Current Events

TOPICS:

9/11/04

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

334 | 335 | 336

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

JohnClement

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD
January 2004

SEP 10, 2004 11:25 PM

Hooray! I was feeling so bad for those poor hunters who have to use shotguns, or god forbid, a bow. whatever

"Ak-47, when you absolutely, positively, have to kill every last motherfucker in the room, accept no substitute"

Let's here it for overkill! Finally the oppressive shackles of good governance are being thrown off!

Stop the NRA

St_Expedite

St_Expedite

New Orleans, LA
January 2004

SEP 10, 2004 11:36 PM

All's I can say is, this site is gonna get a heap more interesting.

(I'm not going to get in trouble for linking to this site, am I? biggrin )

DEVILMAN40K

DEVILMAN40K

Lansing, IL
August 2004

SEP 10, 2004 11:36 PM

What the hell do people need assult weapons for!?! Key word is assult, they are weapons ment for killing used in combat. A deer is not going to shot back, and if you need a hail of bullets to hit a deer instead of one good shot then you suck as a hunter. Cause the last thing i need is to hear on the news that a bunch of gang bangers in Chicago just shot up a neighborhood with Ak-47s. I can't see any good coming out of this. The goverment will do that but won't legalize weed! eeek

toothpickmoe

toothpickmoe

Los Angeles, CA
May 2004

SEP 10, 2004 11:38 PM

Lemonnier said:
All's I can say is, this site is gonna get a heap more interesting.

(I'm not going to get in trouble for linking to this site, am I? biggrin )



Holy shit that's funny!

Somebody on this site has to be truly happy about this.

St_Expedite

St_Expedite

New Orleans, LA
January 2004

SEP 10, 2004 11:43 PM

DEVILMAN40K said:
What the hell do people need assult weapons for!?! Key word is assult, they are weapons ment for killing used in combat. A deer is not going to shot back, and if you need a hail of bullets to hit a deer instead of one good shot then you suck as a hunter. Cause the last thing i need is to hear on the news that a bunch of gang bangers in Chicago just shot up a neighborhood with Ak-47s. I can't see any good coming out of this. The goverment will do that but won't legalize weed! eeek



I think assault rifles are necessary tools in the hunt for today's "super" animals, like the flying squirrel, and the electric eel.

Phoebus

Phoebus

Italy
OLD SKOOL

SEP 10, 2004 11:43 PM

I always believed that most arguments for assault weapons would probably go away if the National Guard became a force exclusively for the use of the State. It would be like a small Army, Air Force, etc., funded by each State as needed, subject to certain laws of course (suchn as modernization requirements based on compatibility with the Federal, active-duty force). In times of war--as declared by Congress--the Guard would deploy as required, but in all other times State Legislature would have to approve deployments and other duties.

In my humble opinion, that would be the most honest, modern interpretation of the Founding Fathers' desire for the citizenry to be able to form an effective militia.

Until something like that happens, I won't even try to pretend I know enough about the various different people around this nation to know why they want the guns they want to have.

deadandburied

deadandburied

I'm lost
March 2004

SEP 10, 2004 11:44 PM

I have this friend who is blindly republican and he was talking about this the other day. He was so excited about being able to load more than 10 rounds in his 22 on monday. I just asked why he needed that many rounds and all he said was because I fucking want to. What kind of reasoning is that?

I go out and hunt and I target shoot, but I have no need for a 22 with more than 10 rounds. I have absolutely no use for any kind of assault weapon either.

Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

SEP 10, 2004 11:46 PM

DEVILMAN40K said:
What the hell do people need assult weapons for!?! Key word is assult, they are weapons ment for killing used in combat. A deer is not going to shot back, and if you need a hail of bullets to hit a deer instead of one good shot then you suck as a hunter. Cause the last thing i need is to hear on the news that a bunch of gang bangers in Chicago just shot up a neighborhood with Ak-47s. I can't see any good coming out of this. The goverment will do that but won't legalize weed! eeek



Apparently a group of about... hmm.. 100,000 people in the entire country TOPS think they're going to be able to resist the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard of the "evil liberal government" and their Apaches, M1A1 tanks, F-16s, F-18s, F-14s, B-1s, B-2s when said "evil liberal government" comes to take away their guns and convert them to Islam, or something.

That's their theory. I'm serious. They actually think resistance is still possible. It's not even theoretically possible.

troglodyte

troglodyte

Victoria, BC
May 2003

SEP 10, 2004 11:49 PM

DEVILMAN40K said:
A deer is not going to shot back

No, but the puppies might!

DEVILMAN40K

DEVILMAN40K

Lansing, IL
August 2004

SEP 10, 2004 11:51 PM

Lemonnier said:
All's I can say is, this site is gonna get a heap more interesting.

(I'm not going to get in trouble for linking to this site, am I? biggrin )


It's a SuicideGirls for hillbillies. All they need now are journals.....but hillbillies can't read!
tongue

JohnClement

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD
January 2004

SEP 10, 2004 11:53 PM

Lemonnier said:

DEVILMAN40K said:
What the hell do people need assult weapons for!?! Key word is assult, they are weapons ment for killing used in combat. A deer is not going to shot back, and if you need a hail of bullets to hit a deer instead of one good shot then you suck as a hunter. Cause the last thing i need is to hear on the news that a bunch of gang bangers in Chicago just shot up a neighborhood with Ak-47s. I can't see any good coming out of this. The goverment will do that but won't legalize weed! eeek



I think assault rifles are necessary tools in the hunt for today's "super" animals, like the flying squirrel, and the electric eel.



Point well taken. Nice reference biggrin

AkiraLi

AkiraLi

Norristown, PA
March 2003

SEP 10, 2004 11:55 PM

Lemonnier said:
I think assault rifles are necessary tools in the hunt for today's "super" animals, like the flying squirrel, and the electric eel.



You, my lady, are 35 different flavors of awesome! biggrin

liquidflorian

liquidflorian

Los Gatos, CA
January 2004

SEP 11, 2004 12:00 AM

DEVILMAN40K said:
What the hell do people need assult weapons for!?! Key word is assult, they are weapons ment for killing used in combat. A deer is not going to shot back, and if you need a hail of bullets to hit a deer instead of one good shot then you suck as a hunter. Cause the last thing i need is to hear on the news that a bunch of gang bangers in Chicago just shot up a neighborhood with Ak-47s. I can't see any good coming out of this. The goverment will do that but won't legalize weed! eeek



Dude that can happen anyway. What makes you think gang bangers buy guns legally? whatever

I myself, plan on getting one of these. biggrin

For home defence, of course. biggrin

DeadlyEye

DeadlyEye

Memphis, TN
December 2003

SEP 11, 2004 12:29 AM

People seem to forget that people that would hurt other people with guns would go out of their way to get them anyways..
Yes, there are accidents with guns.. I've had bullets whiz by my head. I'm not afraid of guns... I am afraid of reckless drivers. I fear idiots behind the wheel far more than somebody trying to blow my brains out... Irrelevant, I guess.. but, I am tired and I am prone to rambling in this state.

Move along. These arent the droids you are looking for..

JohnClement

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD
January 2004

SEP 11, 2004 12:31 AM

^^^
I actually think concealed carry is a horrible idea as well

Edit: re Merovingian's post. You slipped one in there

[Edited on Sep 11, 2004 by BillHaverchuck]

JohnClement

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD
January 2004

SEP 11, 2004 12:47 AM

MEROVINGIAN said:
Pertains to my own right to carry permit

* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course.

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws.

* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states.


* In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992.

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?"

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992.
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults
in these 10 states annually


* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence.

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
------------------------------Florida----United States-------
homicide rate.................... -36%........-.4%
firearm homicide rate.........-37%.........+15%
handgun homicide rate........-41%.........+24%

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life

* John Lott's crime study found that states which adopted concealed carry laws saw an 84% decrease in the number of multiple victim public shootings, resulting in a 90% decline in deaths arising from such instances.



Not sure I follow. The citations imply causality, but there must be more to the study, because the statistics alone don't prove that it was a result of the law.
Anyway I'm not trying to make a big to do about it. Just saying I think it's a bad idea.
I hate all guns, and think they should all be banned.

deadandburied

deadandburied

I'm lost
March 2004

SEP 11, 2004 12:52 AM

BillHaverchuck said:
^^^
I actually think concealed carry is a horrible idea as well

Edit: re Merovingian's post. You slipped one in there

[Edited on Sep 11, 2004 by BillHaverchuck]



I dont know. I would like to at least have a fighting chance if I ever got in a situation where a guy was just picking people off in a mall. Which has happend in a mall I have been to many times. Concealed carry laws only puts guns in the hands of the good guys. It helps to let the public police its self in situations where the police cant get there in time.

If your worried about the guns being in the wrong hands, well they already are. People who are going to carry a gun to commit crimes arent going sign up for a permit.

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

SEP 11, 2004 01:29 AM

Keith said:
Apparently a group of about... hmm.. 100,000 people in the entire country TOPS think they're going to be able to resist the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard of the "evil liberal government" and their Apaches, M1A1 tanks, F-16s, F-18s, F-14s, B-1s, B-2s when said "evil liberal government" comes to take away their guns and convert them to Islam, or something.

That's their theory. I'm serious. They actually think resistance is still possible. It's not even theoretically possible.



Keith, do you really want to get into this one? If you do, that's fine, but I can virtually guarantee that you have the same chance of winning that argument that you seem to give the citizens of overthrowing the government.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

SEP 11, 2004 01:35 AM

DEVILMAN40K said:
What the hell do people need assult weapons for!?! Key word is assult, they are weapons ment for killing used in combat. A deer is not going to shot back, and if you need a hail of bullets to hit a deer instead of one good shot then you suck as a hunter. Cause the last thing i need is to hear on the news that a bunch of gang bangers in Chicago just shot up a neighborhood with Ak-47s.



the gangs in san francisco already have AK-47s, which were used in a massive gun battle a few months ago. someone forgot to tell them that they were illegal.

wottan

wottan

Vancouver, BC
July 2004

SEP 11, 2004 01:40 AM

I've always posed one argument about this subject, and I havent recieved an answer yet. Because Im not going to say my argument is fool proof or anything but...

If criminals can get these kinds of weapons independant of the laws associated with regulating (or banning) them. Then wouldnt a place with much more severely inhibitant gun laws have a much higher crime rate? The logic of the argument Im responding to seems to say that Canada should be ruled by marauding gangs of highway warriors like Mad Maxx or something because we cant get the guns necessary to defend ourselves while criminals 'always can get them'. As they control cities with machine guns while the populace is unable to defend itself. Is there some logical hole Im missing here, or what?

Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

SEP 11, 2004 01:49 AM

Helter said:

Keith said:
Apparently a group of about... hmm.. 100,000 people in the entire country TOPS think they're going to be able to resist the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard of the "evil liberal government" and their Apaches, M1A1 tanks, F-16s, F-18s, F-14s, B-1s, B-2s when said "evil liberal government" comes to take away their guns and convert them to Islam, or something.

That's their theory. I'm serious. They actually think resistance is still possible. It's not even theoretically possible.



Keith, do you really want to get into this one? If you do, that's fine, but I can virtually guarantee that you have the same chance of winning that argument that you seem to give the citizens of overthrowing the government.



Well, technically, there can be no "winning" of this argument except through retrospect. I.E. after the "revolution". However, I foresee only these possibilities of revolution or coup.

1.) Military coup. Pentagon expels the civilian government.
2.) Conventional civil war, where significant portions of the military defect to the rebellion (along with military hardware).
3.) Cult-of-Personality scenario -- President gains enough loyalty from the military and population to declare himself Emperor/Grand Potato/Whatever.
4.) Total meltdown -- absolute collapse of government and economy at all levels. Military unpaid, leave in droves, individuals taking whatever hardware with them that they can acquire. Warlordism sets in.

Only in #4 would private ownership of weapons play a significant part. I believe I am right in saying that, in history, the vast majority of successful rebellions have had the support of the military.

In order for any rebellion to succeed, the military must defect the government en masse.

The American Revolution is not, in my opinion, a relevent analogy in this case, since it was basically the repelling of an invasion by foreign troops rather than a true civil war. I'm thinking more of the Bolshevik and Chinese Communist revolutions (both accomplished with conventional military force) or the 'democratic' revolution during the collapse of the USSR, where (what remained) of the hardline military was sufficiently weakened and demoralized that it did not offer much resistance.

I guess what I'm saying is that, even arguing that a rebellion could be possible, it would not require vast numbers of the civilian population to be armed-to-the-teeth before-hand. I am personally of the belief, though, that barring a total meltdown of the economy, the present situation of the U.S. government is fairly immune to violent rebellion.

[Edited on Sep 11, 2004 by Keith]

Phoebus

Phoebus

Italy
OLD SKOOL

SEP 11, 2004 02:04 AM

Keith said:
...
3.) Cult-of-Personality scenario -- President gains enough loyalty from the military and population to declare himself Emperor/Grand Potato/Whatever.
...



Newsweek had a nice blurb how Jeb Bush is being groomed to possibly be a contender to replace George W. (should he win this one). whatever

I guess it's his right. But I definitely feel with a possible 20 out of 28 years of Presidency being under the blood of one family. surreal

Snottlebocket

Snottlebocket

Netherlands
March 2004

SEP 11, 2004 02:13 AM

the creepy part is that the kind of people who get excited over owning a assault weapon are exactly the kind of people you don't want anywhere near a gun.

NatasKaput

NatasKaput

Bozeman, MT
December 2002

SEP 11, 2004 02:33 AM

sweet, just before that ban my buddies brother bought him an AK47 and a Tech9, time to dust those off and get silly

Snottlebocket

Snottlebocket

Netherlands
March 2004

SEP 11, 2004 02:37 AM

MEROVINGIAN said:
The people we don't want owning guns will find a way to own them though, that is unfortunately a fact. I just don't understand why I should have to give up an aspect of my life(which I have never abused) when the lawless won't give up there's any time soon.




and they can very easily thanks to a country flooded with firearms, as far as i'm concerned america should be slowly working towards a complete ban followed by a purging and destroying of all existing guns in the country, not kicking it up a notch and legalizing assault arms.

[Edited on Sep 11, 2004 by Snottlebocket]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next