Does anyone else think we need less gun control?

CaseyRyback

CaseyRyback

CAGiversary!
Feedback
131 (100%)
I only ask this because in my English class the other day nearly half the guys in the class said they wanted less gun control. In the back of my mind I almost started laughing. Mainly because most of the kids in the class probably could not buy a handgun, and on top of that, it is incredibly easy to buy a gun.

Now I say all this with the disclaimer that my dad has probably 10 guns upstairs and I have no problem with people owning guns. I just think that the fact that it is so easy to own a gun makes less gun control kind of dumb. What are you going to do? Let felons now carry guns, let people carry guns on them where ever they go?

I just do not see how you could make it easier to get a gun than it is, and not risk putting guns in the wrong hands.


Also I may be young, but I watched my friend's mom buy a gun not too long ago and it was very simple. Less than 20 minutes of paperwork, and a 5 day wait, and she had her gun.
 
The logic is the more people that have guns means the more people who will be able to defend themselves, therefore deterring crime. Personally I think we need more gun control and find the above logic to be a joke.
 
I think we need to have real gun controil.

There are over 4,000 rules and shit before owning a gun, the problem is we don't follow those, so why need more?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The logic is the more people that have guns means the more people who will be able to defend themselves, therefore deterring crime. Personally I think we need more gun control and find the above logic to be a joke.[/quote]

Who ever said that defending yourself was supposed to deter crime? People don't defend themselves to send a message - they defend themselves to stay alive. Where do you get this stuff from?
 
there def needs to be stricter gun control. THere is no need for automatic weapons in the public sector. Only law enforcement and military should be allowed to use these weapons. People blow the 2nd ammendment out of porportion. Some of the same people that are against Roe vs Wade because they feel it is not good to interperate the constitution, but they can stretch the 2nd ammendment so they can own automatic weapons.
 
Most crooks will not buy their guns from a store, they will buy them on the street

although i still dont see a need for less gun controls
 
[quote name='AlbinoNinja']Most crooks will not buy their guns from a store, they will buy them on the street
[/quote]

That is a fact too.

In countries that banned weapons crime went up because the good people sent their guns in and the bad guys of course did not.
 
Owning a gun in NYC is nearly impossible. It shouldn't be so. When I move to Nevada I am heading to the local gun store and getting me a shotty and possibly a handgun. I might get a rifle too if they have one at a fair price.

Guns are great. More people die in car accidents but you don't see anyone trying to make it hard to get a license or to buy a car. Cars SUCK.
 
Because more people drive more cars more often then use a gun.

Plus we need cars, but they also ban cell phones in cars even through that is only like 2.2% of crashes and food/radio combined is like 50%.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']there def needs to be stricter gun control. THere is no need for automatic weapons in the public sector. Only law enforcement and military should be allowed to use these weapons. People blow the 2nd ammendment out of porportion. Some of the same people that are against Roe vs Wade because they feel it is not good to interperate the constitution, but they can stretch the 2nd ammendment so they can own automatic weapons.[/quote]

It's arguments and statements like this that prove how truly out of touch and ignorant you are. Automatic weapons have been banned by the Federal government since the 1920's yet people like you think they're legal and still in use by people today. Clue, a, get. Here's your nickel to get one.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']there def needs to be stricter gun control. THere is no need for automatic weapons in the public sector. Only law enforcement and military should be allowed to use these weapons. People blow the 2nd ammendment out of porportion. Some of the same people that are against Roe vs Wade because they feel it is not good to interperate the constitution, but they can stretch the 2nd ammendment so they can own automatic weapons.[/quote]

It's arguments and statements like this that prove how truly out of touch and ignorant you are. Automatic weapons have been banned by the Federal government since the 1920's yet people like you think they're legal and still in use by people today. Clue, a, get. Here's your nickel to get one.[/quote]

And he doesn't understand the Roe v Wade decision either, probably never read it, just heard about it on TV or when the teacher read to him.

And I'll hazzard a guess he's never fired a firearm either. But he has seen them on TV. You'd think a little understanding would seep in, though, because it's always the criminal on TV who has the illegal automatic weapon. DUH!
 
Defender, when you move to Nevada you should be able to pick up all three for about oh.... $800.

You could pick up a Remington shotgun for about $250. Berretta 92F handgun for about $450. Then you could easily get a .30/..30 or .30/6 for $200 bolt action or semi-automatic depending on your preference. Then you'll have all three.

I have a Remington Magnum Marine which is super nice, nickel plated and will make nice big holes in a home intruder. It's packed of course with flechette rounds which are nothing more than nails with dart fins.

I had a Beretta 92D which I sold, same series as the 92F I recommend (Military standard issue.), the gun had no mechanical saftey whatsoever and was strictly double action. I don't know what I was thinking when I bought it.

For a rifle if you want a plinking rifle (Something you can shoot inexpensively.) get a Ruger 10/22 series of .22's. They're about $200, have 10 round magazines and you can shoot .22 ammo all day long for less than $10.

If yo're looking for a high powered rifle go with the above I mentioned. If you're looking for something military I do recommend you invest the money in a quality piece like an AR-15, the civillian version of the M-16. If you get the heavy barrel you'll have a gun that your grandkids grandkids will have around. I'm also quite found of the Steyer Aug ($1,300+), made legal again this fall due to a Republican congress :D, which is a bullpup design (Magazine behind the trigger/trigger grip.) made in Austria that uses the same ammunition as the AR-15, the NATO standard 5.56 MM. It's lighweight, features many plasic/composite parts but the accuracy, durability and longevity so far as matched a traditional design which is a first in bullpup designs of heaver gague ammunition.

If you truly want something of a quality military design but not as costly as the above I highly recommed the Ruger Mini-14 (Civillian version of the M-14, precursor to the M-16j which is a 7.62 MM carbine. They run around $300-400 and were never made illegal due to them being domestically manufactured, see why the assault weapons ban was a joke?

The M-1 Garrand, the WWII standard issue, can be found in nearly any gun shop in America in decent shape. These things are absolutely brutal weapons. They are .30.-06 with 8 round box magazines. This is the same type of ammo used on high powered hunting rifles. Much heavier rounds than lighter/faster 5.56 MM standard. They're relatively cheap, in the $300-500 range depending on condition.

If you've been playing Rainbow Six 3, you may think the L851 bullpup looks like a neat gun, 5.56MM ammo again. However this British standard issue rifle is loathed by troops in the field. It may be like the early model M-16's that just needed perfecting for combat or it could be just a bad design. I go with the bad design. Bullpups are too inconsistent to be a standard issue firearm.

I love talking guns.
 
Here's my take on gun control:

I think guns are a lot like drugs. Possibly harmful, strictly controlled, etc, etc, but more to the point, there's a high demand for them. Like drugs, people who want guns are going to find ways to get them. By imposing harsh gun restrictions, we're only creating a black market for guns, much the same way we have for drugs.

I think if we're going to take any steps toward reducing the amount of handgun violence in America (arguably the goal of most gun legislation in this country), we need to attack the demand for guns, not the supply. We need to make people aware that guns kill people. We need to help people see that, more likely than not, your neighbor is not out to get you. We need to stop listening to the media in this country, that wants us to be paranoid and afraid of everything. We need to learn to look at our fellow man and see a fellow American, not a threat.

This is a very simplified way of making a complex point, so try not to dismiss this with a simple "GO HOME, HIPPIE!" Just answer me this: if no one wanted to own a gun, or wanted to use a gun, would we have handgun deaths in this country?
 
[quote name='Scrubking']

Who ever said that defending yourself was supposed to deter crime? People don't defend themselves to send a message - they defend themselves to stay alive. Where do you get this stuff from?[/quote]

um the NRA...
On Concealed Weapons in Schools
"Allowing teachers and other law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns in schools would not only make it easier to stop shootings in progress, it could also help deter shootings from ever occurring."
The Wall Street Journal
Click to expand...

I guess your state have never been through a concealed weapons law debate.
 
[quote name='camoor']More guns, less abortion, more war, less tolerance.

The pro-suffering party.[/quote]

As opposed to the contradiction party, the one that wants:

-less guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

-more people to kill their babies and have ME pay for it instead of making them pay for it him/herself,

-war avoidence at all costs, regardless if there is someone at war with us and killing our citizens already,

-More tolerance for people who hate americans, people who hate capitalism, and people who hate god.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='bmulligan'] and people who hate god.[/quote]

Now I'm confused do you mean god or do you mean our (Christian) god?[/quote]

Deos it really matter? The left seem to like to make fun of christianity, or at least the ones that voted for Bush. How about Bush's god, then ?

Don't forget the god of jesus, moses, and mohammed is all the same god. The god of Abraham; they just disagree on who the real prophet was.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='camoor']More guns, less abortion, more war, less tolerance.

The pro-suffering party.[/quote]

As opposed to the contradiction party, the one that wants:

-less guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

-more people to kill their babies and have ME pay for it instead of making them pay for it him/herself,

-war avoidence at all costs, regardless if there is someone at war with us and killing our citizens already,

-More tolerance for people who hate americans, people who hate capitalism, and people who hate god.[/quote]

Yeah, guns (like assault weapons and sat night specials, I'm not talking about hunting rifles) have done wonders for the USA in modern times

Who said anything about making bmulligan pay for all of the abortions.

I was unaware that Sadaam was killing US citizens. Is this the latest reason for the war, maybe he was the real "Green River Serial Killer"

America was setup to tolerate everyone's views, from bmulligan right over to the leftiest lefter. It's even a constitutional amendment! :shock: :shock: :shock:
 
camoor wrote:
More guns, less abortion, more war, less tolerance.

The pro-suffering party.


As opposed to the contradiction party, the one that wants:

-less guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

-more people to kill their babies and have ME pay for it instead of making them pay for it him/herself,

-war avoidence at all costs, regardless if there is someone at war with us and killing our citizens already,

-More tolerance for people who hate americans, people who hate capitalism, and people who hate god.
Click to expand...
Please. You guys are both oversimplifying things. Nobody wants anyone to suffer, nobody wants more war, and certainly nobody wants to kill babies or keep law-abiding citizens from getting guns. Everybody wants the same thing: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, peace, freedom, etc etc. The fact is, people have different ideas about these things. What these things mean, what the best way is to achieve them, and so on. Rather than demonizing people that disagree with us, we should try to understand where they're coming from.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='camoor']More guns, less abortion, more war, less tolerance.

The pro-suffering party.[/quote]

As opposed to the contradiction party, the one that wants:

-less guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

-more people to kill their babies and have ME pay for it instead of making them pay for it him/herself,

-war avoidence at all costs, regardless if there is someone at war with us and killing our citizens already,

-More tolerance for people who hate americans, people who hate capitalism, and people who hate god.[/quote]

no one is ever going to take away your guns. The Democrats are not that far to the left.

killing babies is cheaper than killing them when they turn 18, not to mention welfare expenses and foster care.

You mention War, yet people voted for the candiate who avoided war at all costs.
 
[quote name='RELmajor03']Please. You guys are both oversimplifying things. Nobody wants anyone to suffer, nobody wants more war, and certainly nobody wants to kill babies or keep law-abiding citizens from getting guns.[/quote]

However neocons DO want more war. For them, any action can be justified as long as it has the effect of spreading democracy and capitalism.
 
[quote name='RELmajor03']
camoor wrote:
More guns, less abortion, more war, less tolerance.

The pro-suffering party.


As opposed to the contradiction party, the one that wants:

-less guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

-more people to kill their babies and have ME pay for it instead of making them pay for it him/herself,

-war avoidence at all costs, regardless if there is someone at war with us and killing our citizens already,

-More tolerance for people who hate americans, people who hate capitalism, and people who hate god.
Click to expand...
Please. You guys are both oversimplifying things. Nobody wants anyone to suffer, nobody wants more war, and certainly nobody wants to kill babies or keep law-abiding citizens from getting guns. Everybody wants the same thing: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, peace, freedom, etc etc. The fact is, people have different ideas about these things. What these things mean, what the best way is to achieve them, and so on. Rather than demonizing people that disagree with us, we should try to understand where they're coming from.[/quote]

Of course nobody wants more war, except for the aformentioned islamic zealots. But the left DOES want to take guns away from citizens. They admit such any chance they get, usually after someone has been killed with a handgun. Anytime CCW 'right-to-carry' legislation rolls around the same libs cry that there will be blood in the streets from all the concealed weapons floating around. It's never happened, though. In fact, murder rates have been declining in these areas. You never hear about it because less people dying doesn't sell newspapers.

[quote name='camoor']However neocons DO want more war. For them, any action can be justified as long as it has the effect of spreading democracy and capitalism.[/quote]

A justified action does is not an excuse for war, it's a reason. Democrats always need some type of 'excuse' for anybody's actions, even their own. Nobody want's war camoor. Some just decide to put on their blindfolds and deny reality to justify avoiding it at all costs.

I think the ridiculousness of yourt statement that neocons, or any other rational people, want a war for no reason really doesn't deserve a response, explanation, or an 'excuse'.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I think the ridiculousness of yourt statement that neocons, or any other rational people, want a war for no reason really doesn't deserve a response, explanation, or an 'excuse'.[/quote]

Neocons aren't rational people, however the do have a reason for the wars that they want to fight (to overthrow dictatorships/socialist regimes/thocracies and replace them with democracy and capitalism).

It's not a good reason to send American troops in, kill thousands of people, throw countries into a state of chaos, and create US animosity around the world, but hey, it's a reason.
 
We are not the ones keeping Iraq in chaos, you can blame the idiots rith bombs who want the power to subjugate as many people as possible to their version of allah's word.

You can't be serious if you really believe they are fighting us because we're 'occupiers'. We pose a threat to their clerics' new regime by allowing citizens to vote freely for representatives.

They are not fighting for Iraqi freedom. In their version of Islam, only 'ordained' people, not elected, can rule muslims. To them, rule is by fiat, not consensus.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']We are not the ones keeping Iraq in chaos, you can blame the idiots rith bombs who want the power to subjugate as many people as possible to their version of allah's word.

You can't be serious if you really believe they are fighting us because we're 'occupiers'. We pose a threat to their clerics' new regime by allowing citizens to vote freely for representatives.

They are not fighting for Iraqi freedom. In their version of Islam, only 'ordained' people, not elected, can rule muslims. To them, rule is by fiat, not consensus.[/quote]

They're fighting for a theocracy. Or a religious dictatorship.

Regardless, the reason now given for this war is that it's spreading democracy and capitalism (the neocon manifesto).

As an American, I want my taxes to fund the US military only to the extent that it protects American citizens, property, and trading rights. I would also support using the military can help to coordinate missions of humanitarian aid, as these efforts boost pro-American sentiment and it's always wise to help your neighbors.

I'm not part of some holy crusade to bring truth, light, capitalism, democracy, and the American way to every country in the world. Let George Dubya and the red staters fund their "neocon world tour 2002 - 2008"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top