Gun Control Groups Prepare for 'National Day of Protest'

[Mr. Daystar]

This subject can be debated all day, but the fact remains...police protection is not guaranteed under the Constitution, the right to defend yourself is. The police can't prevent violent crime, because there are to few, and always be to few of them....the fact is, they are only here to preserve the public peace, and enforce the laws...they generally are there after the crime, to clean up, and attempt to bring to justice, the criminal(s) involved. The only way they will ever be able to prevent every crime, every time, is if there were one officer, for every person...which I think everyone would agree is just impossible, and undesirable. I would also like to point out that, when our Constitution was written, the farmer had the same gun, or a better gun over his fireplace, then the soldier carried into battle...the citizen and the military were on equal ground. My point being, ANY law restricting ANY type of weapon clearly usurps the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, whose main purpose is to allow it's citizens the ability to protect themselves from an oppressive Government. Last time I checked, the armed forces of thiscountry greatly out gunned it's people, a people whose rights are slowly but surely being stripped away from them under the guise of safety, and security. I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at the sad and pathetic reasons our Government gives for passing gun laws as anything but an excuse to disarm the American people. If anyone thinks that they really give a rats ass about our safety and well being, ask yourself this....why is it they don't seem to care about issues such as the price of fuels, or the price of prescriptions. Why don't they seem to care about the poverty, and hunger of the elderly and homeless? The Politicians look at an episode like Virginia Tech as an opportunity to pass a law, restrict our rights, and move their agenda forward...don't think for one nano second they give a rats ass about one dead child....it means nothing to them...unless he has made a nice fat contribution to someones campaign. The fact is, I have guns, not once has any of my guns sprouted little legs, jumped from the drawer, and gone on a killing spree...nor have they climbed into my bed at night and whispered into my ear, urging me to go on a killing spree. The argument that even law abiding people go bad, or get a mental illness, or have their weapons stolen is a pathetic argument at best...cars get stolen, high speed chases kill innocent people, drunk drivers kill people...people are stabbed with kitchen knives...beaten with ball bats, and choked to death slowly by the enraged hands of seemingly law abiding people....don't deny me my rights, because of the actions of the criminal...enforce the laws on the books, and take their civil rights away, not mine. In closing. let me leave you with these thumbnails...they say it all......

 

[McRocket]

I have typed it before:

Either everyone should by law have to own a handgun or everyone by law is not allowed to own a handgun (outside of the police and the military).

Or do what Switzerland does (sort of). Disband most of the peacetime armed forces and force almost every man (and woman?) to join the reserves. And when they are not actively serving (most of the time), they take their rifles home. I sure as heck ain't breaking into someone's house that I know is militarily trained and has immediate access to various automatic weapons with ammunition.

But this nonsense of many people have no guns and some have a legal arsenal is ridiculous. And invites the Columbine's and Virginia Tech's to continue to happen.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I have typed it before:

Either everyone should by law have to own a handgun or everyone by law is not allowed to own a handgun (outside of the police and the military).

Or do what Switzerland does (sort of). Disband most of the peacetime armed forces and force almost every man (and woman?) to join the reserves. And when they are not actively serving (most of the time), they take their rifles home. I sure as heck ain't breaking into someone's house that I know is militarily trained and has immediate access to various automatic weapons with ammunition.

But this nonsense of many people have no guns and some have a legal arsenal is ridiculous. And invites the Columbine's and Virginia Tech's to continue to happen.

No one but the police and military owning guns, pretty much is what the 2nd Amendment is about...that can never be allowed to happen. You can't compare The United States to Switzerland, they don't have the same culture, values, size and population as America does, not to mention laws and rights. As far as some having none, and some having many....thats the difference between pro gun, and anti gun people...pro gun people just want to exercise their guaranteed rights, and if you don't, thats fine, but a law abiding, tax paying citizen should not have to pay the price, because society, and the courts won't punish the law breakers. Anti gun people just want their way...at any cost, everyone must pay for the actions of a few, and the ultimate rape of our very freedoms and liberties, is a welcome outcome for the sad pathetic illusion of safety...it doesn't matter that people still are murdered by gun...they will come up with another excuse to explain that.

 

[AFA]

I have typed it before:

Either everyone should by law have to own a handgun or everyone by law is not allowed to own a handgun (outside of the police and the military).

Or do what Switzerland does (sort of). Disband most of the peacetime armed forces and force almost every man (and woman?) to join the reserves. And when they are not actively serving (most of the time), they take their rifles home. I sure as heck ain't breaking into someone's house that I know is militarily trained and has immediate access to various automatic weapons with ammunition.

But this nonsense of many people have no guns and some have a legal arsenal is ridiculous. And invites the Columbine's and Virginia Tech's to continue to happen.

I don't understand that. It's not a one size fits all world and that solution creates the same problem as you know.

What about criminals who say they don't have any guns if a law is passed banning them? A bad guy list of unregistered or illegal gun owners? That by nature doesn't exist.

Legal arsenal? You can only shoot one at a time. How this contributes to VT or Columbine doesn't add up :dunno:

So let's ban violence on TV, movies and games, I think that works a lot better if there's an attitude change in the society and not laws banning handguns from innocent people when criminals will still have full access to those hidden under the floorboards.

Universal Studios had an ad with a woman with a handgun in each hand shooting both while falling toward the cameras. Let's stop that! Small kids think that is oh so cool! They might even want to try it someday.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Claiming that Columbine would not have happened, if guns were illegal, is utterly absurd, first of all, guns will always be had by a criminal with a purpose, they're criminals, they'll steal guns, from the police, from the military, from the trunk of an F.B.I.agents car. Don't forget, the 2 little fuckheads in talking about used homemade bombs too, bombs they made from books they had in their bedrooms, bombs they made in their garages. No, Columbine happened because some parents and teachers didn't do their jobs, and the guns used were bought legally, and given to the 2 assholes to do the evil shit they did, that fucktard is guilty of murder too. As far as Virginia Tech goes, the school effectively doomed everyone to victimization, when they denied them there Constitutional right to bare arms, he could have been stopped, if he weren't the only one armed, and if the collage choose to not worry about their image, and warned the students of the murders earlier in the day. To blame an inanimate object, for the sad tragedies that have taken place, is far from acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[McRocket]

What about criminals who say they don't have any guns if a law is passed banning them? A bad guy list of unregistered or illegal gun owners?

That law works pretty well in Canada (and other countries). But since the US has SO many gun owners already; I personally think they should make everyone have to carry a gun. At least fro a generation so the criminals give up using handguns for their advantage.

Legal arsenal? You can only shoot one at a time. How this contributes to VT or Columbine doesn't add up :dunno:

The arsenal does not apply to Virginia Tech. But it does to Columbine.
My point was, that if every person in Virginia Tech. Or even most of them, carried a gun; there is no realistic way that guy would have killed as many as he did in that situation. And my guess is he would have realized this and not bothered to try. Or try another way.

 

[Facetious]

Than why isn't Vermont the most dangerous state (per capita) in which to live . . . hmmmm ?

In the meantime, I've got some 300 Yard "work" to do this afternoon (in 7.62 x 51 & 6.5 mm). Maybe, if there's time, we'll do some gong or silhouette in 5.56 x 45mm (.223 Rem.)

.. ... and if were really make good time, some action pistol silhouette @ 15 - 20 Yards in .9 mm Parabellum & .45 Auto.

. .. ... but cha know ? It's as routine as walkin' out to th' mailbox !

You know ? You can do lots of nasty egregious stuff with a chain and a jug of household ammonia . . . are those to be banned as well ?
Yawn !

 

[McRocket]

Claiming that Columbine would not have happened, if guns were illegal, is utterly absurd.

If every teacher had carried a gun, then the two shooters undoubtedly would have been stopped much earlier.
And they may not have even tried knowing such armed oppostition was at the school.

And only bullets killed people at Columbine, not bombs. I am talking about stopping shootings.

Bombings are an entirely different matter. And a different thread. This thread is about gun control.

 

[McRocket]

You can't compare The United States to Switzerland, they don't have the same culture, values, size and population as America does, not to mention laws and rights.

Yes I can and I just did.
It doesn't matter where the idea is from. It's the idea, not the origin that matters.

Anti gun people just want their way...at any cost, everyone must pay for the actions of a few, and the ultimate rape of our very freedoms and liberties, is a welcome outcome for the sad pathetic illusion of safety...it doesn't matter that people still are murdered by gun...they will come up with another excuse to explain that.

You would have to know every single 'anti gun' person to type that with any degree of accuracy. And since I assume you only know a tiny fraction of them (if any), your statement is totally without any meaningful factual basis and should be considered as such.
You should never lump large groups of (let alone tens of millions of) people into any category just because you feel like it; with no significant factual or scientific basis for doing so.

 

[AFA]

That law works pretty well in Canada (and other countries). But since the US has SO many gun owners already; I personally think they should make everyone have to carry a gun. At least fro a generation so the criminals give up using handguns for their advantage.

That's exactly the point. They are criminals. They lie. How can Canada or anywhere have a list of illegal gun owner's! It can't be! It can't exist!

If they had a list of illegal gun owner's, they would arrest them for owning illegal guns! In the US, convicted felons are banned for life from owning guns and if they do, they are put in jail!

(In Salem, Massachusetts, the test to see if you were a witch, was, if held under water, you would not die!)

So, who's left? Legal gun owner's. Are you going to arrest someone on the chance they might commit a crime? If I was a RCMP or a highway trooper, should I give you a ticket based on the fact I think You Might speed when I'm not there to watch you? Or maybe a ticket because You Might be thinking about going through that red light? :dunno:

 

[McRocket]

That's exactly the point. They're criminals. They lie. How can Canada or anywhere have a list of illegal gun owner's! It can't be! It can't exist!

If they had a list of illegal gun owner's, they would arrest them for owning illegal guns! In the US, convicted felons are banned for life from owning guns and if they do, they are put in jail!

(In Salem, Massachusetts, the test to see if you were a witch, was, if held under water, you would not die!)

So, who's left? Legal gun owner's. Are you going to arrest someone on the chance they might commit a crime? If I was a RCMP or a highway trooper, should I give you a ticket based on the fact I think You Might speed when I'm not there to watch you? Or maybe a ticket because You Might be thinking about going through that red light? :dunno:

You have completely lost me. I think You Misunderstood me. Or I you. Or both.

Look, I have already typed that in America's case that I believe the everyone-should-own-a-gun law should be the way to go. At least for one generation.

If that law passed, then whether criminals have guns or not is almost irrelevant because their edge would be eliminated.
You are not going to pull a gun in a bank knowing that almost everyone in the bank could be armed - not unless you are an idiot.
Armed robberies with guns might virtually end.

 

[McRocket]

If every teacher had carried a gun, then the two shooters undoubtedly would have been stopped much earlier.
And they may not have even tried knowing such armed oppostition was at the school.

And only bullets killed people at Columbine, not bombs. I am talking about stopping shootings.

Bombings are an entirely different matter. And a different thread. This thread is about gun control.

Ohh. I think I misunderstood your post that I answered with my above post.

If I did, I apologize.

 

[AFA]

If every teacher had carried a gun, then the two shooters undoubtedly would have been stopped much earlier.
And they may not have even tried knowing such armed oppostition was at the school.

So what about teachers that are uncharged pedophiles, rapists, murderers? Do they get guns too, or just the teachers with white hats and none for those with black hats? :dunno:

 

[McRocket]

So what about teachers that are uncharged pedophiles, rapists, murderers? Do they get guns too, or just the teachers with white hats and none for those with black hats? :dunno:

People that have been convicted of violent crimes would not be allowed to own a gun.

And if an uncharged pedophile, rapist or murderer was forced to carry a gun in the everyone-must-own-a-gun law America and used it, so what?

Under the present system, since in the law's eye's he is clean, he could do exactly the same thing now.

At least under the former scenario there is a much better chance that his victim will be likewise armed.

 

[Friday on my mind]

As I stated in my previous post I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment.But I also think there is no doubt that the availability of guns makes society more dangerous not less.Yes people could still be murdered using some other method but its more difficult,hard to conceal your bow and arrow.And the statistics from other countries are clear.The ones that do not have guns widely available have lower homicide rates.The idea that well armed population would mean less gun deaths is not backed up by facts.While it is true most legal guns will never be used to shoot anyone it is also true that if they are it is much more likely they would be used to shoot someone they know as the result of a family dispute,neighbor dispute,road rage etc. than in defense of anyone or anything.And also almost all illegal guns were once legal ones that have been stolen,sold on black market etc.
More guns mean more shootings period IMO.But again I say that is a price you pay for the freedom of the 2nd amendment which was not given for citizens to protect themselves from each other I think, but to protect themselves from future King Georges arising in America.

 

[McRocket]

But again I say that is a price you pay for the freedom of the 2nd amendment which was not given for citizens to protect themselves from each other I think, but to protect themselves from future King Georges arising in America.

On that thought:

(from wikipedia)

'The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” '

To me that strictly refers to the raising of a Militia. And back then, there were no large peacetime armies. When you went to war, you had to raise a Militia. Which is what this amendment - IMO - is all about.
As far as I am concerned, as long as the United States has a standing peacetime army, the second amendment is irrelevant. And should be stricken from the Constitution. Or re written/amended to simply state that America has the right to have an armed forces - in some legalese way.

 

[AFA]

You are not going to pull a gun in a bank knowing that almost everyone in the bank could be armed - not unless you are an idiot.
Armed robberies with guns would virtually end.

That is EXACTLY why gun crime is typically lower in areas of the US where guns are legally available!

Forcing everyone to have guns increases the number of guns, and does exactly what's going on now, except you'll have a lot more accidents. This is a cultural issue and the culture isn't held accountable for it's effects on society.

People that have been convicted of violent crimes would not be allowed to own a gun.

And if an uncharged pedophile, rapist or murderer was forced to carry a gun in the everyone-must-own-a-gun law America and used it, so what?

Under the present system, since in the law's eye's he is clean, he could do exactly the same thing now.

At least under the former scenario there is a much better chance that his victim will be likewise armed.

-Convicted felons are already not allowed to own guns as I mentioned.

-If an uncharged rapist, pedophile or murderer owned a gun and used it, you say, "So what"? Because he killed someone! Isn't that what you are trying to prevent! Isn't that irresponsible? Would you want that for your family to be victims, and I said, "So what"? If he was uncharged, you couldn't possibly know if he would commit a crime could you?

-There is no "lying machine", your nose doesn't grow long when asked if you are an uncharged criminal. The clean guy looks just like the uncharged criminal doesn't he? I didn't give you a speeding ticket even if I think You Might speed if you didn't. Why not?

-So with an armed victim, the criminal would have to sneak up and catch him/her off guard? I wonder if criminals ever have broken into people's houses in the early morning while they are sleeping without their mandatory guns in hand, killed them, raped their wives and shot their kids. Your suggestion is to make sure that everyone has a gun, so then it will be like winning lotto for potential criminals with no arrest record? The government might even have a program to get a gun for free if your income is below a certain level. That might be helpful because a lot of uncharged criminals might not be able to purchase one on their own until they pull off enough liquor store and gas station robberies first.

 

[McRocket]

If an uncharged rapist, pedophile or murderer owned a gun and used it, you say, "So what"? Because he killed someone! Isn't that what you are trying to prevent! Isn't that irresponsible? Would you want that for your family to be victims, and I said, "So what"? If he was uncharged, you couldn't possibly know if he would commit a crime could you?

Will you please relax. It was a figure of speech.
I meant 'so what' in that there would be no difference in so far as whether he would have access to a weapon or not.

-There is no "lying machine", your nose doesn't grow long when asked if you are an uncharged criminal. The clean guy looks just like the uncharged criminal doesn't he? I didn't give you a speeding ticket even if I think You Might speed if you didn't. Why not?

I have no idea what you are typing here.

-So with an armed victim, the criminal would have to sneak up and catch him/her off guard? I wonder if criminals ever have broken into people's houses in the early morning while they are sleeping without their mandatory guns in hand, killed them, raped their wives and shot their kids. Your suggestion is to make sure that everyone has a gun, so then it will be like winning lotto for potential criminals with no arrest record?

Again. No idea what your point is - other then you disagree with mine.

The government might even have a program to get a gun for free if your income is below a certain level.

Now that is a good point. I guess the government would have to do that. My guess is there are plenty of guns around that it would cost the government next to nothing to do that.

Look AFA, I think you are taking this too seriously.

If you want to disagree with my ideas? Fine.

But if you are going to start getting personal and sarcastic in a somewhat condescending manner and generally take this WAY too personally, please contain your arguements to me in Pm's.

I am not getting into a potentially heated debate in public with a mod. In that scenario, you have the ban 'gun'. And I am unarmed.

 

[AFA]

Oh well. :dunno:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

If every teacher had carried a gun, then the two shooters undoubtedly would have been stopped much earlier.
And they may not have even tried knowing such armed oppostition was at the school.

And only bullets killed people at Columbine, not bombs. I am talking about stopping shootings.

Bombings are an entirely different matter. And a different thread. This thread is about gun control.

I really don't care don't care if it is a different thread. The 2 little fucktards that did the killings brought homemade bombs with them to the school, just because they didn't kill anybody with them, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Had they not had guns, they might have brought more bombs. The point was, evil people will do their evil, at any cost, by any means. To say people were only killed by bullets is pointless. Dead is dead, how they got there means little.