But these (*)(*)(*)(*)ed idiots that have no idea how to handle a weapon might!! We don't need gun bans we need competency testing! IQ to low... No Gun! Cant pass the ASVAB in the top 40 percentile.. No GUN! Yes for every American! Psychological testing for every American! I propose an idiot card! Hell we need to do the same for cars and even parenting! It is not a dictatorship if the people demand it!
So no proper training for new gun owners just testing to see if they are intelligent enough to know how to use a fire arm? IF your testing people to see if they are too dumb to own a fire arm why not ban people who look too dangerous to own a firearm as well (Consider your picture rebel flag revolver w/scope) (Nice Gun by the way) Would it really help? Person 1: Well your too dumb to own a gun so no gun for you Person 2: Well you look to aggressive so no gun for you
If a person is just stupid don't waste time training them to own and operate a gun! Train them to not touch them! Look at what happens when idiots get guns. I mean all these accidental shootings? Pure freaking incompetence. Looks are subjective and what look dangerous to one is not to another.
I fully agree, I can get close to anyone holding onto a pen (Hard plastic, Stainless steel pens, a pencil will work) and they are "harlmess" but can do as much damage as a knife (especially complete stainless steel pens) im still waiting for someone to outlaw those lol
Those of limited intelligence would believe that but the fact that people live in the US makes your point moot.
Those who support guns are mostly naive simpletons brought up on cowboy films and gunsellers' propaganda, as you know. The US is a brainwashed society, alas, which is about it. What's to say to nutters?
You see your arrogance is greatly outweighed by your ignorance where American gun owners are concerned.
Well my nickname growing up was cowboy So, To a sense your still right. lol I support guns and dont plan to be a killer (Not that joining the polic department hasnt caught my attention once or twice ) But honestly. One reason I think guns in the home or for protection has become to vast is the simple fact that people arent "Men" as you would say anymore. I remember you got into a fight it was one on one, fist only. Then everyone tried one up'ing each other, I am 27 and am not afraid to get my butt whooped, But I always carry a knife (Mostly as a tool, I ride a motorcycle and haveing a large folder to use as a screwdriver "I know I know bad for a blade" or push bar "yes yes, I know" helps) But if someone pulls a knife on me, I am at least prepared, Not owning it to kill but same if someone pulls a gun on me, I am outmatched if I pull my knife unless its close quarter. Then I have a better chance of surviving. To say everyone who likes guns is a killer is like saying everyone who dislikes guns is a bed wetter.
I don't carry a knife or a gun. If I need a knife I get one and if I need a gun away from home I am most likely somewhere I have no business being.
I agree to a sense. I have been carrying a knife of some sort since I was 11, So for me carrying a knife is just like carrying my lighter. (I dont smoke, nor drink) I have been in fights before and won and lost. (Ive always seen it no matter how big and bad you think you are, theres someone bigger and badder out there) I have always been taught use what you have as a tool before a weapon. I live in s. Texas, Been woken up with rattle snakes in a room to stepping outside and theres a 3 ft snake on a ledge on the wall. (Kinda catches you off guard no matter how many times it happens) So for me Its always been one of those things I want to get a nice pistol for such a case. I probably went overkill with the .45 but then again its the only pistol I have ever wanted to own. I agree with friends on a SD forum, "Stay away from stupid people in stupid places" But where I live, i have woken up to seeing people running across my lawn (illegals being chased by border patrol) to an occassional turning of the handle of something trying to pretending to come into the house to not look to suspicious. My grandmother lives next to me, right side of my house faceing the house, and my aunt lives to the left faceing the house. So if anything happens my aunt/uncle do not own firearms, and my uncle who lives with my grandmother owns a .380 a shotgun and several knives so he usually goes out with a rifle and I would go out with a knife (Yes sometimes its that bad where we have heard a womans voice yelling) We check our lots, and one of the neighbors to make sure he's ok (older gent family friend) and make sure everyone locks up. I think as bad as some things are just going to the store you might need to be armed with how many people are out with a lack or respect trying to earn a quick buck. Anyone can become a victim or a statistic.
All of my gun owning friends, including myself, are college educated with careers in law, medicine, or business. Keep demonstrating your ignorance of firearms and their owners.
And he can head over to a tech forum as well. Many record holders in the PC world are also gun enthusiasts. We are talking about people who are very intelligent and well educated. Yeah there are some who are real rednecks and the dumb ones self terminate.
Imprisoning people for just for owning something that might be dangerous is not exactly consistent with the concept of freedom, is it? My guess is that any new gun control laws will just end up jailing more gun owners than the few lives it saves. That wouldn't be promoting the overall good of society. Seems to me like gun control is more about taking out resentment on a group of people liberals don't really like.
Since it was mentioned about Progunners being brain washed by media the same thing could be said about antigunners. Because, if you accually bother to research the statistics you would find that the accual amount of deaths from firearms is between 5,000-9,000 per year which is also about 6.2 per 100,000 population. Not 30,000 plus as the biased antigun media would have us beleive. A little knowen dissease of the rectum claims about 18,000 lives in the U.S. every year. Aotomobiles 30,000-45,000 lives a year, the flu between 17,000-52,000 or on average about 36,000 lives a year. Oh, yeah and by the way firearms deaths are not even in the top ten causes of death in the U.S. homicides and that is all homicides in the U.S. ranks in at number 15 this includes suicides which is the number one killer of people in the 30,000 plus deaths from violence. It also includes homicdes from poisoning, the use of other weapons that cause puncture and cutting wounds, assficiation which is suffocation or the lack of air for breathing, blugioning deaths, and useing ones bare hands. Gun Owners do care about the slaughter of inocent chidren and all other inocents, but we also care about our country, freedom, and law abbidding cittizens rights to own a firearm with out it being infringed apoun. Another fact about the Clinton Gun Ban it banned the M1 Garand a highly collectable and valuable world war II and korean war collectable. When has anyone ever used an M1 Garand to commit a mass murder huh? Oh, For those who don't know an M1 Garand is a simiatomatic rifle in either 30-06 or 308 Winchester that holds only 8 rounds. I have heard alot of stupid comments about this issue and that is why I'm addressing some of them hear. The reason for the statistics is because if deaths from firearms is less than half of even the nearest other causes of deaths and some other causes of deaths are 2-10 or more times as much as deaths from fireaarms how big of a problem are firearms really? It's true that cars wheren't built with the purpose of killing people, yet the facts still are that car accidents are responsible for between 30,000 and 45,000 deaths every year while firearms are used in only a mere 5,000 to just under 9,000 deaths every year. So, with that in mind if your going to talk about banning firearms then why don't we ban automobiles? While it is true also that the constitution and the bill of rights were drafted in the late 1700's and we are in the year 2013 now the relevance of the 2nd admendment is uh oh I don't know maybe freedom. When the founding fathers drafted the constitution and the bill of rights and added in the second admendment they did it for 2 reasons 1. As a checks and balance to the government to insure that the United States of America would always remain free democratic nation. 2. They knew their history and that every time an evil and ruthless rule wanted to subjecate the cittizens to a harsh rule or reign the first thing that they would do is dissarm the cittizens. A man with weapons is a cittizen and a man without a weapon is a subject, serf, or slave. When I say man I'm talking about an individual, person, human being. Also any gun ban just punishes the people who are not the problem and does nothing to address the real issue which is the kind of people who commit mass murder are cowards, criminals, and mentally messed up in the head. I don't care if the individual or individuals had a perfect slate before they committed such a horrific attrocity on society. The instant they picked up a firearm with the intent of killing and murdering other humman beings they just made themselves a criminal. I saw an interveiw with the police chief of New York city on a TV station owned by Michael Bloomberg. Where the police chief said that the progun sides arrguments don't make sense, but the same thing could be said about the antigun sides arrguments. What else would one expect from the police ceif of New York city to say on a TV station owned by Michael Bloomberg who just happens to be antiguns. I also saw something about letting all american cittizens owen all the muskets that they want and even throwing in bayonets. Acctually you already can and the ATF doesn't even require a federal firearms license to oder them through the mail in most states. The exception might be California, Illinoise, New Jersey, the District of Columbia and New York. Here is another fact to chew on all of the states with the strictist antifirearms laws also have the highest crime rates. I don't have any proof of it but what if all of these mass shootings where orchastrated by the antifirearms coalition? Just some food for thought. The Vice President said that the NRA was being unrreasonable and unwilling to compromise, but the samething could also be said about the antifirearms coalition. Why should the NRA and profirearms supporters commpromise on something that amounts to banning certain types of firearms missdefined as assault weapons and a ban on the capacity of firearms? Again basically what that would do is take those types of weapons and high capacity magazines from law abbidding cittizens and do nothing to address the criminal, and terrorist. I know that it has been over 10 years now since the 911 terrorist attacks happened, but have we as a nation forgotten them? It would be naive to think that the threat is over just because we sent troops over to Iraq and Afganistan and are now in the proccess of with drawing them or have with drawen them. I garantee that terrorist are not going to be concerned with wheather or not their Fullauto Ak-47 or Ak-74's are legal or not and weather or not their high capacity magazines are legal or not? Would you rather face a terrorist with a fullautomatic high capacity magazine feed weapon with an AR-15 simiautomatic with a high capacity magazine, an AR-15 with a limited capacity magazine 10 rounds or less, or a bolt action rifle or pump shotgun or singleshot or doublebarrel shotgun or rifle? What would you choose? I have also heard the statements that I don't use or need an AR type rifle so a ban is fine and AR-15's are made for war and killing so a ban is fine from firearm owners. The problem with that mind set is that it ignores the law abbiding cittizens who do use AR platforms for huntting, sport shooting, competion, and millitary/law enforcment personel who purchase such weapons as a civilian to hone skills, and familiarization purposes. Another fact is that you can set any firearm that you want fully loaded and ready to fire on a solid, stable, flat and level place and as long as it is left alone, doesn't get dropped, bumped, vibrated enough to make it fire, and not molested by anyone or anything so that it doesn't fire it will just set there and do absolutelly nothing on it's own without some one to make it opporate or function. Wheather that person is good or evil and wheather they have good or evil intentions determines wheather or not the firearm will be used for good or evil. I also saw something that an antigun support said which was gun owners are scared cowards that need a gun to make them feel better like a seccurity blanket. Well this individual must not know very many firearms owners if any, so I can't help but wonder where they got theie information from to make such a statement? By the antifirearms coalitions idea about guncontrol we should ban all weapons and things that could be used as a weapon. Because someone might use them in a crime! We should also cut off everyones hands and feet too because if the wrong person got the right training they could use their hands and feet as leathal weapons! I mean just how far are we willing to go? Let's all archery equipment, Knives, Swords, baseball bats, pens, penciles, canes, metal pipeing and several more things that might be used by a criminal to purpotrait a crime. Well I could go on but I think I'm going to call it good for now. There is one more thing I just remeambered that I wanted to say. I think and believe that the antifirearms coalition is made up of two groups 1. those who naively beleave that dissarming law abideing cittizens is going to stop criminals from committing criminal acts. and 2. those who know that dissarming law abideing cittizens is not going to solve crime or stop criminals from committing criminal acts, but don't care because they have a hidden aggenda to ridd the country of the 2nd admendment so that they then can attack the other addmendments to destroy the country so that they can seize absolute control of the country. We should fear the government that fears us have firearms. President Obamma and Vice President Joe Biden both took oaths of office which is the same for any federal government employee to support and deffend the constitution. Well the bill of rights is a part of the constitution that is why the 16 admendments of the bill of rights are called admendments because they were additional items considred and added to the constitution as admendments. If the antifirearms coalition is successful in banning types and capacity of firearms what makes anyone think that they will stop there, and once they are successful at getting ridd of the 2nd admendment what makes anyone think that they will stop there? Why is the 2nd admendment so important well because it is a corrner stone of democracy and freedom and as anyone who knows anything about building a building if remove or weaken a corrner stone the whole building comes crashing down.
You mean like drugs? People mostly use them on themselves, and many (perhaps most) drug users don't harm anyone else... Yet we still have laws against most drugs. Would you agree with getting rid of all drug laws and encouraging people to use them?
well, i didn't like your last post, but I must say that it's hard to disagree with this one...we've got it for cars, but you are spot on with guns and parenting lol
Well I get confused with (R), and (L) all the time but I am actually... Get this - A conservative leaning moderate with libertarian views that is a registered democrat and as far as state politics go I have voted for one republican governor in the last 20 and change years. In national politics I have voted (R) and third party (more third party) and for house and senate I am split about even between (D) and (R). Sadly with Obama in power I have decided I will not vote democrat again at a national level. Of the two extremes Liberal and Conservative I feel that Libritarian and Republican better represent me.
You mean like cyanide? I keep hearing that gun owners are a varied and diverse group; from all races, religions and walks of life.... Other than guns, is there anything that defines gun owners as a group? If not, I guess the only things liberals resent is the gun ownership itself.
Seriously, not even I can sit through this solid block of text... Was anyone seriously supposed to read or care about this?
