Yea, because that act of killing someone was legal. Nothing about killing that person was legal, yet still, you think more laws would have stopped it. Does it hurt to be so ignorant?
You re-worded what I posted…I was defining an assault weapon, not what the AWB bans. I didn’t care to put in the part where a semi-auto weapon can technically be an assault weapon if you add a folding stock/suppressor/pistol grip/etc. because that is a technicality. NYS has very finicky laws about modifying weapons, and I didn’t want to write an essay about it all.
You may continue to argue with yourself, as you misinterpreted what I said, but good info to read nonetheless.
I don’t have a problem with you owning any weapon you can get your hands on. Hell have an RPG for fun outside, because you are educated on the subject. But you need to stop being so fucking selfish with your own agendas and think about what is better for the common good.
These are NRA influenced propaganda. Australian Gun Stats | Snopes.com
Debunked
I work at a night club downtown, and just like everyone else I have to walk back to my car and leave the safety of the nightclub and wander the streets to my car. On the way, I see two guys walk up to two ladies asking if they need someone to walk them to their car. Sure sounds like a nice gesture, but I can tell you its false I sped up and got closer to the ladies and the guys without word walked away. It was an obvious attempt to either take money on them and probably worse. If I was their or if they took a wrong turn and ended up in a lessly lit area, what do you think would have happened to them? They probably would have been scarred for life.
Lets break this situation down. Could either of these ladies potentially have a gun on them? Absolutely not, they were in a nightclub or many, and no nightclub allows weapons of any kind. On top of that they were drinking.
Still on this walk, I saw another guy waiting around a corner of a wall with a gun in hand looking to ambush someone else. Again 99% of the people walking back to their cars would be unarmed no matter if they had a gun or not. and before you say anything about GUNS being allowed in nightclubs NO FUCKING WAY WILL THAT EVER HAPPEN Alcohol and deadly weapons DO NOT mix
Now the question of what these criminals (I feel they already commited the crime with their obvious intent) had on them in terms of weapons. The two gentlemen walking up to the two ladies… maybe nothing, maybe a knife, maybe a gun, unknown. The clothes they were wearing they could have had rifles in there, and I could have put myself in real jeopardy walking up closer to the ladies.
The guy behind the wall… Clearly had a handgun in his hand. I’m just thankful I switched the side of the road becuase there were more people on that side.
The quote isn’t dumb, people just get charged up when they see hitler tied to anything. The biggest problem with the US in particular is that people DO NOT think at all, I do not want these people freely going into the gun store buying a handgun and not being properly educated how to use it.
People need to be governed, for a reason, and its to protect themselves. sadly people like yourself get stripped of some rights despite being extremely responsible.
This is a democracy right? Majority rules and the majority of the people should not possess a firearm as their intentions are poor, and they just are not responsible enough to possess something specifically designed to kill.
IMO you can only control guns and gun violence in one of two ways.
A) Britian- SUPER strict laws, you have a gun? 20 years in prison no questions asked. None of these pussy laws trying to be nice, if you want to get gun, be prepared to to face punishment
B)Montana- NO gun laws- Follow the quote “God made men, John Colt made men equal” Everyone (minus the obvious of ex-cons, mentally unstable, etc) has a chance to own a firearm and if anyone wishes to use their weapon in a forceful manner must consider the other guy, or even an entire group, also has a weapon.
Any inbetween ground will just result in people finding loopholes and having people take advantage of others in some way.
As per our 2nd amendment, I say we stick with the second option
If this was in reference to me. you are out of your fucking mind. Killing someone is clearly illegal and Im sure you agree with me killing someone else should not be legal.
The problem is how, whomever shot this man, got the gun in the first place. and with places like Montana handing out guns like its candy its pretty obvious would it could have come from.
I say fuck Montana Let them break away.
The instance last night would have never happened (the shooting) If 1) Ballistics from the gun were fingerprinted and tied to a name (the original gun owner) 2)The gun was registered to the original gun owner 3) every gun should be tied to the original gun owner.
Why tied to the original gun owner. Becuase I’m sure when there is a civil penalty tied to it that original gun owner would have done a better job securing his weapon when not in use, and that original gun owner would STILL have that weapon in hand, and not in the hand of some dickhead shooting someone in the middle of the street.
Well said, the people should be armed, but be ready to take responsibility for their weapons and ammunition purchases by having it linked directly to them.
If people were armed only to defend themselves this might be possible.
But in reality how many more arguments would end in a gunshot? How many more people would think they are badass because they are packing heat?
If everyone was responsible with their guns their wouldn’t be a problem. But think of how many people you have met in your entire life that if you thought about it, shouldn’t have a gun. I bet there would be a lot.
I agree with you, but theres no happy medium that I can think of. Those assholes that shouldn’t have a gun will find a way to get them and I will not be able to defend myself.
Like ILC said, in most situations, you wouldn’t have your weapon on you anyway, but just knowing that anyone in the area can be just as armed as you (I would think) could stop alot of crime.
Hmm… we should arm more children, as they should have the ability to defend themselves against their parents.
Police: Man Killed 5 Kids When Wife Said She Was Leaving
4/5/09: Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos
NY Family’s murder-suicide deaths baffle friends
4/20/09: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/family_of_4_from_ny_dead_in_md_murder_suicide/
Dad says son appeared normal before Polk murder-suicide
5/3/09: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/may/03/041413/police-investigate-3-deaths-lakeland/news-breaking/
But then again, perhaps we should hold those murderers accountable. Oh, that’s right… they’re already dead. To some, this is an acceptable trade for the right to bear arms.
Oh, and don’t quote those studies that show increases in violent crimes in other countries when weapons are banned. Those countries still have crime rates on the order of magnitude less than the US - and +/- 10 murders in those countries are statistically significant - while that change in the US barely makes a news day.
it’s in the constitution, i can own a gun, end of story.
You are correct. You can own a gun now register it and be responsible with it. The constituition does not say anything about a process of obtaining a gun.
Common good? get a fuckin clue. You raised your hand to support and defent the constitution of the United States. But your going to sit here and tell me that we can ignore that because of the “common good”.
If the issues in Great Britain and Australia are debunked, show us the “real” numbers.
Your little story there was cute, but its the typical liberal mentality. You think that a crowd of people will somehow protect you or the others around you. I have had MANY good friends that are not gun people call me and ask where they can get a gun because something in their life came about, and they feared for their life. Who will protect these people? 911 is great, they will totally fill out the paperwork after the event.
Your not getting rid of any guns in this country. WE WILL NOT ALLOW IT. So you can complain about Montana “handing out” guns, but in reality its the voting public, you know those people that all local, state and federal powers are derived from, buying those guns. They see it as they want them, so who the fuck are you to say that they can’t buy them.
I’m sorry that your afraid of guns, especially when on the weekends, your supposed to be profecient with one. But thats your personal issue. Maybe its your irrational fear and agenda thats the issue. It seems like there are plenty of gun owners that are plenty law abiding.
Its great that we have all of these wonderful facts about gun deaths. But one time we had the same facts, but it was for beer, wine and other forms of alchohol. Which to this day, kill more people due to drunk driving accidents, than guns do in the entire world over. But still we can drink, and drive. Course thats illegal, but you can’t stop them, anymore than you can stop humans from killing other humans.
But I’m just a dumb knuckle dragging redneck. WTF do I know right. I mean come on, you work down town, and at a club, you see it all.
You might want to google “infringed” because the constitution says that my right to bears arms should not be.
:picard:
I know a few vets that are anti-war, anti-gun, anti-military.
What you’re saying is exactly the same as those ‘have you ever drove (insert car)? then shut up’ arguments. Like if you drive a car for 30 seconds you suddenly know every inherent detail of the car like you designed it :roflpicard:
N20junkie is military too… I don’t have time to respond. As I am on my phone cannot copy and paste and really can’t type quickly.
My stories aren’t trying to be cute. As I saw these events happen last night. Aside from the shooting I saw the aftermath though.
Im pretty sure he knows…
Yea i should apologize now. my bad. i dont change my opinion that ilc is justified in his position since he did choose to defend our liberties, but i revoke my hey asshole comment. that being said n20 you are also entitled to your opinion for the same reasons.
Although I would never make this argument.
I could argue that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with contemporary firearms whatsoever and therefor our rights to own them are not protected.
I don’t believe that but that doesn’t mean that the 2nd amendment shouldn’t be clarified and updated for todays firearms.
The Constitution is designed to grow and adapt over time to meet certain changes in society…I think the evolution of firearms from muskets to full auto to everything in between warrants an update.
You could argue the “living document” line. But we both know that it only applies to the second ammendment. For some reason ever other ammendment escapes that arguement.