sacase Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Nobody is saying you can't own a gun, you just can't wear it in town.You know, like in Tombstone or Dodge City. Makes you wonder why crime was lower in the Wild West than in DC and much of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I know you are trying to be funny, but Chris Rock could'nt be more wrong. 1. Criminals would still find a way to get their hands on "bullets". 2. Sportsman wouldn't be able to hunt 3. The deer population would become out of control 4. Car accidents because of deer would go through the roof. 5. Insurance premiums would go through the roof. 6. Insurance companies would release coyotes into suburban amd rural areas to help control the deer population.(like they did in my comunity several years ago, I saw one in a field behind my house last week) 7. Deer would suffer slow painful deaths via car and coyote. 8. People would be pissing and moaning about how they are being held hostage by the coyotes 9. Family pets would dissappear 10. The People wouldn't be able to protect themselves from the coyotes because bullets are to darn expensive.Ridiculous and far fetched, possibly? I just thought it was a funny quote. I'm a proud gun owner and my response to all of this is :finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Makes you wonder why crime was lower in the Wild West than in DC and much of the US.Well, for one, it was a lot harder to conceal an old west hogleg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 except that swimming pools kill more people than "assult weapons" so what? I'm sure more people die of obesity or car accidents than nuclear weapons, or rocket launchers. The be all end all of regulation isn't "what process leads to the most deaths" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 so what? I'm sure more people die of obesity or car accidents than nuclear weapons, or rocket launchers. The be all end all of regulation isn't "what process leads to the most deaths" So what's the basis for banning "assult weapons" you don't like how they look? "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets." -- Joseph Constance (deputy chief of Trenton NJ police dept) in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 So what's the basis for banning "assult weapons" you don't like how they look?"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets." -- Joseph Constance (deputy chief of Trenton NJ police dept) in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993 Don't waste your time with statistics and facts. "Assault weapon" ooooooh, scary scary. I have it on good authority that the boogie man carries an assault weapon. This bill will help millions of anti-bill of rights people sleep well at night. That's all that really matters. Personally, I'm hoping they tackle free speech next. We've seen the destruction that has caused. We need to be protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 except that swimming pools kill more people than "assult weapons" Exactly! But "we" are the stupid ones:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 Don't waste your time with statistics and facts."Assault weapon" ooooooh, scary scary. I have it on good authority that the boogie man carries an assault weapon. This bill will help millions of anti-bill of rights people sleep well at night. That's all that really matters. Personally, I'm hoping they tackle free speech next. We've seen the destruction that has caused. We need to be protected. And they will sleep well right up to the point when a home invasion happens and they beg for someone with a gun to protect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 And they will sleep well right up to the point when a home invasion happens and they beg for someone with a gun to protect them.Nobody is talking about taking them away from those duly ordained to protect them in the event of a home invasion AKA the Police.That was pretty weak dude. Just saying. You know I agree with you on most things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 Nobody is talking about taking them away from those duly ordained to protect them in the event of a home invasion AKA the Police.That was pretty weak dude. Just saying. You know I agree with you on most things. please tell me just 3 times that you know of where the police PREVENTED a home invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Nobody is talking about taking them away from those duly ordained to protect them in the event of a home invasion AKA the Police.That was pretty weak dude. Just saying. You know I agree with you on most things. When you only have seconds, the police are minutes away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSkins Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 wait.... they're still in GTA IV, right?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 we arent crazy over guns, we are crazy over exercising our God given rights outlined in the Bill of rights! Plus there is that whole "protecting ourselves" thingy. God gave us a right to fire a small projectile out of a steel tube at a high velocity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 God gave us a right to fire a small projectile out of a steel tube at a high velocity? Yes Just as he gave us the rest of the rights outlined in the BOR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 God gave us a right to fire a small projectile out of a steel tube at a high velocity? He certainly gave us the right to defend ourselves As did the founders. They thought so much of it, they made it the 2nd amendment. You know, that whole Bill of Rights thing that liberals pretend to support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 God gave us a right to fire a small projectile out of a steel tube at a high velocity?No. God gave us the ability to. The Founding freaking Fathers gave us the right. And they did so in order to allow for the citizens to overthrow an unjust, tyrannical government that abuses and restricts the Constitution. But don't let details get in the way of your arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 No. God gave us the ability to. The Founding freaking Fathers gave us the right. And they did so in order to allow for the citizens to overthrow an unjust, tyrannical government that abuses and restricts the Constitution. But don't let details get in the way of your arguments. And I'll repeat it again, the major gun legislation of the last century came after the Federal gov't got spooked 1934, 1968 and 1994 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 He certainly gave us the right to defend ourselvesAs did the founders. They thought so much of it, they made it the 2nd amendment. You know, that whole Bill of Rights thing that liberals pretend to support They were also terrified of a standing army. Didn't stop us from putting armed bases in just about every state in the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 They were also terrified of a standing army. Didn't stop us from putting armed bases in just about every state in the Union. Is there anything in the Constitution that states the government shall not have a standing army? It seems to me that the Constitution states the opposite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I think its funny how many times the Constitution has been refered to in this thread, yet when I did a search for the word 'militia' I got 0 hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 And I'll repeat it again, the major gun legislation of the last century came after the Federal gov't got spooked1934, 1968 and 1994 Preaching to the choir. I think all gun legislation should be undone. Then place reasonable restrictions on them. No felons with guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Is there anything in the Constitution that states the government shall not have a standing army?It seems to me that the Constitution states the opposite Are you seriously suggesting that the thought of a standing army wasn't terrifying to them? Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think Geo. Washington could attest to just how scared Congress was of an army... along with all of the veterans that were denied their pensions and recognition because they were Continentals and not militia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1311 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 You have to jump through some serious hoops and get a class 3 liscence. It isn't exactly easy to get a machine gun Not to belabor the point, but that is just not true. I'll concede that it is time-consuming, (background check, fingerprints, etc), but I don't consider the process "jumping through some serious hoops" Just have a clean criminal record and a good gun-shop, who knows the ropes. You do have to go through the process for each gun. It must also be registered, (re-registered?), annually. The toughest part of purchasing a machine gun is the cost. They're very expensive to buy and shoot. **Disclaimer** I can only speak from personal experience from here in MD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 please tell me just 3 times that you know of where the police PREVENTED a home invasion. That's not what you said. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I think its funny how many times the Constitution has been refered to in this thread, yet when I did a search for the word 'militia' I got 0 hits.Nice deflect. Look up the definition of militia in 1776.The Supreme Court of the United States said that "the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and "ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time," together with a supply of ammunition therefor, a blanket, knapsack and canteen.So a militia is Joe Q Public defending his homeland with private arms. Arms he has to maintain and own on his own. That the govt was unaware of. A militia in the time of the Founding Fathers was nothing more than the Selective Service today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.