HOME | DD

Reddbecca In reply to YukonSilvermoon [2013-10-05 02:56:09 +0000 UTC]

Because the gun doesn't have the ability to vote.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Reddbecca In reply to zame328 [2012-12-16 01:44:58 +0000 UTC]

They don't give much of a fuck about that. People dying by droves from stabbing and bludgeoning doesn't concern them a bit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zame328 In reply to Reddbecca [2012-12-16 04:03:15 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Society thinks that by taking away guns, criminals will be like "Oh, well I guess I can't murder anyone today." That's just a bunch of nonsense. One way or another,bad guys WILL find a way to cause harm. Guns aren't the problem. People are.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Reddbecca In reply to zame328 [2012-12-16 17:42:11 +0000 UTC]

Time will tell if the voting sheep are smart enough and numerous enough to realize that fact and prevent reactionary change designed to soothe raw nerves.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

warmonger13 In reply to warmonger13 [2009-06-17 23:57:49 +0000 UTC]

ooooh, my bad, I copied WAY too much, im very sorry!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Reddbecca In reply to Mattacheeb [2007-12-07 00:40:13 +0000 UTC]

Yeah I know we have a need for them. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be required to display a "legitimate need for owning a particular type of gun" just so we can be allowed to own something.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mattacheeb In reply to Reddbecca [2007-12-07 08:22:28 +0000 UTC]

oh I see. And agree.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Reddbecca In reply to Doub1ehe1ix [2007-07-23 12:41:41 +0000 UTC]

Registered?

What a lot of people don't know is that at the time of purchase from a federally licensed dealer, both the gun and the buyer is registered with the BATFE, so they know who you are, where you live, and how many and what kind of guns you have.

I've been studying on the Tiahrt Amendment and what exactly firearms trace data is, and that's exactly what the data is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Doub1ehe1ix In reply to Reddbecca [2007-07-23 16:11:32 +0000 UTC]

No I know what you mean and stuff
Like I meant it's only wrong to have a gun if you buy it from an illegal dealer, and are planning to use it in a gang fight or something or if it's stolen.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Reddbecca In reply to Doub1ehe1ix [2007-07-23 17:12:50 +0000 UTC]

And then there has to be the determination of what's an illegal dealer.

Obviously the answer is somebody who KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY violates the laws and sells firearms to somebody who can't legally own them in the first place. Unfortunately we've got people that want to add regular people to the list of illegal dealers, simply because they don't like the idea of private sales.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Reddbecca In reply to timesplitter88 [2007-07-15 02:57:05 +0000 UTC]

Treading hot water big damn deal. Somebody's gotta stir things up and make people wake up and understand the truth. And since I'm such a boat rocker and noncomformist I'm perfect for the job.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

timesplitter88 In reply to Reddbecca [2007-07-15 18:17:26 +0000 UTC]

Amen!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Reddbecca In reply to Gneo [2007-05-24 17:16:52 +0000 UTC]

And said madman with psychological problems could kill whole families with a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, a motor vehicle, a roll of duct tape or even a bomb. If the guy has mental issues then he's obviously gonna be dangerous no matter what.

And because dangerous people like that exist, it's better for law-abiding people, who aren't causing problems, to have an effective method of protection in case they meet said madman.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

khaluuy In reply to Reddbecca [2008-10-11 07:13:59 +0000 UTC]

I AGREE!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

warmonger13 In reply to Gneo [2009-06-17 23:53:11 +0000 UTC]

Criminals still have illegal machineguns. Why don't we?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Reddbecca In reply to Gneo [2007-05-22 19:47:59 +0000 UTC]

Your point being...what exactly?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gneo In reply to Reddbecca [2007-05-23 12:29:29 +0000 UTC]

I was sarcastic...I think that encouraging people to have that sort of weapon is dangerous for everyone.
Have you ever thought of a world without weapons, where nobody can get them, nor you nor any criminal... that's why I'm against legalized weapons.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Reddbecca In reply to Gneo [2007-05-23 12:53:44 +0000 UTC]

Why exactly is "that sort of weapon" dangerous for everyone?

Yes I have actually, I've thought about what a world without weapons would be like. In a world where there are no weapons the strong can easily victimize and kill the weak because that's the natural order of things.

Without weapons the weak and the old will always be prey for strong predators, because the strong will know that the weak have absolutely no means of protecting themselves. Sheer brute strength and cruel intent will be the only determining factors.

In a world without weapons, if women wanted safety then they'd have to willingly belong to men who are strong, become their slaves so they'll provide protection.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Reddbecca [2007-05-25 18:57:56 +0000 UTC]

I think you might be over simplifying with your statement although I dont completely disargee with you, our ability to make and use weapons have allowed our species to survive the odds in a sence, before the spear we were at the mercy of the bear or lion for example, the gun is sort of an upgraded version of the spear, the invention of the gun basically meant WE were our biggest threats now, as no animal could hope to contend with it.
But in our world, the age of nukes and tanks, jets and auto-matic weapons, to survive with eachother in a peacefull way is the next great survival challenge.
You may not be one of these phsyco types who decides to open up in a school or shopping mall one day, but theyre around and can buy any kind of gun they want basically, this is why gun regulation and gun regestry is a good idea, because if its harder to get an auto-matic assault rifle, there is less of a chance that this type of person, (if they do or when they do) act out violently, that they will have 30 or so high velosity bullets to use on unsuspecting populace.
Basically what Im trying so say is, if somone were to snap in your vecinity would you rather they had a knife, or a gun?
I mean even if you had a gun also, that dosent mean anything really if he shoots you first, and maybie everybody else has one too, so you got this one guy killing everyone around him, and in the panic, 20 or so people pull out thier guns and start shooting, so this dude of the rampage takes a few bullets, but so does the kid in the stroller behind him, and the old guy to the left of that.
Plus a couple of people dont even know which one the inital shooter was and accidently take out one of the "good samaritains" with a weapon, thinking he was the guy who opened up first.
Its a mess in the end, all because its an uncontrolled situation brought about by an uncontrolled regulatory system.
One more thing, if you were to hunt with an assault rifle you'd do nothing but reck the meat of the animal, assault rifles are designed to do maximum damage, its thier intended use in a military situation.
Though I can understand your desire to have one, they are cool, but all Im saying is having laws in place saying the "avgerage cittizen " cant transport said weapon except in lock up, and that they cant own a magazine with more than 5 rounds, isnt such a bad thing in the end, because now in case they ever have a bad day, or come up with a plan to kill 20 people it will be that much harder for them to attempt to use thier weapon in an assault on the general population.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Roadless-I-Travel [2007-05-25 23:01:41 +0000 UTC]

Regulating the ammo and magizine capacity would indeed keep them form killing 30 people, in fact, restricting the type of weapons available to the public would keep those types of weapons out of the equation if not all together.
And sure the laws are dependent on the people to abide by, all laws infact are this way, doesnt mean we shouldnt have 'em, its called a "deturent" (sorry for my shitty spelling), its good to have them in place because it means that if they are broken consiquences can be brought before the act, whatever it may be.

Having every tom, dick or harry with an assault rifle or concealed weapon on the streets is not smart, because they arent allways smart.
And as for terrorists, how many attacks have you heard about since 9-11?
Do you really think you really have a rational fear of death from jihad in the u.s.?
Your more likly to be shot by somone having a bad day and snapping in traffic, or
by some punk on the street with a gun he stole form his neihbour.
Those two senarios are but a few of the ones that can and do happen in a society with out gun regulation, just cause your calm and collected at this moment dosnt mean you wont fly into a murderous rage the next, we're human, it happens, somplaces more than others depending on which way the social political winds are blowing.

Anyways, Ive got proof of this based on the nature of my own society, sure we have voilence, sure we have crime, but we dont have to many people shooting eachother, why? because the temptation isnt there.
I mean, you guys can buy guns at the safeway, just in case theres a jihad in the parking lot I guess, thats just nuts.

Sorry thats just the way I see it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Reddbecca In reply to Roadless-I-Travel [2007-05-25 21:33:50 +0000 UTC]

There are so many holes in need of addressing...

First, gun registry; this is absolutely stupid. So you know who owns a particular type of gun, so what? Is that going to keep him from killing 30 people before he's stopped? No! Is it going to deter a suicide attacker from killing a school room full of children? No! Is firearms registration contingent on the willingness of people to abide by it? Yes!

And if criminals decide they don't want to register their guns then there's nothing you can do, because it's been determined by the Supreme Court that requiring a criminal to register their guns, which they can't even own in the first place, violates their 5th Amendment rights.

You're right though, just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'll escape unharmed. But it sure as hell increases my chances of coming out alive, because I'm not helpless and at the mercy of somebody who simply doesn't care.

You seem to fail a basic concept. Gun control only affects the law-abiding, because criminals violate all laws simply by being alive. And if they're willing to murder you and rape your loved ones, then violating federal law to obtain a gun from an illegal source isn't going to provide them with any difficulty or discourage them one bit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Reddbecca [2007-05-25 23:04:33 +0000 UTC]

Regulating the ammo and magizine capacity would indeed keep them form killing 30 people, in fact, restricting the type of weapons available to the public would keep those types of weapons out of the equation if not all together.
And sure the laws are dependent on the people to abide by, all laws infact are this way, doesnt mean we shouldnt have 'em, its called a "deturent" (sorry for my shitty spelling), its good to have them in place because it means that if they are broken consiquences can be brought before the act, whatever it may be.

Having every tom, dick or harry with an assault rifle or concealed weapon on the streets is not smart, because they arent allways smart.
And as for terrorists, how many attacks have you heard about since 9-11?
Do you really think you really have a rational fear of death from jihad in the u.s.?
Your more likly to be shot by somone having a bad day and snapping in traffic, or
by some punk on the street with a gun he stole form his neihbour.
Those two senarios are but a few of the ones that can and do happen in a society with out gun regulation, just cause your calm and collected at this moment dosnt mean you wont fly into a murderous rage the next, we're human, it happens, somplaces more than others depending on which way the social political winds are blowing.

Anyways, Ive got proof of this based on the nature of my own society, sure we have voilence, sure we have crime, but we dont have to many people shooting eachother, why? because the temptation isnt there.
I mean, you guys can buy guns at the safeway, just in case theres a jihad in the parking lot I guess, thats just nuts.

Sorry thats just the way I see it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Reddbecca In reply to Roadless-I-Travel [2007-05-25 23:26:16 +0000 UTC]

If regulating magazines and weapons worked, then why did the North Hollywood Shootout of 1997, in California, happen during the Federal ban on "assault weapons" and magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition?

Fact: There are millions upon millions of firearms currently circulating in the black market. No law passed is going to take these out of circulation, because they can't be found except by criminals. Even if thousands are intercepted the seized, that's nowhere near the total amount that the criminals can get on the street, in the gutter or in some back alley.

As for 9/11 and fear of attack, there's more than terrorists to worry about. Like you said you're more likely to be shot by somebody with a stolen gun, or somebody with mental instabilities who had no qualms with murdering many.

It essentially comes down to this: are you going to be armed, or are you going to be defensless and open to attack from somebody who doesn't care if you live or die?

Being unarmed by unenforcable law isn't a solution to a problem, it's an equation for pure and simple bloodshed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Reddbecca [2007-05-26 01:34:45 +0000 UTC]

Wow, you guys live in a very violent society, come up here to Canada, sit down with somone you dont know and have a beer, you'd be surprised the difference it probably makes on your mind to know that the guy across the room giving you the eye probably doesnt have a gun on him.

Man, thats gotta be stressfull.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

warmonger13 In reply to SiorGiggles [2009-06-17 23:55:40 +0000 UTC]

Shit hit the fan that's a good thing to have. And Australia, look at what happened there:

* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
* Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
* In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
* There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
* At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
* From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
* The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
* The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
* Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Reddbecca In reply to SiorGiggles [2007-05-22 19:51:44 +0000 UTC]

Well why don't you find the people who survived Hurricane Katrina, and the shop owners from the 1992 Los Angelas Riots and explain to them exactly why they shouldn't have 10+ round magazines.

Why don't you explain to them exactly why they don't "need" to have semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines that can hold more than ten rounds? Why don't you explain to them that their lives are not worth having non-sporting equipment? Why don't you explain to them that their lives are worth less than the people that are trying to kill them?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Reddbecca [2007-05-25 19:02:58 +0000 UTC]

The fact is, if there wasnt so many crazies with guns, the riots wouldve been alot less traumatic, katrina too.
Just look at other countries that have strict gun laws, thier violent crime rate per capita is 100% lower than nations with out such laws, child death is lower also.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Reddbecca In reply to Roadless-I-Travel [2007-05-25 19:18:20 +0000 UTC]

Explain Switzerland then.

Every man is required to be in the militia until a certain age. Every militia member is required to keep military service weapons and ammunition at home if the need to use them arises.

Switzerland has a much stronger shooting tradition than America. The ratio of people owning guns in Switzerland exceed the ratio of people in America owning guns. Here it's about 1 in 3, over there it's about 1 in 2.

And over in Switzerland firearm related death is very low; 300 a year, mostly suicides.

So obviously the presence of guns doesn't make for a more dangerous society.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Reddbecca [2007-05-25 22:23:18 +0000 UTC]

No its the attitude, the I dont know much about the gun laws in switzerland but I do know however that in their society guns are not paraded around with the same attitude of those in the u.s.
People there are indeed required to be trained in the military, they all know how to handle weapons its true, but they are not allowed to carry them around, as far as I know that is unacceptible in thier society, they are trained for the sole purpose of defending from forigen invaders, they dont worry about gang shootings or random acts of violence so much because of the way there society is governed.
In the u.s. it seems as if the weapons are handed over at a very uncerimonius and random way to who ever wants to own one, with out proper training and without a societal sense of well being for those around him/her.
The attitude seems to be a basterdized misguided idea of security and personal safety that doesnt seem to touch of the idea of others at all, it pretends to be good and rightious but in fact is self serving and paranoid.
It actually works against society if this attitude of continous fear and agression against the unseen foe is allowed to continue, Shit does happen its true, but it happens alot less in a society in which the populace is taught to be civil above all else.
So in closing the problem is not the guns, but the people, or rather the attitude they have to saftey and security, its hard not to give into it if your trained to be that way.
So in a way your absolutly right, guns arent the problem, your society is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Reddbecca In reply to Roadless-I-Travel [2007-05-25 22:38:26 +0000 UTC]

Wrong. It's very possible, sometimes easy, to get a permit to carry a weapon, I checked. It's not uncommon to see somebody carry a rifle on their back at the grocery store when coming back from an afternoon at the range.

At the annual shoots Switzerland is known for, millions of people carry their weapons to ranges and designated shooting locations. They come by bus, by car, by bike, some just plain walk, all of them carrying one manner of firearm or another, all of them proud of it.

Well the problem might be society, but denying guns to the law-abiding isn't going to do anything to solve the problem or even approach the issue at hand.

It's not paranoid to be armed either, no more than it's raging paranoia to have a spare tire, insurance or to buckle your seatbelt when driving. Like you said, shit happens. And if shit happens and you're unprepared then too bad for you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Reddbecca [2007-05-26 01:30:11 +0000 UTC]

Ok then, so they do carry thier guns around, but if what you say is true then thier direct intent is not one of self defence, but of recreation, albeit keeping your shooting skills up is probably in thier somwhere for the purpose of national defence and alike.

Your right, gun registry (the way it is implimented in the u.s.) is more of a band-aid solution to a much larger issue, but perhaps it is the start of somthing more solid. There really are no strict laws in your country governing the massive supply of arms and ammo at your disposal, I think this is a problem, its a very volitile and dangerous problem.

No its not paranoid to be prepared, it is however paranoid to believe you need a gun incase the "terrorists" decide to gas bomb the 7-11, or the local elementry school, almost all the gun violence in the u.s. is caused by the average cittizen, just the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong way of looking at things.

Imagine what it would be like in your gettos if weapons wernt so readilly available, I bet you almost all cases of death among the youth would be cut back 90%, and all these school shootings? The fact is that it is to easy to carry out gun violence in your country, anyone whos been there or watches American news knows how violent it is, if there where not only attiqutely tough gun laws but a massive move towards destroying or retriving all restricted weapons it would take the random quality out of gun violence since the only the "true" criminal element would be albe to get them, and when you compare the actuall amount of "professional criminals" to the overall population of "potential" criminals that we represent, its relitively low.

What Im saying is even if you can get black market weapons, its that much harder if you cant buy the ammo at wall mart, which means your less likely to just use it on some random person, you'll have more of a goal or target in mind.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Ah-Teen In reply to Roadless-I-Travel [2007-07-14 18:54:54 +0000 UTC]

"Imagine what it would be like in your gettos if weapons wernt so readilly available, I bet you almost all cases of death among the youth would be cut back 90%, and all these school shootings?"

"gettos" sell illegal guns, often smuggled in or stolen. Often these such cities already ban most weapons. No youth under 18 can legally buy any firearm or ammo any. No youth uner 21 can purchase a handgun or pistol.

"The fact is that it is to easy to carry out gun violence in your country, anyone whos been there or watches American news knows how violent it is."

Well thar's yer' problem. American media show what sells, ie violence, celebrities and drama, seriously we spent a month on a dead bimbo. Thats why I don't watch or listen to it. Second, I've lived here my whole life, and I'm not worried about the general level of violence(near nil). I'm more worried about the odd bunch of drunk teens in a pickup with baseball bats and crowbars looking for some helpless fag who obviously doesn't carry a gun. IE myself who until I turn 21 cannot legally carry a weapon on my person. (bs)

"if there where not only attiqutely tough gun laws but a massive move towards destroying or retriving all restricted weapons it would take the random quality out of gun violence since the only the "true" criminal element would be albe to get them, and when you compare the actuall amount of "professional criminals" to the overall population of "potential" criminals that we represent, its relitively low."

Many of our highest violent crime rates are in cities that all but ban guns. such as LA, DC, and New York.

Guns aren't sold to criminals legally. No one that has ever had a felony conviction can be in possession of a lethal weapon.

"Woooow, fantastic! Shooting people with machineguns is terrific! Ordinary guns are for the weak, we want more firepower!"

No Geno, in the hands of you average shooter a 22 isnt all that lethal(not to say it wont) and a machine gun improperly used is rather useless. North Hollywood shoot out is a prime example. Lots of round but relatively few casualties.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Ah-Teen [2007-07-17 19:25:45 +0000 UTC]

Stolen from abundant sources that clearly exist in your neck of the woods.

You dont worry about the violence, yet some random teens with crow bars are the first thing to come to your mind, is that cause there is a reasonible threat of this, or are you making up excuses to carry a weapon?

Violent crimes in these cities that ban guns, how much of that is gun violence? (im asking), plus dont these places have huge populations?
Crime is somthing realated to disparity between levels of social status, and in a market economy its bound to happen sooner or later.(its a problem in itself, which i wont go into)

Again, the guns may not be sold to criminals legally, but like you dais, that wont stop anyone(sides, theres plenty of legally purchased ones for the taking right?)

And finally, what does the rate of casualties or skill of the shooter have to do with the fact they where able to aquire these weapons in the first place, wouldnt it be better if they wernt available in the country in the first place?

Seems fishy to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ah-Teen In reply to Roadless-I-Travel [2007-07-18 06:14:27 +0000 UTC]

Stolen guns from owners who didn't properly protect their weapons. Illegal guns are smuggled into our country and there is no way to stop them. For example, we do not manufacture or import quantities automatic AK-47s, however they are common choices for criminals because they are cheap as dirt if gotten illegally.

You speak as though Americans are waist deep in guns, well guess what, the majority of Americans while can get a weapon, do not. Most have never even fired one. However most of us support their legal ownership.

I don't worry about violence on wide scale such as a gang war or nut jobs running though the streets with guns. I do worry about people who hate me for what I am. We do not suppress ideas such as hating gays, blacks or jews because that would be a violation of our first amendment rights, our right to say what we will no matter how unpopular or vile it is. We can only suppress actions, and often those actions are violent and we do not have police everywhere to stop them. I will not be murdered by some thug who think fags should burn in hell. I value my life above the life of that thug purely of the basis that he is attacking me with the intention of killing me. I wish words could stop attacks, but they will not.

"Violent crimes in these cities that ban guns, how much of that is gun violence? (im asking), plus dont these places have huge populations?
Crime is somthing realated to disparity between levels of social status, and in a market economy its bound to happen sooner or later.(its a problem in itself, which i wont go into)"

First I'd like to address crime being disparity between social status. Its usually not. Often they are caused by the same thing though. Most criminals in the US prison systems have learning disabilities that prevent them from learning how to function effectively in society. They have not learned normal social functions and so they tend to be both poor and tend toward crime. This is part of the reason they continue commiting crime after they are released, they haven't been taught how to function correctly as most people learn naturally.

Gang crime and violence often falls under this. Gangs are a society where their particular deviant behavior is not outcast. Gangs are accepting of those who do not live within social norms because they are formed by like minded people.

As for the gun crime rates in a city that bans firearms, I didn't find one, however I did find something equally valid providing evidence that crime rates are because of the dense population rather than who has the guns.
[link]

It's cliche I know but "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" Firearms are only the method, they make killing easier. I do not believe getting rid of them will lower anything except the number of gun homicides. In a world of no guns we killed each other with knives because they make killing easier and so with clubs.

"And finally, what does the rate of casualties or skill of the shooter have to do with the fact they where able to aquire these weapons in the first place, wouldnt it be better if they wernt available in the country in the first place?"

That was inresponse to Gneo's post below. You do not understand why we are allowed to own firearms in the first place. Ownership of weapons is not for hunting, it is not to protect one's self from crime. It has never been that. The ownership of weapons is so that the people may overthrow the government by force if the government stops listening to the words of the people.

I wish words could prevent all the bad things in this world. But words are not going to prevent a crowbar swinging at my head, and words are not going to stop tyrants from murdering people.

Our system if built on checks and balances, house and senate balance each other and hold power over the executive branch, executive branch holds power over judicial branch, and the judicial branch holds power over the house and senate.

People with weapons able to topple that government ultimately hold power over all parts of the government.

The American civil war would not have happened if the government held all the guns. While many regard the American civil war as a tragedy I hold it as a triumph of the second amendment of the US constitution, the people said we will not be forced to live under laws and taxes we do not believe in, the government will not listen to us, and so we will make the government listen. After the civil war many of the issues that the south had were addressed. They made their government listen to them. That is the ultimate reason to own weapons of any sort.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Roadless-I-Travel In reply to Ah-Teen [2007-07-18 18:28:27 +0000 UTC]

You have good points, but I still feel theres somthing we're missing here, anyways, Agree to disagree?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Ah-Teen In reply to Roadless-I-Travel [2007-07-14 18:53:43 +0000 UTC]

"Imagine what it would be like in your gettos if weapons wernt so readilly available, I bet you almost all cases of death among the youth would be cut back 90%, and all these school shootings?"

"gettos" sell illegal guns, often smuggled in or stolen. Often these such cities already ban most weapons. No youth under 18 can legally buy any firearm or ammo any. No youth uner 21 can purchase a handgun or pistol.

"The fact is that it is to easy to carry out gun violence in your country, anyone whos been there or watches American news knows how violent it is."

Well thar's yer' problem. American media show what sells, ie violence, celebrities and drama, seriously we spent a month on a dead bimbo. Thats why I don't watch or listen to it. Second, I've lived here my whole life, and I'm not worried about the general level of violence(near nil). I'm more worried about the odd bunch of drunk teens in a pickup with baseball bats and crowbars looking for some helpless fag who obviously doesn't carry a gun. IE myself who until I turn 21 cannot legally carry a weapon on my person. (bs)

"if there where not only attiqutely tough gun laws but a massive move towards destroying or retriving all restricted weapons it would take the random quality out of gun violence since the only the "true" criminal element would be albe to get them, and when you compare the actuall amount of "professional criminals" to the overall population of "potential" criminals that we represent, its relitively low."

Many of our highest violent crime rates are in cities that all but ban guns. such as LA, DC, and New York.

Guns aren't sold to criminals legally. No one that has ever had a felony conviction can be in possession of a lethal weapon.

"Woooow, fantastic! Shooting people with machineguns is terrific! Ordinary guns are for the weak, we want more firepower!"

No Geno, in the hands of you average shooter a 22 isnt all that lethal(not to say it wont) and a machine gun improperly used is rather useless. North Hollywood shoot out is a prime example. Lots of round but relatively few casualties.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SiorGiggles In reply to Reddbecca [2007-05-22 21:46:04 +0000 UTC]

Because that should be an army's task. That's what they're made for, not invading other countries with no connection to 9/11, for example.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

DarkStar2032 In reply to SiorGiggles [2007-06-15 06:15:07 +0000 UTC]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

This is not an argument about safety or your slanted apathetic world politics. This is a fight over a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Remember that when the Constitution was drafted, there was no difference between civilian and military firearms.
The armed forces make up less than 1% of the total national population. That is one of the reasons for an armed populace.
The other is to keep the power in the hands of the people.

And as for "invading other countries" this country has been doing that since it's birth.
So has several other countries.

Power to the people!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1