PDA

View Full Version : Mrs Brady ought to read this.



Cueless Joey
08-28-2003, 10:53 AM
Mrs Brady whose husband was hit in the head by Hinckley is an avid anti-gun. She's been going after gun owners NOT Hinckley. Wrong priority if you ask me. Then again, she gets paid by the anti-gun people.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/957608.asp

eg8r
08-28-2003, 11:00 AM
You are correct. Guns do not kill, people kill.

eg8r

Nightstalker
08-28-2003, 11:49 AM
Sarah Brady has gone down that path, and I believe there is no turningback for her. Unfortunately her pain is being projected with futility. Banning every gun that exists will not bring her husband back, and will also not reduce crime. In fact it will increase crime if guns are banned, regardless of what the mainstream media prints or says.

eg8r
08-28-2003, 12:40 PM
You are correct. If all guns were ever banned, then the only people who would be unarmed are the law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow the law and do not turn in their guns.

eg8r

Cueless Joey
08-28-2003, 12:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are correct. If all guns were ever banned, then the only people who would be unarmed are the law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow the law and do not turn in their guns.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
No way! You mean criminals do not abide by the law??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fred Agnir
08-28-2003, 01:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are correct. Guns do not kill, people kill.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>I thought bullets killed people.

Cueless Joey
08-28-2003, 01:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are correct. Guns do not kill, people kill.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>I thought bullets killed people. <hr /></blockquote>
No, the slugs do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hopster
08-28-2003, 01:39 PM
I beleive it was Mrs Brady who a few years ago bought a hunting rifle for her son, clearly breaking federal law she claimed ont the form that it was for herself. You technically cant do this and it was brought up. The correct way is to bring the person to the store and have them do the paperwork for themself.I really want to swear it was her, if it wasnt it was another woman who is an anti gun nut.
Anyway, she clearly should have been prosecuted for it and nothing ever happened, big surprise.

Cueless Joey
08-28-2003, 01:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hopster:</font><hr> I beleive it was Mrs Brady who a few years ago bought a hunting rifle for her son, clearly breaking federal law she claimed ont the form that it was for herself. You technically cant do this and it was brought up. The correct way is to bring the person to the store and have them do the paperwork for themself.I really want to swear it was her, if it wasnt it was another woman who is an anti gun nut.
Anyway, she clearly should have been prosecuted for it and nothing ever happened, big surprise.
<hr /></blockquote>
Hell, Hanoi Jane and her ex-husband, pulled their guns off their drawers when an intruder entered their home.
Both avid anti-gun advocates.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-28-2003, 01:55 PM
Hypocrisy runs rampant amongst the anti-gunners. What about Rosie O'Fat having armed bodyguards /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy sometimes. Whenever he mentioned Sarah Brady he'd say "Yeah she can make a lot of money pushin' that wheelchair around" LOL

And Patti Davis is a conservative now? At least on this issue it sounds like it. Sh*t gets real when it hits close to home I guess.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-28-2003, 02:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr>Hell, Hanoi Jane and her ex-husband, pulled their guns off their drawers when an intruder entered their home.
Both avid anti-gun advocates. <hr /></blockquote>

Anti-gun columnist Carl Rowan also pulled a gun on an intruder several years ago. Since he was in Wash. DC I'm pretty sure he was breaking the law by having a handgun. The hypocrisy continues unabated........

Qtec
08-28-2003, 02:52 PM
Two days ago or so , there was a shooting in Chicago, 7 died .

Please tell me the last time someone went on the rampage and killed 7 people with their bare hands?
It is obvious , you sell guns and someone gets shot. Is that not a good reason to get rid of guns?

Q
Also , its difficult to do a drive by shooting without a gun.


Who wants guns ? The people who make and sell them, thats who . The rest is macho BS.

Q.

heater451
08-28-2003, 03:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Two days ago or so , there was a shooting in Chicago, 7 died . . . <hr /></blockquote>What I think is sad, is that I read the the Chicago shooting "was the worst [work-related] shooting since July 8th". I can't believe someone had the nerve to write that--it's only been 2 months, for Pete's sake!
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> It is obvious , you sell guns and someone gets shot. Is that not a good reason to get rid of guns?<hr /></blockquote>I believe that it's really gone too far for that. As it's been said, if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. Besides, someone might be shot by accident, so by your logic here, we should get rid of cars, alcohol, airplanes, and any other product that has been sold and was involved in a fatality.

Now, I realize that you probably meant your point to involve the intent of a person, doing the shooting. . . .So, where does that leave cars, when a woman runs her husband over several times, or someone crashes an airplane into a building full of people--not to mention stabbings and bludgeonings, with the respective steak-knife or screwdriver, baseball bat or claw hammer?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Q
Also , its difficult to do a drive by shooting without a gun.<hr /></blockquote>It's also difficult to paint graffiti, without spray paint. The issue should involve the human, criminal element, not the tool.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Who wants guns ? The people who make and sell them, thats who . The rest is macho BS.

Q. <hr /></blockquote>While hunting might qualify as "macho BS", I know some folks who hunt for food, and not sport or trophies alone. And do skeet-shooters and target-shooters qualify as "macho"?


~~doesn't remember Sonny Bono working Reagan's detail. . . .
========================

nAz
08-28-2003, 04:01 PM
I'll never give up my Bushmaster AR15, You never know when you will need the power to take out one of todays modern super animals. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Naz~~Happiness is a belt fed weapon /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif~~

Cueless Joey
08-28-2003, 04:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> I'll never give up my Bushmaster AR15, You never know when you will need the power to take out one of todays modern super animals. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Naz~~Happiness is a belt fed weapon /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif~~ <hr /></blockquote>
Same here. After the L.A. riot, who wants to be unarmed?
The hapless victim. These going postal incidents would be stopped if everyone is armed. Shoot the fukker b4 he starts shooting. Texas and Florida have ccw permits. How many times has anyone gone postal there?
The first day Florida gave out CCW, a cab driver shot and killed and would be robber who happened to be a COP KILLER as well.

Hopster
08-28-2003, 09:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Hypocrisy runs rampant amongst the anti-gunners. What about Rosie O'Fat having armed bodyguards /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy sometimes. Whenever he mentioned Sarah Brady he'd say "Yeah she can make a lot of money pushin' that wheelchair around" LOL

And Patti Davis is a conservative now? At least on this issue it sounds like it. Sh*t gets real when it hits close to home I guess. <hr /></blockquote>

Youre exactly right Wally. Rosie fat ass went all out against Walmart and Kmart i beleive for selling guns and ammo and she turns around and has armed bodyguards for her kids.
Its always the same with the rich, we can have guns but the common folk cant. Ive been thru this discussion so many times with people i got sick of it.
They want to control things ? How about 10 year minimum sentence for using a firearm in the commision of a crime ? How about illegal arms sales, 10 years. How about if a firearm is used in a crime and a fatality occurs, instant death sentence to be carried out on conviction ? How bout those things ? You wont hear them pushing those things at all.

JPB
08-28-2003, 09:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Two days ago or so , there was a shooting in Chicago, 7 died .

Please tell me the last time someone went on the rampage and killed 7 people with their bare hands?
It is obvious , you sell guns and someone gets shot. Is that not a good reason to get rid of guns?

Q
Also , its difficult to do a drive by shooting without a gun.


Who wants guns ? The people who make and sell them, thats who . The rest is macho BS.

Q. <hr /></blockquote>

Chicago has unbelievably stringent (and unconstitutional IMO) gun laws. So I say the shooting didn't happen. After all, they have gun control. And if the victims hadn't been disarmed byt he awful Illinois government, maybe they could have survived. But of course the shooting happened and gun control doesn't work.

In any event, gun rights aren't about the cost of various shooting incidents. They are about the ability of a people to remain free. Citizens own guns. Those without guns are subjects. I prefer being a citizen.

Hopster
08-28-2003, 09:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Two days ago or so , there was a shooting in Chicago, 7 died .

Please tell me the last time someone went on the rampage and killed 7 people with their bare hands?
It is obvious , you sell guns and someone gets shot. Is that not a good reason to get rid of guns?

Q
Also , its difficult to do a drive by shooting without a gun.


Who wants guns ? The people who make and sell them, thats who . The rest is macho BS.

Q. <hr /></blockquote>

You mean if i took a sword and went out i couldnt kill 7 people ? If i took a gallon of gas,a rag and a bottle i couldnt kill 7 people ? If i got behind the wheel of my car and was so inclined, i couldnt kill 7 people ?
Let me tell you something Q, if you got murder on your mind, youre going to do it one way or the other. Banning guns is going to stop homicides ? I dont think so. Londons murder rate has climbed as has Australias, banning guns did a lot there, sure it did.
You my friend enjoy pulling peoples chains, this i noticed a while ago. You get more fun out of getting a rise out of folks here than anything else, you really dont care about any of the issues you sprout off about. Just for you to think youre getting peoples goats is the point of your ramblings.
Shame on you Q, shame shame. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Qtec
08-29-2003, 01:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In any event, gun rights aren't about the cost of various shooting incidents. They are about the ability of a people to remain free. Citizens own guns. Those without guns are subjects. I prefer being a citizen.
<hr /></blockquote>

Now thats funny.

Gun- I,m free.
No gun- I'm not free.
Gun- I,m free.

How free are you?
Since the Patriot act, how free are you?
Did you know that the books you read at the Library are monitored. Your internet activities, E-mail and personal telephone calls are monitored.
On the basis of a suspicion , they[ FBI,or other Govt agency] can enter your home, search everything , bug the place and even arrest you for no reason whatsoever.
Take for example the recent law suit being brought by the man who was hounded for 2 years by the FBI in the Anthrax case.He was even fired from his new job on advice/insistance from the Govt.
Is he free? Would having a gun make him more free?
Doesnt freedom include the right of privacy?

Apparently not.

The macho BS I'm talking about is the crap that spews forth from the NRA.
Do you think the gun lobby is for your protection. Ha.No chance . They just want to ensure that they can continue to make MONEY from the sale of weapons.
Pure and simple. Its ALWAYS about money.

Q

Blackwolf
08-29-2003, 01:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hopster:</font><hr> Shame on you Q, shame shame. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif <hr /></blockquote>Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Should and shame. Shame and should.

People should tell other people what they should do, and how they should feel, especially when they should be ashamed.

BW

Qtec
08-29-2003, 01:54 AM
http://pdmall.com/1/auction/2/OLYARMSPLINKER.jpg

Can anybody justify selling this type of weapon?

Would you feel safer knowing that your neighbour owns one?

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
08-29-2003, 06:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

Can anybody justify selling this type of weapon?

Would you feel safer knowing that your neighbour owns one?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Yes.

And yes. Actually my neighbor has one. And anybody who decides to enter his house forcefully will become the subject of an involuntary entry wound/exit wound study /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

<font color="red">Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6 /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif </font color>

Qtec
08-29-2003, 06:34 AM
I doubt that the most people who are shot are commiting burglary at the time.

How many people are shot by accident.

Your neighbour has a few beers, thinks he sees something and blasts away. Some guy driving by or the guy on the other side of the street catches a stray.Could be a kid in bed.
Who needs a longe range sniper rifle with telescopic sight and night vision?

Q

Wonder how many people would hunt bear without a rifle.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-29-2003, 06:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I doubt that the most people who are shot are commiting burglary at the time.

How many people are shot by accident.

<font color="blue">Not that many really. It's actually quite rare. </font color>

Your neighbour has a few beers, thinks he sees something and blasts away. Some guy driving by or the guy on the other side of the street catches a stray.Could be a kid in bed.

<font color="blue">Yeah Q. That happens just about every day. Geez... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>


Who needs a longe range sniper rifle with telescopic sight and night vision?

<font color="blue">An amateur sniper? LOL </font color>


Wonder how many people would hunt bear without a rifle.

<font color="blue">I think Daniel Boone used to kill them with his bare hands. </font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
08-29-2003, 07:11 AM
Check this out Wally.

http://www.azgs.org/furinfo.html

Q

eg8r
08-29-2003, 07:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Doesnt freedom include the right of privacy?

Apparently not.
<hr /></blockquote> This is the problem, Q. You are looking for little loopholes. Privacy is not all encompassing on the definiton of Freedom. It is a part of freedom, and we may not be totally completely free because of the Patriot Act, however it still does not take all our freedom away.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-29-2003, 07:18 AM
Read the fine print. "Thru age 17" includes gang-bangers and punks. I would not call that a "child firearm death"

eg8r
08-29-2003, 07:21 AM
I would totally feel safe. Without a doubt I would feel safe. If someone walks in their house, they are going to get shot. If a bullett will kill a guy if shot out of a gun, then why does it matter which gun did the shooting.

eg8r

eg8r
08-29-2003, 07:23 AM
Exactly.

eg8r

eg8r
08-29-2003, 07:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, someone might be shot by accident, so by your logic here, we should get rid of cars, alcohol, airplanes, and any other product that has been sold and was involved in a fatality. <hr /></blockquote> Isn't it funny that Q ignores this logic when talking about guns, but if we were to bring up the cigarette argument, this is exactly the logic he would try to use.

Ex. When we were talking about harmful toxins from cigs and why some think they should be done away with, Q (all smart and smug) said, "why not get rid of cars also. They give off bad toxins also." Fast forward to this argument and Q has ignored the same logic he tried before. Now since Q has found a topic he agrees with (outlaw guns because people have died) he does not want to bring up the fact that people die from cars, planes, trains, etc...

eg8r

eg8r
08-29-2003, 07:31 AM
Exactly, a robber, criminal, whatever does not want his victims armed. Reason...Because there is a chance he could get shot if they are armed. Much easier to break into a house, or mug someone on the street if you know they are not packing a gun.

eg8r

Qtec
08-29-2003, 07:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, someone might be shot by accident, so by your logic here, we should get rid of cars, alcohol, airplanes, and any other product that has been sold and was involved in a fatality. <hr /></blockquote>

The difference is that cars are made to get people from A to B. Guns are made to kill.

Thats why they are called WEAPONS.


Q

Qtec
08-29-2003, 07:37 AM
Or to shoot them first.

Q

cheesemouse
08-29-2003, 08:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is the problem, Q. You are looking for little loopholes. Privacy is not all encompassing on the definiton of Freedom. It is a part of freedom, and we may not be totally completely free because of the Patriot Act, however it still does not take all our freedom away.

eg8r
<hr /></blockquote>

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

cheesemouse
08-29-2003, 08:43 AM
Hey, were's the banana clip....%#^# and deer season is just around the corner...damn.....

eg8r
08-29-2003, 09:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that cars are made to get people from A to B. Guns are made to kill.

Thats why they are called WEAPONS. <hr /></blockquote> I have seen more than enough examples of cars being called weapons due to the way they were used. I have also seen a number of guns used as protection, not used as a weapon. This quoted argument is a bit too weak.

What do you have to say about the cig/car issue. You were trying to make that comparison back then and dangerous toxins spilling into the air. Were cigs developed to get people to point A and point B? I don't think so. However you chose to use them the same way when it served your purpose.

I think the main point is...Why should we limit legal law-abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals?

eg8r

eg8r
08-29-2003, 09:46 AM
There is no shoot them first...The criminal does not have to worry about the law abiding citizen shooting, unless the law-abiding citizen is being robbed, mugged, etc by the criminal.

eg8r

Qtec
08-29-2003, 10:01 AM
This thread was about gun control, or not?

A coat hanger or a 747 can be used as a weapon , but that is not what they were designed for.


What can you do with a gun except shoot it.

When people are allowed to keep the type of weapons as I posted above ,people will die.

Rifles for hunting and handguns for protection. I could handle that, but there has to be a limit.

The only reason these arms are allowed to be sold is because of the NRA [ Re. gun manufacturers].
Its got nothing to do with protection, its all about profit.
Do you really think that the Arms/Defense industry gives a hoot about what damage their products do?

Isnt war a good time for the Arms/Defence industry?

Do you think they want peace in the world?

Do they want a safer America where you dont have to have a gun?

Its a logicl conclusion that they dont.

Why would they willingly put themselves out of buisness?

Q

eg8r
08-29-2003, 10:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This thread was about gun control, or not? <hr /></blockquote> Exactly, and given your stance that they should be banned because they kill people brought up other examples of things that kill people. It was the same logic you applied to a different thread, but since it does not seem to work for you in this instance you ignore it.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a logicl conclusion that they dont.

Why would they willingly put themselves out of buisness?
<hr /></blockquote> So then, are you saying they are out causing crime...The gun manufacturers are sending out people to committ crime so there will always be a need for protection?

What about the collector that purchases guns to display? Why should they not be allowed to purchase these guns?

eg8r

Nightstalker
08-29-2003, 10:25 AM
There is no point arguing with Q, he apparently is ignorant of logic and is only carrying this on to stir things up.

Qtec
08-29-2003, 10:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There is no point arguing with eg8r, he apparently is ignorant of logic and is only carrying this on to stir things up. <hr /></blockquote>

This would be correct.


Todays law abiding citizen is tomorrow's criminal.

"Dwight jr, what do you want for xmas".

"An AK-47with rhinno [?] shells dad".


Q

Wally_in_Cincy
08-29-2003, 12:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
There is no point arguing with eg8r, he apparently is ignorant of logic and is only carrying this on to stir things up. <hr /></blockquote>

This would be correct.

<font color="blue">LOL </font color>


Todays law abiding citizen is tomorrow's criminal.

<font color="blue">Yeah you're right. A week after I bought my .357 I just could not resist anymore and I went out and shot some guy. It was the gun's fault /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Hopster
08-29-2003, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> There is no point arguing with Q, he apparently is ignorant of logic and is only carrying this on to stir things up. <hr /></blockquote>

Thats the exact same thing i said up above. Q just likes arguments for arguments sakes.
Probably not a bad guy , just a knucklehead at heart. lol

Hopster
08-29-2003, 12:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
There is no point arguing with eg8r, he apparently is ignorant of logic and is only carrying this on to stir things up. <hr /></blockquote>

This would be correct.

<font color="blue">LOL </font color>


Todays law abiding citizen is tomorrow's criminal.

<font color="blue">Yeah you're right. A week after I bought my .357 I just could not resist anymore and I went out and shot some guy. It was the gun's fault /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

You waited a whole week, Wally ?? I was walking out of the gun store with mine and saw a nun walking past and cracked her over the head with mine. I then jumped on top of a parked car waved the gun in the air and yelled : "Made it ma, top of the world "

Nightstalker
08-29-2003, 01:55 PM
Nice misquote there Q, but it does not hide the obvious facts.

Hopster, LMFAO.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
08-29-2003, 02:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker (original statement):</font><hr> There is no point arguing with <font color="blue">Q </font color>, he apparently is ignorant of logic and is only carrying this on to stir things up.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SuperQ (altered statement to suit his purpose):</font><hr> There is no point arguing with <font color="blue">eg8r </font color>, he apparently is ignorant of logic and is only carrying this on to stir things up. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Q is this how you misrepresent all the quotes you provide here on the forum?

eg8r

heater451
08-29-2003, 02:41 PM
Although, it could be the shock to the system, and/or the massive hemorrhaging. Lead poisoning could be to blame as well.



=========================

Rod
08-29-2003, 03:02 PM
I wondered about that. I don't care about this thread other than it reminded me of the same thought. There are lots of people I'm sure, out there with a bullet stuck somewhere that can't be removed. Yet they finish out their life with that peice of lead there forever.

My Nephew is an example. A 22 is lodged in his neck. It happened many years ago and he is in a wheel chair and always will be.

Rod

Cueless Joey
08-29-2003, 03:50 PM
Q, you're no gun law expert.
NY has the most restrictive gun laws here. Guess, which state has one of the highest crime involving guns.
Hmn. how about Washington Drug Capital? Murder town USA.
CRIMINALS do not abide by the law. AK47's and other semi-auto rifles were banned in California. They've banned small handguns. What has that done? NOTHING!
Criminals will be criminals. I'd rather have legalized citizen checkpoints here with armed citizens. So, the next time there's a drive-by shooting, the fukkers get shot at with Benneli semi-auto shotguns.
Hey, since you're there in Euro, can you send me some HK 91, MP3 and Galils? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Oh yeah, Switzerland. The citizens are REQUIRED TO OWN MACHINEGUNS. It's a lot safer there than NY.

Ross
08-29-2003, 04:09 PM
I've pointed this out before, but the pro-gun supporters don't seem to want to hear it. (So I guess this is a waste of time, but I'm compelled for some reason! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

It is NOT illogical to be for gun control and simultaneously own a gun. Many advocates of stricter laws regarding gun ownership, myself included, feel that the proliferation of guns in the US has made this country such a dangerous place, that I now feel a need to own a gun simply to protect myself. "If everyone is going to go nuclear, maybe I need a nuclear weapon myself."

As an analogy, think about Iraq at the moment. Everybody and their brother has an assault weapon. If I were over there, I would feel I needed a gun not only in my home, but on my person when I went out on the streets. But I would simultaneously vote for stricter gun control laws so there wouldn't be so many heavily armed gangs walking around terrorizing people. And I don't see any "hypocrisy" here.

There are several levels of views about guns:

1. An all-out effort to get ALL guns off the streets, except for law enforcement:

In this approach, guns would be treated like grenades are currently. All private gun ownership would be outlawed. Possession would be a criminal offense, and any guns found would be confiscated. (Don't pass out some of you pro-gun people!). It would be a criminal offense to import guns into the US or manufacture them in the US.

2. Allow law-abiding adults to own a gun to be kept in the home for self-protection, and possibly provide some provisions for hunters and recreational target shooting:

An adult could apply to own a gun. If a background check showed no violent criminal history, the adult could buy a gun for protection in his/her home. To provide accountability and reduce likelihood that the gun would get in the wrong hands, the gun would be registered in the owners name, and the owner would be accountable for its use. The gun would also have markings in the barrel, so that ammunition fired from the gun could be identified (to help solve unwitnessed murders). The owner could not sell it to a private party, and would be responsible for reporting it if it were stolen. If fingerprint technology made it feasable, the gun could only be fired by its owner. Guns more designed for use by criminal and the insane such as "Saturday Night Specials" and assault weapons would be outlawed. There would be heavy criminal penalties for any thug carrying a gun on the street. Hunters (with hunting licenses) would be allowed a two or three registered hunting rifles, that could be taken on hunting trips or to target practice ranges. Target ranges in general could have guns that remained on the premises for use by their customers.

3. Same as above, but citizen with a registered gun can carry their gun on their person (except in some places like courthouse, etc.) or in their car if given a permit.

4. Oppose all forms of gun control:

Make almost all types of guns legal, from Saturday Night specials to semi-automatic assualt rifles. Make armor piercing bullets legal for the general citizenry (thus neutralizing the bullet proof vests worn by law enforcement.) Allow guns to be sold to anyone who has money at trade shows, without any real check into criminal history. Place no limits on the number or types of guns a citizen or group can own. Block any legislation designed to make bullets traceable to the gun.


Currently we have option number 4, so joe schmuck can go pick up a cheap pistol or an assault rifle and walk around and be the king of his drug dealing neighborhood or his gang or just shoot up a bunch of school childern or hold me up when I walk out of the poolhall. And the US continues to sit with an incredibly high murder rate.

Some of you present the argument that "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" as being a logical argument against gun control laws. I find that unconvincing, for a couple of reasons. First, the same logic could be applied to anything we outlaw: "If bazookas are outlawed, only outlaws will have bazookas." "If crack cocaine is outlawed, only outlaws will have crack cocaine." "If homemade nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons."

Second, not only have we not decided to outlaw guns, the pro-gun lobbies (NRA especially) have fought hard to make it EASY for low-life thugs, murderers, drug dealers, and crazies to get guns and shoot us and rob us. They opposed registration, thorough background checks, they oppose weapons designed so their use is traceable, they oppose limiting assult weapons that no law abiding citizen needs, and so on.

Wake up - the criminals already have the guns! There are guns everywhere. Here are some listing from TODAY's Durham Herald (and if you believe unreported successful self-defenses in Durham this week outnumber this carnage, let me have som of what you are smoking!):

From August 29, 2003, Durham Herald-Sun crime report:

"A known gang member got four years of probation Thursday after pleading guilty to shooting into an occupied taxi in June. Travis Daughtridge, 16, was ordered to stay away from other gang members as a condition of probation.

It marked the second time in two days that "validated" gang members were convicted. On Wednesday, Walter Chavis, 18, was sentenced to more than four years in two armed robberies. Phillips said Chavis was a known member of the Insane Gangster Disciples, part of the Chicago-based Folk Nation gang."

"A Durham man was arrested Wednesday on a fugitive murder warrant out of Kings County, N.Y., police reported. Sequan Prude, 17, of 211 Archdale Drive, was arrested at 7:44 p.m. He was charged with an alleged July 6 murder and was jailed without benefit of bond."

"Durham police responded to an apartment at 208 Gray Ave. at 7:14 p.m. Wednesday and found a victim with a gunshot wound, according to reports.
Police found the 25-year-old victim lying on the porch of his home with a wound to his right arm. He was taken to Duke University Hospital for treatment. The case remains under investigation."

"Durham police are investigating a shootout that left four people wounded early Wednesday on Truman Street in the McDougald Terrace complex, police said. The incident occurred around 12:50 a.m. near Building 53 on Truman Street. A 29-year-old man suffered serious wounds when he was shot in the side, police reported. Three other men -- ages 19, 23 and 36 -- also were shot, but their injuries were not life-threatening. The 36-year-old, Paul D. Joyner, was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and one count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury, police reported."

"A Durham man was shot at the Willowdaile Apartments, 3835 Guess Road, at 9:23 p.m. Monday, police reported. The victim, 36, was taken to Duke University Hospital with serious injuries, according to police reports. No further information was available."

This list of gun related crime is typical of what we get 5 days a week, 260 days a year (thankfully, no police blotters on weekends!).

No wonder I BOTH own a gun at home for self-protection AND favor stricter controls on access to guns. And that does not make me a hypocrit.

Although I personally think that, in the long run, option 1 (if really pursued to the hilt) would ultimately result in the lowest murder, suicide, and accidental shooting death rates in the US, I could support option 2 above since so many Americans (and CCB'ers) feel so strongly about their right to own a gun. I wouldn't want to piss Wally-in-Cincy off! But our current embracing of option 4 makes no sense to me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Cueless Joey
08-29-2003, 04:38 PM
Ross, an all-out gun ban would be impossible to impose.
What we need is an all honest penalty for crimes with guns. But, that will get shot down by the trial lawyers of America. MOST criminals are repeat offenders b/c they get out early if they serve their sentence at all.
The 3-strike law in California was a good start.
Really, why not just have a death penalty for any death caused by a gun crime?
Of course, that will never go thru b/c the trial lawyers of America will shoot it down.
There is no such thing as assault rifle or "Saturday Night Special".

Hopster
08-29-2003, 05:01 PM
Really, why not just have a death penalty for any death caused by a gun crime?
Of course, that will never go thru b/c the trial lawyers of America will shoot it down. &lt;--Joey

I have been saying this for a long time also. You know what the problem is ? This country is too weak, like you said, they let these scummy little lawyers dictate everything.
Prime example is the pukes who bombed the WTC the first time. Convicted but why not executed ???
I guess the number of casualtys wasnt high enough.

JPB
08-29-2003, 07:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
In any event, gun rights aren't about the cost of various shooting incidents. They are about the ability of a people to remain free. Citizens own guns. Those without guns are subjects. I prefer being a citizen.
<hr /></blockquote>

Now thats funny.

Gun- I,m free.
No gun- I'm not free.
Gun- I,m free.

How free are you?
Since the Patriot act, how free are you?
Did you know that the books you read at the Library are monitored. Your internet activities, E-mail and personal telephone calls are monitored.
On the basis of a suspicion , they[ FBI,or other Govt agency] can enter your home, search everything , bug the place and even arrest you for no reason whatsoever.
Take for example the recent law suit being brought by the man who was hounded for 2 years by the FBI in the Anthrax case.He was even fired from his new job on advice/insistance from the Govt.
Is he free? Would having a gun make him more free?
Doesnt freedom include the right of privacy?

Apparently not.

The macho BS I'm talking about is the crap that spews forth from the NRA.
Do you think the gun lobby is for your protection. Ha.No chance . They just want to ensure that they can continue to make MONEY from the sale of weapons.
Pure and simple. Its ALWAYS about money.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

The NRA is much too much of a compromise organization. They are very moderate and help the anti-gun folks sometimes. They are about money in many ways.

Anyway, your argument is utterly illogical and neglects the history of free countries. When the US was founded, the people gave each individual the right to own a gun. Why? Because they had just gotten done kicking the crap out of a king. Monarchies are immoral and illogical forms of government and should be abolished. The right to own a gun exists because governments are dangerous things. They pass oppressive laws like the Stamp Act or 230 years later, oh maybe an act which allows spying on citizens. I am not saying the Patriot Act justifies the response the Founding Fathers made to England. I am not advocating any violence. However, it goes to show you that the reason we have guns is because the tendency is for governments to oppress citizens. An armed citizenry cannot be oppressed unless it chooses to be. The increase in technological capability of modern militaries has not changed this simple fact. So the fact you think the government is taking away freedom is the best reason to support gun rights. Your positions are absolutely contradictory.

Also, the argument you made by showing the picture of the .223 and saying how bad it was is just silly. First of all, based on the history of the 2d Amendment, Americans actually have more of a right to own one of those "bad" guns than some stupid sporting gun. Even though it is a relatively ineffective small caliber. And the one you showed was probably semi-automatic, rather than a fully automatic weapon. Unfortunately, the American government has taken away the right of citizens to own fully automatic weapons for all practical purposes. You can still buy old ones with a bunch of red tape, but you can't just go buy a machine gun anymore. Which is unfortunate sice it is a constitutional right. I hope you will support the absolutely clear right to own military weapons since you support the right to privacy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I can't go through all the history or law to demonstrate this point. I suggest you look up Eugene Volokh on the internet. He has several articles and things with very scholarly research on the history and purpose of gun rights. Needless to say, you are on the wrong and misinformed side of the argument. The United States Supreme Court just might answer the question once and for all. It may be that within a couple of years all Americans will be able to stock up on military small arms. We'll see. There is a case coming from the 9th Circuit that might get to the Sup. Ct. At least in America, guns rights weren't designed to protect deer hunting.

Hopster
08-29-2003, 07:38 PM
Also, the argument you made by showing the picture of the .223 and saying how bad it was is just silly. First of all, based on the history of the 2d Amendment, Americans actually have more of a right to own one of those "bad" guns than some stupid sporting gun. Even though it is a relatively ineffective small caliber. And the one you showed was probably semi-automatic, rather than a fully automatic weapon. &lt;--JPB

I have to disagree with you on its ineffectiveness,JPB. I was of the same thought till i tried a few tests of my own. At 100 yards the .223 went clean thru a piece of 1/2 steel.
At 400 yards it left sizeable impressions in the same thickness of steel.
Now at 50 yards the much heralded .44 magnum out of a 6 inch barrel only left small imprints in same piece of steel.
Now if you are saying its ineffectve as compared to a .30-06 or a .300 win mag or a 7mm mag , then i agree with you.
But in itself im of a mind that its a very effective round.
Nice article you wrote also, i liked it.

Nightstalker
08-29-2003, 07:51 PM
How about a .223 compared to a .460 Weatherby magnum? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hopster
08-29-2003, 08:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> How about a .223 compared to a .460 Weatherby magnum? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Hey Night, i would like to see your shoulder after you fired 5 rounds from that .460 off the bench.
I would gladly play you some nine ball right afterwards. lol

Nightstalker
08-29-2003, 08:12 PM
Hey no problem hahaha, yeah right. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
08-29-2003, 08:18 PM
Well put Ross. You are wasting your time, as I am , but you put the choices very clearly.


Q

Qtec
08-29-2003, 09:19 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/timep.gun.control.tm/index.html


[ QUOTE ]
The NRA is much too much of a compromise organization. They are very moderate and help the anti-gun folks sometimes. They are about money in many ways <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">HaHaHaHa. OMG! </font color>


cnn article,

[ QUOTE ]
As the sniper investigation has progressed, at least one gun-control idea has gained favor: nearly three-quarters of Americans, according to last week's TIME/CNN poll, now support the idea of test-firing all guns sold in the U.S. so the distinctive markings they leave on bullets can be entered into a government database, which could be used to link individual guns to specific crimes. So far, four states are considering joining Maryland and New York in creating such a system.

But the gun lobby has vowed to fight it , with N.R.A. executive vice president Wayne LaPierre saying it is "another scheme that is gun registration masquerading as ballistics fingerprinting." The Bush Administration is lukewarm to the idea. Press secretary Ari Fleischer questioned the effectiveness of the technology two weeks ago and asserted, "In the case of the sniper, the real issue is values... The question is not new laws; the question is the actions here represent the values in our society." <font color="blue"> same BS arguement that eg8r repeats, now I know where it comes from. </font color>

It was only after realizing that his statement put the White House on the opposite side of law-enforcement groups that Fleischer was willing to say that the idea was worth exploring. That means it will take time for the proposal to advance, and time is never on the side of gun control. While public interest can fade quickly, the determination of gun groups never flags
<hr /></blockquote>

So the NRA is against registration. Why?

I think the situation has changed in the last 230 years , dont you. In todays America there is little chance of a President abolishing the Constitution and declaring himself emperor!



[ QUOTE ]
Even though it is a relatively ineffective small caliber.<hr /></blockquote>

Wrong.[ thank you Hopster]

I am not or ever have said that I am a gun expert.


The NRA is against gun registration and wants it to be made easier to buy weapons. They want criminals to have guns. Its the 'fear factor' that makes ordinary people buy guns for 'protection'.
There are already two guns for every citizen. In the year after 9/11 , almost 13 million were sold.


ie, the terrorists are coming. I need a gun.

Logical?


Q

Qtec
08-29-2003, 09:20 PM
I was correcting his mistake.

Q

Qtec
08-29-2003, 09:33 PM
You call it, "stirring things up", I call it "thought provoking". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Ross
08-29-2003, 10:07 PM
I agree that there should be stiffer penalties for people committing crimes with guns. But teens and angry people often don't think before they shoot, anyway.

True it may be difficult to legally define an assault weapon, but we all know one when we see one. It looks and fires something like an AK-47.

Anyway, our gun manufacturers and congress have decided that the average Joe needs more firepower than a mere "assault rifle-style" weapon can provide. For example, this nifty little "self-defense" weapon can be purchased by anyone in the US who has the extra dough sitting around:

http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/model82A1.jpg

The manufacturer of the Barrett Model 82A1, a .50 heavy sniper rifle, claims that the weapon can destroy armored personnel carriers, radar dishes, communications vehicles, and aircraft. Jane’s International Defense Review states that, depending on the exact round used, 50 caliber sniper rounds fired from distances as great as 300 meters can penetrate from 10 to 19 mm (.40 to .76 inches) of armor. This level of penetration applies in the case of military-style armor. Penetration of steel protective shields could be even greater. The publication describes 50 caliber sniper rifles as a “‘force multiplier’ for light, non-mechanised units,” with a “primary role” of the “destruction of vehicles, APCs [armored personnel carriers], helicopters, parked aircraft, fuel dumps and the like at ranges up to 2,000m” (nearly 2,200 yards). “The concept naturally appeals to special forces whose role includes creating mayhem behind enemy lines,” the article notes.

Can anyone tell me why the average law-abiding citizen needs armor piercing sniper rifles designed for war, not self-protection? How does getting this out there in the populace make me safer? Or my congressman or president?

Qtec
08-29-2003, 10:46 PM
Wow! Heavy $%it.

Any aircraft coming into land could be a target.With the fuel tanks almost empty , one spark could blow the plane to pieces.
That , at least ,should be a matter for concern.

Q

Nightstalker
08-29-2003, 11:24 PM
Wow, sounds like I need to get me one of them! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hopster
08-30-2003, 12:07 AM
Can anyone tell me why the average law-abiding citizen needs armor piercing sniper rifles designed for war, not self-protection? How does getting this out there in the populace make me safer? Or my congressman or president? &lt;--Ross

I know what youre trying to say but youre saying it wrong. Almost any rifle round can be made to be armor piercing, just a matter of jacketing an all steel slug. With enough velocity behind it, it will pierce armor.
Now that thats out of the way. I know 4 guys personally who own barretts. They use them for 1000-2000 yard competition, long range shooting. All are law abiding good guys. Now because these weapons are capable of having more energy than most others, they shouldnt be allowed ?
This is the old Clinton line again that everyone copycats and mimics : Why does anyone need an uzi for deer hunting?
Theres people that like military weapons and always have liked them for years, collectors. They dont go off the deep end just because they own them. The outdoor range that i have been a member of for the last 7 years is a good example. This is a huge facility, we have like 10 different ranges on the property. It has been in existence since 1962 and there has only been 1 fatality on it in all that time and that was this year. Someone got careless while cleaning a weapon and shot himself. Now why do i mention this ? Because on this range, you are allowed to bring FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons to shoot. We have specific areas for them.I have seen almsot everything you can name used there including the .50 caliber.
Now no one has gone ballisitc with any of this stuff, so why shouldnt people be allowed to own them.
I havent heard of 1 instance yet where someone shot someone else with a .50, it hasnt happened.
Its just more B.S. from the anti gunners to get people worked up.
The only guys going to buy these are collectors and long range target shooters.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-30-2003, 08:04 AM
Ross,

As usual you state your case eloquently. I agree with some. I disagree with some.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

1. An all-out effort to get ALL guns off the streets, except for law enforcement:

In this approach, guns would be treated like grenades are currently. All private gun ownership would be outlawed. Possession would be a criminal offense, and any guns found would be confiscated. (Don't pass out some of you pro-gun people!). It would be a criminal offense to import guns into the US or manufacture them in the US.

<hr /></blockquote>

I believe the recent events in Britain and Australia have proven this to be ill-advised. I also believe gun prohibition would be about as successful as alchohol prohibition was.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

...There would be heavy criminal penalties for any thug carrying a gun on the street...... <hr /></blockquote>

Bingo! See Project Exile in Richmond VA

re: #2: I don't believe in registration. It's the first step towards confiscation.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>.....I wouldn't want to piss Wally-in-Cincy off! .....<hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I've got an itchy trigger finger /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
08-30-2003, 09:40 PM
I love that quote.

eg8r

eg8r
09-03-2003, 11:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It is NOT illogical to be for gun control and simultaneously own a gun. <hr /></blockquote> Nope, we understand the logic of owning a gun. The person would be considered HYPOCRITICAL if he is pursuing gun control and packing at the same time.

[ QUOTE ]
(and if you believe unreported successful self-defenses in Durham this week outnumber this carnage, let me have som of what you are smoking!):
<hr /></blockquote> Ross, take some time and read through this article (http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html) and tell me what parts you disagree with. This article is obviously not based only in the city of Durham but I believe is based a bit more nationally.

eg8r

Qtec
09-03-2003, 11:55 AM
Oh yeah. GUN CITE. Who are Gun Cite, who sponsers them.
A pro-gun lobby or the NRA I expect.
Who wrote it? Doesnt say.

If more people have a heart attack after going to McDonalds ,than are killed by a gun, does this mean Hamurgers are more dangerous?


Statistics are made to be manipulated.This is an obvious example.

Q

Qtec
09-03-2003, 12:00 PM
Try this,
Kooky Kids (http://www.nra-kkk.org/)

eg8r
09-03-2003, 01:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. GUN CITE. Who are Gun Cite, who sponsers them.
A pro-gun lobby or the NRA I expect.
Who wrote it? Doesnt say.
<hr /></blockquote> I guess it would be one of three choices, pro-right-to-own guns, and anti-right-to-own gun people, and those in the middle. There are a lot of links on this site to anti and pro-gun sites.

It does not matter which side the person is on if you go back and READ what I asked...I wanted to know what sections you disagree with.

<font color="blue"> This is the source for the article, the authors names, the name of the article, and the Journal in which it was originally printed.

(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.) <font color="#666666"> Quote - "By this time there seems little legitimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive gun use is very common in the U.S., and that it probably is substantially more common than criminal gun use. This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders." </font color> </font color>

Once again, I am not asking if you are pro-gun or anti-gun, just take a few moments and read it and tell me what parts you disagree with. Maybe even throw me a bone and explain why you disagree with it.

More examples...If gun control went into effect, then law abiding citizens would be unarmed, the only armed people would be criminals and the police.... [ QUOTE ]
Indianapolis/Marion County - Homicide review conducted from 1997 thru mid-1998. Victims and suspects were chronic offenders.
Among homicide suspects:
75% had either an adult or juvenile criminal record.
An average of 3.7 adult arrests.
Those with a prior record averaged 6 adult arrests and 5.5 juvenile arrests.
Among homicide victims:
63% had adult or juvenile criminal records.
An average of 4.6 adult arrests.
Those with a prior record averaged 8 adult arrests and 4.5 juvenile arrests.
For the 206 suspects and victims:
1600 total arrests
500 arrests for violent crimes
800 convictions
53% of homicide incidents were drug-related. <hr /></blockquote> These are all actions taken by non-law-abiding citizens, and I do not think these same people would be reformed if the gun control activists had their way.

eg8r

eg8r
09-03-2003, 01:30 PM
Take a look at this page and its links... Alternatives to Gun Control (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcagenfo.html)

eg8r

Cueless Joey
09-03-2003, 05:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> I agree that there should be stiffer penalties for people committing crimes with guns. But teens and angry people often don't think before they shoot, anyway.

True it may be difficult to legally define an assault weapon, but we all know one when we see one. It looks and fires something like an AK-47.

Anyway, our gun manufacturers and congress have decided that the average Joe needs more firepower than a mere "assault rifle-style" weapon can provide. For example, this nifty little "self-defense" weapon can be purchased by anyone in the US who has the extra dough sitting around:

http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/model82A1.jpg

The manufacturer of the Barrett Model 82A1, a .50 heavy sniper rifle, claims that the weapon can destroy armored personnel carriers, radar dishes, communications vehicles, and aircraft. Jane’s International Defense Review states that, depending on the exact round used, 50 caliber sniper rounds fired from distances as great as 300 meters can penetrate from 10 to 19 mm (.40 to .76 inches) of armor. This level of penetration applies in the case of military-style armor. Penetration of steel protective shields could be even greater. The publication describes 50 caliber sniper rifles as a “‘force multiplier’ for light, non-mechanised units,” with a “primary role” of the “destruction of vehicles, APCs [armored personnel carriers], helicopters, parked aircraft, fuel dumps and the like at ranges up to 2,000m” (nearly 2,200 yards). “The concept naturally appeals to special forces whose role includes creating mayhem behind enemy lines,” the article notes.

Can anyone tell me why the average law-abiding citizen needs armor piercing sniper rifles designed for war, not self-protection? How does getting this out there in the populace make me safer? Or my congressman or president? <hr /></blockquote>
I'd like to have one of these in case a bear attacks me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Guess, what type of gun is least likely to be used in a crime. An EXPENSIVE one.
Let's make it simple. You commit a crime with a gun that goes off, you get HANGED! The NRA actually favors a stiffer penalty for gun crimes. The NRA started the 3-strikes call loooong ago until it became politically correct.

Qtec
09-04-2003, 12:49 AM
All law abiding citizens can own a gun and the criminals cant , thats what you want, isnt it?.
Seems ok to me, but there is a snitch. Criminals do have guns and they use them.
Gun control is about limiting the availability of weapons, not a totall ban because that will never happen.

The NRA and their backers,the makers of weapons, are about selling guns for profit no matter what the consequences for the puplic.They dont want any restrictions.

Just last night on the news I heard that gun crime in England has risen by 70% in the last 5 years.
Why?
Simple, its easy to buy a gun now on the black market. 25 years ago shootings were uncommon.Nowadays every punk-kid who robs people on the street has one.

What about Smart Guns? Too expensive probably?

Q

eg8r
09-04-2003, 07:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
All law abiding citizens can own a gun and the criminals cant , thats what you want, isnt it?.
<hr /></blockquote> No. Good or bad, everyone should have the right to own a gun. It is the police's job to make sure those that mis-use this right, are dealt with accordingly. I think we should start enforcing our laws, not restrict the law-abiding.

[ QUOTE ]
Just last night on the news I heard that gun crime in England has risen by 70% in the last 5 years.
Why?
Simple, its easy to buy a gun now on the black market. <hr /></blockquote> This is the most backward thinking I have ever seen. LOL, are you serious. Criminals prey on people they can take advantage of. Well, if the victim is not armed, then the guy packing can do what he wants.

eg8r

Qtec
09-04-2003, 07:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No. Good or bad, everyone should have the right to own a gun. <hr /></blockquote>

Even criminals? Thats madness.

Should everybody have the right to vote?

Is that mentioned anywhere in the Constitution?

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
09-04-2003, 07:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
No. Good or bad, everyone should have the right to own a gun. <hr /></blockquote>

Even criminals? Thats madness.

<font color="blue">Generally, convicted felons are not permitted to own guns. As it should be. </font color>

Should everybody have the right to vote?

<font color="blue">People who are incarcerated do not have the right to vote. As it should be. </font color>

Is that mentioned anywhere in the Constitution?

<font color="blue">You tell me. You're the expert on the Constitution apparently. </font color>

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Cueless Joey
09-04-2003, 09:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> All law abiding citizens can own a gun and the criminals cant , thats what you want, isnt it?.
Seems ok to me, but there is a snitch. Criminals do have guns and they use them.
Gun control is about limiting the availability of weapons, not a totall ban because that will never happen.

The NRA and their backers,the makers of weapons, are about selling guns for profit no matter what the consequences for the puplic.They dont want any restrictions.

Just last night on the news I heard that gun crime in England has risen by 70% in the last 5 years.
Why?
Simple, its easy to buy a gun now on the black market. 25 years ago shootings were uncommon.Nowadays every punk-kid who robs people on the street has one.

What about Smart Guns? Too expensive probably?

Q <hr /></blockquote>
Gun crime in England has risen?
Well, that just shows you the effectiveness of gun laws.

Aboo
09-05-2003, 04:27 PM
Wow... this is an excellent, thought provoking thread.
Just for the record. I'm pro-gun. I believe in a man's right to purchase and use responsibly any weapon that he so desires. I have seen gun "crime" up close and personal, even been involved in defending myself from it. They don't use 3,000$ .50 caliber rifles. The majority of gun crimes are commited with shot-guns and cheap pistols.
Why? 1.) Because they are the easiest to get.
but 2.) (And MOST importantly) is that next to NOTHING happens to them if they get caught.
3.) (Almost as important as #2) Because someone's parents were NOT doing their job at a young age.

Hopster and Wally seem to have this well in hand, I just wanted to post my vote.


We must understand and get at the root of the problem to solve violence, of any kind, in America. Banning guns to stop violence would be like putting rubber stoppers in your nose to stop a cold.