Fwck gun control

[Dostradamas]

Originally Posted by alpimax99

If the school was like this, Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns | Fox News that Manchurian candidate would of been taken down

Manchurian candidate:

One who has been brainwashed into preforming actions (such as assassination) upon recieving a special code word or phrase. The candidate acts and behaves normally before recieving the trigger, with no knowledge of what he will do, or what he has done while under the influence of mind control.

This was a messed up rich kid that realized he was going to be committed by mommy dearest & the brat threw a fit.
Hang on, the ride is just begining.

[MommaBear]

Originally Posted by johnnyh66

I think you like to repeat yourself because everyone is saying the same thing but you seem to believe you are the only one that is correct.

I don't bother to say something unless I know what I'm talking about.

Most of you seem to speaking on pure emotion.

[joesbruiser]

Here is something for you guys to think about that scream that new laws on so called "assault weapons" and high cap pistols will help.
If it is setup like the previous ban it just means that you will not be able to buy a new firearm or mags.The last ban had a date that if manufactured after then you could not own it.You could still own,shoot or sell person to person depending on the manufactured date.
So how does that change anything?

[jcboof]

Originally Posted by joesbruiser

Here is something for you guys to think about that scream that new laws on so called "assault weapons" and high cap pistols will help.
If it is setup like the previous ban it just means that you will not be able to buy a new firearm or mags.The last ban had a date that if manufactured after then you could not own it.You could still own,shoot or sell person to person depending on the manufactured date.
So how does that change anything?

After reading what Feinstien proposed, it appears that it would not be a matter of manufacture date as much as just a certain time period.
Her words spoke not of retroactivity, but of proactivity. Which to me means, that when the ban goes into place, that ALL SALES PERIOD will stop. Not just the ones manufactured after the ban date. All manufactured inventory will be rendered unsaleable.
Also, the transfer of said weapon would be illegal as well. Which means that it would be illegal to sell person to person.

[chevotafun]

Originally Posted by WHITE-TRASH

Bottom line is criminals and crazies will always find a way to inflict harm upon the populace. Limiting the public's possibilities to defend themselves adequately by use of equal force is a guaranfawkingteed recipe for disaster.


Taking away the ability to defend oneself from a criminal or crazy whome has no regard for gun laws let alone murder laws is dumb. Don't be dumb.

Your a moron
did you not read what i posted it prove that if there are super hard gun laws it saves lives.
And what u said is proof that the states will never learn.

The proof canada 183 death in one yr soso gun laws
the UK u won't beleive it 18 in one yr super tough gun laws
And well The USA 9000 Dead in one yr barly a gun law

[RANOVRU]

On Duuudes post about there being a "test" for owning a gun, I think thats a good place to start. There are probably a lot of NRA people who dont like the idea of having to "jump through another hoop" in order to purchase a gun, but I think thats where it should start.

Possibly the same training as a CCL? Thats not saying you cant own a gun, its just saying you need to be competent to some degree in order to do so. You cant drive without a DL right? Same thing.

Of course this will not stop all of the crime commited with guns, but if it makes even a small positive % in a decrease (and I think it would) than its worth it imho.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by MommaBear

Well, once you get that crystal ball dialed in to foresee what someone's mental status is/ or will be in the future, let us know, but until then, you are just chasing your tail with what-ifs with no possible resolution.

The people that legally own weapons are NOT the problem. I'm beginning to have to repeat myself.

It is so painful to me to have to point out the obvious. If someone is planning to do harm, they aren't going to legally purchase a weapon with a paper trail that leads back to them. Come on, guys.

And it is painful to me to have to keep pointing out the obvious as well...it is not about whether or not the person wielding the weapon is doing so legally, it is about whether or not the person is doing it responsibly. Legally obtained weapons are stolen every day. Not because the criminals are super smart, but because the owners are not living up to the responsibility of being an owner.

The guy that opened fire in the movie theater legally purchased those weapons from licensed retailers.

The weapons used in the most recent school shooting were purchased legally. He even attempted to purchase a handgun shortly beforehand but did not because of the mandatory waiting period. The weapons he used were purchased by his mother (legally) and were in a place that he had access to.

Most mass murderers do not fear death, nor do they expect to live through whatever they attempt to do. Their plan is to take out as many other people as they can before someone stops them. Many commit suicide before anyone has a chance to stop them. Paper trails are of no concern.

Originally Posted by joesbruiser

Here is something for you guys to think about that scream that new laws on so called "assault weapons" and high cap pistols will help.
If it is setup like the previous ban it just means that you will not be able to buy a new firearm or mags.The last ban had a date that if manufactured after then you could not own it.You could still own,shoot or sell person to person depending on the manufactured date.
So how does that change anything?

It wouldn't change anything, so there is no point in further bans of specific types of weapons.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

On Duuudes post about there being a "test" for owning a gun, I think thats a good place to start. There are probably a lot of NRA people who dont like the idea of having to "jump through another hoop" in order to purchase a gun, but I think thats where it should start.

Possibly the same training as a CCL? Thats not saying you cant own a gun, its just saying you need to be competent to some degree in order to do so. You cant drive without a DL right? Same thing.

Of course this will not stop all of the crime commited with guns, but if it makes even a small positive % in a decrease (and I think it would) than its worth it imho.

That is exactly my point. If you have to take a test to drive a car, you damn sure should have to take a test to own a firearm. If you can't pass the test, you don't get one. After a certain amount of time you will have to retest, and your background reexamined.

Will it stop crime? A bit. Will it make a more responsible gun owning society? Hopefully. That in turn would lessen accidental deaths and theft.

[Dostradamas]

Originally Posted by chevotafun

Well put it this way i read something the other day about death in a yr across the world.

Canada was something like 190 semi tough gun laws

UK was r u ready for this 18 super tough guns law

the USA 9000 and no gun laws

KInda speaks for it self don't ya think.

And i hate to say it but the usa will never change because everyone thinks they should be able to carry a gun.

This how bad it is yesterday a 11yr old boy brought a 9mm to school so that he could protect himself and his freinds.

Just my 2 cents

If you manipulate data you can get any result you like.
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2009

Did you notice the downward trend since 2005 in firearm murders?
Did you also notice how few are commited with "assault weapons" & how many are handguns?
How bout in 2009 348 murders with rifles (ar15 would be in that catagory fyi) & same year nearly 5 times as many people (1825) were killed with Knives or cutting instruments.
Murder is the issue, not the tool used to murder.
An ar15 is a tool for murder only but an abortion clinic is a choice....
Murder is murder & its never been a good thing.

Oh how bout this?
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...ime/index.html
Violent crime in america down during a boom of gun sales.

oh look & property crime down too:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...ime/index.html

Murder is not the only crime an armed population detours.

[RANOVRU]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

And it is painful to me to have to keep pointing out the obvious as well...it is not about whether or not the person wielding the weapon is doing so legally, it is about whether or not the person is doing it responsibly. Legally obtained weapons are stolen every day. Not because the criminals are super smart, but because the owners are not living up to the responsibility of being an owner.

The guy that opened fire in the movie theater legally purchased those weapons from licensed retailers.

The weapons used in the most recent school shooting were purchased legally. He even attempted to purchase a handgun shortly beforehand but did not because of the mandatory waiting period. The weapons he used were purchased by his mother (legally) and were in a place that he had access to.

Mass murderers do not fear death, nor do they expect to live through whatever they attempt to do. Their plan is to take out as many other people as they can before someone stops them. Many commit suicide before anyone has a chance to stop them. Paper trails are of no concern.



It wouldn't change anything, so there is no point in further bans of specific types of weapons.

I was getting ready to edit my post and add basically what you said in your first paragraph.

Seems to me a lot of the mass murderers get there tools from irresponsible gun owners that "may" have not had them if there were requirements to get them in the first place.

WE KNOW there are a lot of responsible people out there, but as the saying goes, its only takes a few to ruin the bunch.


I dont see how a basic/general requirement for you to do something is in any way violating your right to do it. And if you disagree you probably shouldnt be trying to do anything that has a requirement.

[Crimson Rock Crawler]

.....You cant drive without a DL right?..

Yes, you can drive a vehicle without a Driver's License.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by Crimson Rock Crawler

Yes, you can drive a vehicle without a Driver's License.

Not legally you can't.

[G-FORCE]

Originally Posted by cbr6fs

Who is going to take over your country if you don't have guns?

How free is a land that you can't smoke in a bar, and can't take your beer outside?
We ALL live under restrictions, these restrictions are often annoying to those of us that are responsible members of society BUT as a society we have a moral obligation to try and look after those that are not as responsible.

So cut the crap as the ONLY thats been under attack are 6 and 7 year old kids in a school a building where they should have been safe.
But instead were shot by a crazy 20 year old kid who had access to weapons of mass murder.

I'm out of this thread and unsubscribed.

When the gun nuts sit and polish their guns tonight, just think about these kids, teachers and parents.



As a direct result of your selfishness and acting younger than the kids that lost their life in stomping your feet and saying i want, i want, i want YOU WILL be partially responsible for the next tragedy.

As it's not until you grow up and realise that a civilised society NEEDS restrictions on weapons of mass murder that this shit will stop.

My heart goes out to all the families and loved ones of this tragedy and all the future ones.

Thankfully my kids go to school in Europe were we as a society take more responsibility with weapons of mass murder.


Unsubscribed.

If the brave lady 3rd down on the left of your photos (principal) would have been armed your photo list would be much,much smaller. She wouldnt have had to attack the idiot with her bare hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Crimson Rock Crawler]

Not legally you can't.

I never said it was legal to drive without a license. I just said you could drive without a license !!!!

[Charlie-III]

Originally Posted by blackfabguy

My standpoint is control the idiots buying guns. I like my weapons because I pay taxes to own them, taxes to live in the USA, and I have the right to shoot back at anyone who wants to take that away! My solution to help my son, I'm sewing a ballistics plate into his backpack. :cool:

No sewing required..... Armored Backpack Sales Surge In Wake Of Newtown Shooting
Sales have tripled since last Friday.

[MommaBear]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

That is exactly my point. If you have to take a test to drive a car, you damn sure should have to take a test to own a firearm. If you can't pass the test, you don't get one. After a certain amount of time you will have to retest, and your background reexamined.

Will it stop crime? A bit. Will it make a more responsible gun owning society? Hopefully. That in turn would lessen accidental deaths and theft.

Have any of you been in a moving vehicle lately around these other "drivers" that have passed "the driving test"? Anyone of age and with a pulse can (and most do) obtain a driver's license.

It's a wonder I make it to work and back home in one piece each day...

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by MommaBear

Have any of you been in a moving vehicle lately around these other "drivers" that have passed "the driving test"? Anyone of age and with a pulse can (and most do) obtain a driver's license.

It's a wonder I make it to work and back home in one piece each day...

Agreed.

Would you feel more or less secure if there were no exam needed to legally operate a vehicle? All you had to do was buy a car and drive off...

[RANOVRU]

Originally Posted by MommaBear

Have any of you been in a moving vehicle lately around these other "drivers" that have passed "the driving test"? Anyone of age and with a pulse can (and most do) obtain a driver's license.

It's a wonder I make it to work and back home in one piece each day...

The DL to gun analogy is only analytical in the sense that there needs to be a "requirement".

For one, all of the 16yos interested in driving more than likely arent interested in owning a firearm. Second, IDK about where youre at but the test for a DL here sure has tightend up. No matter how good a teen is behind the wheel has nothing to do with whether or not theyd be likely to txt while driving for example. Just like someone taking a CCL class and a mass murder.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

The DL to gun analogy is only analytical in the sense that there needs to be a "requirement".

[Die-Laughing]

Gun Control - A victims perspective!!! - YouTube