a disturbed or intoxicated person controlling either, then you've got trouble. BOTH can be EXTREMELY dangerous in the wrong hands. So, should we ban cars to keep the intoxicated or disturbed from driving them? That would sure stop drunk driving and high speed chases that usually end up with innocents injured or killed. Arresting them is apparently not working, so yeah, lets just ban automobiles. To heck with the people who are following the rules.
( yes I was kidding about banning cars )
 
download


















The Rambo Granny of Melbourne , Australia


Gun-toting granny Ava Estelle, 81, was so ticked-off when two thugs raped her 18-year-old granddaughter that she tracked the unsuspecting ex-cons down - and shot off their testicles.
The old lady spent a week hunting those men down -and, when she found them, she took revenge on them in her own special way,said Melbourne police investigator Evan Delp.

Then she took a taxi to the nearest police station,laid the gun on the sergeant's desk and told him as calm as could be: 'Those bastards will never rape anybody again, by God.'

Cops say convicted rapist and robber Davis Furth, 33, lost both his penis and his testicleswhen outraged Ava opened fire with a 9-mm pistol in the hotel room where he and former prison cell mate Stanley Thomas, 29, were holed up.

The wrinkled avenger also blew Thomas' testicles to kingdom come,but doctors managed to save his mangled penis, police said.'The one guy, Thomas, didn't lose his manhood, 'but the doctor I talked to said he won't be using it the way he used to,'
Detective Delp told reporters. 'Both men are still in pretty bad shape,
'but I think they're just happy to be alive after what they've been through.'
The Rambo Granny swung into action August 21 after her granddaughter
Debbie was carjacked and raped in broad daylight by two knife-wielding creeps in a section of town bordering on skid row.

'When I saw the look on my Debbie's face that night in the hospital,'I decided I was going to go out and get those bastards myself''cause I figured the Law would go easy on them,' recalled the retired library worker..'And I wasn't scared of them, either - because I've got me a gun and I've been shootin' all my life.'And I wasn't dumb enough to turn it in when the law changed about owning one.'

So, using a police artist's sketch of the suspects and Debbie's description of the sickos, tough-as-nails Ava spent seven days prowling the wino-infested neighborhood where the crime took placetill she spotted the ill-fated rapists entering their flophouse hotel.

'I knew it was them the minute I saw 'em, but I shot a picture of 'em anyway
'and took it back to Debbie and she said sure as hell, it was them,' the oldster recalled..

'So I went back to that hotel and found their room and knocked on the door,'and the minute the big one opened the door, I shot 'em right square between the legs,'right where it would really hurt 'em most, you know.

'Then I went in and shot the other one 'as he backed up pleading to me to spare him.'Then I went down to the police station and turned myself in.'

Now, baffled lawmen are trying to figure out exactly how to deal with the vigilante granny.'What she did was wrong, and she broke the law, but it is difficult to throw an 81-year-old woman in prison,' Det. Delp said, 'especially when 3 million people in the city want to nominate her for Mayor.'
DEPORT HER TO AMERICA - WE NEED HER!
********************************************************************************
Australian Gun Law Update

Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts...
From: Ed Chenel , A police officer in Australia


Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.' You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

Will you be one of the sheeple to turn yours in? WHY? You will need it.







Just got this in an email. Unfortunately it doesn't cite a source for the information.
 
I hate political emails, but go gun totting granny. I honestly would probably do the same in her shoes, especially if I was 81 years old and not long to live anyway.
 
I hate political emails, but go gun totting granny. I honestly would probably do the same in her shoes, especially if I was 81 years old and not long to live anyway.

It reminds me of a little bit of Liam Neesons character from Taken and Gran Torino.

I'd like to believe that's real, but it sounds a bit off.

It's an email and therefore without citing a news article (at the least) it should be taken with a grain of salt. Which is why I said unfortunately it doesn't cite anything.
 
Fully automatic assault weapons..no.. other guns yes says CC.
 
It's an email and therefore without citing a news article (at the least) it should be taken with a grain of salt. Which is why I said unfortunately it doesn't cite anything.

Oh, I'm not calling you out or anything, just saying something about that story feels a bit off in the reading.
 
Oh, I'm not calling you out or anything, just saying something about that story feels a bit off in the reading.

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound like you were. I was agreeing with what you said I just wanted to make it clear where I stood before someone actually yelled 'fire!'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"