29
   

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

 
 
RexRed
 
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 02:07 am
I have always been against most guns... What can I say... I just don't like them.

A friend once showed up at my door with a samurai sword, he said, "Isn't this cool?" I said, "well you ain't coming in here with that! You planning on slashing your way though a jungle today?"

Some people are just plain stupid...

I remember playing cowboys and Indians as a kid and now it seems completely out of touch to the way I am... But these play guns and arrows were purposely targeted towards small children when I was growing up. Some people just never grew up...

I don't even like pro wrestling and boxing. I do like sports but these sports I think cross a certain line, quite comparative but to a lesser degree than gladiator sports did in Rome. Decadence...

I do like gymnastics, ice skating and ballet. I am being serious... I don't care what people think of me because of these opinions. Sports should have some "class"...

Men and women beating the **** out of each other for a piece of gold or monetary rewards is in my opinion retarded. Old Greek style wrestling is fine to me though but this modern wrestling is just plain dumb.

If I was in law enforcement or had security issues than maybe but I am not in that situation so the point is moot. I guess necessity is the word and most people don't really have a necessity. If I lived in the country and had a serious rodent or animal pest problem I might have necessity for some of these implements. Even then there are clever ways of dealing with animal pests.

I don't even really like gun people per se, other than the military, provided they are not completely obsessed with guns. There is such a thing as going overboard... And... background and psychological tests are done on all military personnel before they are allowed to join the service... I have said my peace. I plan to post gun literature here that reflects my own personal opinions. I am sure others will post their pro gun crap here too, oh well. I do believe in the second amendment but with tight restrictions...

Ask yourself, is there really a middle ground with violence? I don't think so...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 29 • Views: 95,475 • Replies: 2,319

 
RexRed
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 02:11 am
Gillibrand rejects David Gregory’s talking points: ‘This is not about the NRA!’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/14/gillibrand-rejects-david-gregorys-talking-points-this-is-not-about-the-nra/
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 02:29 am
New York Gun Control: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Concealed Weapons Law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/new-york-gun-control-supreme-court_n_3084703.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037&ir=Politics
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 02:37 am
There are four basic reasons for the second ammendment in the United States.

Every one of the founding fathers is on record to the effect that private ownership of firearms, the 2'nd ammendment, is there as a final bulwark against the possibility of government going out of control. That is the most major reason for it.

At the time of the revolution and for years afterwards, there were private armies, private ownership of cannons and warships. . . The term "letters of marque, and reprisal" which you read in the constitution indicates the notion of the government issuing a sort of a hunting license to the owner of a private warship to take English or other foreign national ships on the high seas, i.e. to either capture or sink them. The idea of you or me owning a Vepr or FAL rifle with a 30-round magazine is not likely to have bothered any of those people.

The problem with drug-dealers owning AKs is a drug problem and not a gun problem. Fix the drug-problem, i.e. get rid of the insane war on drugs and pass a rational set of drug laws, and both problems will simply go away. A rational set of drug laws would:

1. Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

2. Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

3. Clamp a permanent legal lid down on top of anybody peddling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.

4. Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem, the gun problem, and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years.

But I digress. The 2'nd ammendment is there as a final bulwark against our own government going out of control. It is also there as a bulwark against any foreign invasion which our own military might not be able to stop.

Admiral Yamamoto, when asked by the Japanese general staff about the possibility of invading the American homeland, replied that there were fifty million lunatics in this country who owned military style weaponry, and that there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". This apparently bothered him a great deal more than the 200,000 or so guys in uniform prior to the war.

A third obvious reason for private ownership of firearms is to protect yourself and your family from criminals and wild animals. In fact, the second amendment is basically an idea whose time has come all over the world. Why on Earth should people in India tolerate having 80,000 of their number killed every year by snakes? That could simply not happen in a nation whose people were armed.

And there's a fourth reason for the 2'nd ammendment, which is to provide the people with food during bad economic times. When you listen to people from New York and from Texas talk about the depression of the 30's, you hear two totally different stories. The people in New York will tell you about people starving and eating garbage, and running around naked. The Texans (and others from more rural areas and places in which laws and customs had remained closer to those which the founding fathers envisioned) will tell you that while money was scarce, they always had 22 and 30 calibre ammunition, and that they always had something to eat, even if it was just some jackrabbit.

Eating is habit forming. In any sort of a down economic situation, that fourth rationale for the second amendment quickly becomes the most important.


0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 09:31 am
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/320081_825061687947_1394132742_n.jpg

Martin Richard, the 8-year-old killed in yesterday's bombing at the Boston Marathon, gets his chance to ask for peace in this eerie photograph taken before his death. Suddenly, "love each other" doesn't sound so wishy-washy.
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 05:03 pm
@RexRed,
If only someone with a gun had the chance to shoot the mad bomber before the tragedy took place...
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 05:41 am
@H2O MAN,
Coordinated attacks are the general signature of Al Quaeda. Killing one guy wouldn't have stopped this one.

One other thing which didn't help at all was DHS...
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 08:25 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Coordinated attacks are the general signature of Al Quaeda.
Killing one guy wouldn't have stopped this one.

One other thing which didn't help at all was DHS...


Maybe, but stopping the mad bomber with a bullet before the attack sure beats what really happened.

You mention al quaeda... do you realize that the media will be very upset if it is the work of an al quaeda
like group, they (the left) very much want to blame a 'right wing' home grown group for this attack.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2013 03:55 am
Got to keep the guns flowing and the prisons for profit filled up!
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/540549_507688205935547_1770512722_n.jpg
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2013 01:19 pm
@RexRed,
And the democrats that also voted against the new background checks?

If the president had gotten his party to agree, the repubs would not have been able to stop it.
It seems to me that the dems get the blame for this, not the repubs.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2013 01:35 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

And the democrats that also voted against the new background checks?

If the president had gotten his party to agree, the repubs would not have been able to stop it.
It seems to me that the dems get the blame for this, not the repubs.


Have you checked out the vote? If all the Dems votes to end the filibuster, it still wouldn't have ended. Dems and Independents hold 55 seats. 4 GOP Senators voted with the majority. That doesn't add up to 60 votes no matter how you do the math.
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2013 03:51 pm
@parados,
Quote:
failed on a 54-46 vote, six short of the 60 votes it needed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/18/us-usa-guns-idUSBRE93F00D20130418

So, if the 4 dem senators that voted against the bill, and if Harry Reid hadnt changed his vote, then it would have only taken 1 repub vote for it to pass.
So, it seems to me that the 5 dems that voted against the bill were a big reason it failed.
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2013 07:38 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

... it seems to me that the 5 dems that voted against the bill were a big reason it failed.


Agreed, and maybe that's why Obama was so upset.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 10:05 am
@mysteryman,

There are 53 Democrats TOTAL including Reid.
there are 2 indpendents that normally vote with the Dems
There were 4 GOP that voted to end cloture.

Do the math. It doesn't matter how many Dems voted for cloture. The Dems were not the problem in it not passing the cloture vote. Keep in mind this is not to pass the bill but to bring the bill to a vote. The GOP didn't want the Senate voting on the bill because it would have passed.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2013 10:40 pm
Adolphus Busch IV Resigns From NRA After Gun Control Defeat In Senate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/adolphus-busch-iv-nra_n_3112750.html
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 03:14 am

Ed -- A Petition For Stronger Gun Laws
http://www.policymic.com/articles/36191/this-30-second-video-is-the-greatest-gun-control-ad-ever
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 05:09 pm
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/59887_586527444713863_161740837_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
NSFW (view)
NSFW (view)
RexRed
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 10 May, 2013 01:13 pm
@H2O MAN,
What a ******* hypocrite you are toilet water.
 

Related Topics

NRA: Arm the Blind! - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Thoughts on gun control..? - Discussion by komr98
The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons? - Question by Lustig Andrei
Gun control... - Question by Cyracuz
Does gun control help? - Discussion by Fatal Freedoms
Why Every Woman Should Carry a Gun - Discussion by cjhsa
Congress Acts to Defend Gun Rights - Discussion by oralloy
Texas follows NY Newspaper's lead - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Guns And The Laws That Govern Them
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2019 at 07:49:10