Page 30 of 78 FirstFirst ... 2026272829303132333440 ... LastLast
Results 726 to 750 of 1930

Thread: United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

  1. #726
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 View Post
    All you have to do is look at the crimes that are being committed with firearms in cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. They have some of the strictest firearms laws in the country, and yet they also have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Figure it out.
    Those pathetically small crime rates are nothing compared to the crime rates in New Orleans, St. Louis, Kansas City, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Memphis, none of which have very strict gun laws, and all have higher murder rates than the the cities you listed
    If the government seizes the public's guns we have no way of fighting back when this government turns to tyranny. Open your eyes, and get Obama out of power.
    It's a good thing Obama, or anyone in the government, honestly, has no plans to seize the public's guns
    99% of teens like 1 directon... put this in ur sig if you dont (started by blazeing man)

  2. #727
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    It's a good thing Obama, or anyone in the government, honestly, has no plans to seize the public's guns
    Really? Because I have a New York Governor saying that Forced Buy Back or Confiscation is an option he would consider

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-y...-be-an-option/

    We also have Senator Feinstein talk about a compulsory buy back program as well.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-f...rticle/2516648
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  3. #728
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    Those pathetically small crime rates are nothing compared to the crime rates in New Orleans, St. Louis, Kansas City, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Memphis, none of which have very strict gun laws, and all have higher murder rates than the the cities you listed
    In 2012 exactly last year Chicago had the highest body count from gun violence than any other city in America and the strictest gun laws so what's you're point here? It's the city, those places you mentioned has more "gang territorial deaths" Chicago had "innocent murder" as the majority of them. With stricter gun laws it makes people "more helpless and can't defend themselves". That's exactly how it is in Chicago, I know, I live here.

    It's a good thing Obama, or anyone in the government, honestly, has no plans to seize the public's guns
    This is too funny, gotta love people that pay little to no attention to what's going on in society and blind of reality. Apparently nobody remembers Obama's little "gun proposal". I have links to Florida's and Texas's reaction and responses to his pathetic proposal.

    http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-bu...l-announcement
    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/1...-proposal.html
    Last edited by ShinyUmbreon189; 28th March 2013 at 5:36 PM.
    My Soundcloud

    My ReverbNation

    Music & Musicians Alliance Club


  4. #729
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    In my opinion, what would be reasonable gun control would consist of this,

    1. Psychological evaluations before purchasing any firearm.
    2. An inspection of your house to make sure you have a safe place to keep your firearms.
    3. You need to display to the proper authorities that you have legitimate reasons for owning a firearm. Hunting would be a good example. I know plenty of dirt poor rural folk that really do need them. They're used more as a tool to control pests and hunt for food.

    This sounds reasonable to me.
    1. No. Antigun groups already state that you are crzy for wanting a gun.
    2. No. How long till the inspections become used for other things?
    3. The 2nd Amendment is all the reason I need for a gun. It is not about hunting. Imagine these restrictions on other rights.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  5. #730
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    1. No. Antigun groups already state that you are crzy for wanting a gun.
    And anti-gun groups are now psychologically evaluating you?
    2. No. How long till the inspections become used for other things?
    One eternity
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 View Post
    This is too funny, gotta love people that pay little to no attention to what's going on in society and blind of reality.
    Oh, the irony
    Apparently nobody remembers Obama's little "gun proposal". I have links to Florida's and Texas's reaction and responses to his pathetic proposal.

    http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-bu...l-announcement
    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/1...-proposal.html
    And neither of these reactions were to plans of Obama to seize anyone's guns. Last I checked, closing background check loopholes, banning military style weapons, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services=/= seizing guns.
    Last edited by YourFavoriteUser; 28th March 2013 at 8:28 PM.
    99% of teens like 1 directon... put this in ur sig if you dont (started by blazeing man)

  6. #731
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    And anti-gun groups are now psychologically evaluating you?


    One eternity
    The anti-gun groups are the ones pushing for these types of deals and would be the ones pushing their criteria of what constitutes pass/fail.

    One eternity? What?
    You don't think that once a "mandatory inspection for gun safety" is implemented, that the person who does the inspections won't start having more items to look for? Signs of crimes, signs of neglect, abuse, improper thinking? You've got more trust in the gov't than I do.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  7. #732
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    The anti-gun groups are the ones pushing for these types of deals and would be the ones pushing their criteria of what constitutes pass/fail.
    And I doubt the criteria would include whether or not you want to buy a gun.
    One eternity? What?
    You don't think that once a "mandatory inspection for gun safety" is implemented, that the person who does the inspections won't start having more items to look for? Signs of crimes, signs of neglect, abuse, improper thinking? You've got more trust in the gov't than I do.
    Okay, you've got a point there. I'll give you that.
    99% of teens like 1 directon... put this in ur sig if you dont (started by blazeing man)

  8. #733
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    And I doubt the criteria would include whether or not you want to buy a gun.
    They'd phrase it like "Subject has an unhealthy fascination with weapons and when questioned exhibited paranoid delusions that someone might be out to harm him."

    That covers those that sport shoot and self defense people.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  9. #734
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    421

    Default

    If they seized our guns or not people would get them anyways. If they did do psychological checks and all that and they couldn't get a gun but want a gun, they'd get a a gun, you can't just slap a gun law and expect people to follow it. Criminals or commited felons that did time in the box, they broke the law once and to get imprisoned you gotta commit more than a minor crime, were talking something serious here. If they broke those laws once don't you think they're get guns even if the gun laws restricted felons from having them? Nothing would stop them, they will get them illegally. Gang members, they get them through the black market, if America wants they can go ahead and take guns away go ahead but I don't believe they should nor will it solve anything. Just don't come to me when police officers and govt. officials get they're head blowed off by a pissed off American trying to confiscate his shotgun.
    My Soundcloud

    My ReverbNation

    Music & Musicians Alliance Club


  10. #735
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    And neither of these reactions were to plans of Obama to seize anyone's guns. Last I checked, closing background check loopholes, banning military style weapons, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services=/= seizing guns.

    Proposals that won't do anything to stop a deranged shooter.
    Loopholes that don't exist, how a weapon looks and changing the locks after the fact won't stop an active shooter. The mental health aspects need to be focused on more than the rest. But how do you get people to use them if they chose not to?

    Gun Show "Loophole"

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fa...n+show&st=&ps=

    Though Congress specifically has applied the background check requirement to dealers only, and specifically exempted from the dealer licensing requirement persons who occasionally sell guns from their personal collections, gun prohibition activists call this a “loophole.” Gun prohibitionists also falsely claim that many criminals get guns from gun shows; the most recent federal study puts the figure at only 0.7 percent.
    Specificly exempted. It's not a loophole and would be ineffective anyway.

    And while Obama has not yet stated anything about "seizing" firearms, it would be a future step towards "saving the children."
    Last edited by LDSman; 28th March 2013 at 9:43 PM.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  11. #736
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Okay, if we're using this whole slippery slope argument as to why the government shouldn't be able to regulate firearms, than aren't you entitled to own a tank? A stealth bomber? An F-22? After all, if the government forbids the populace from owning them, they'd ownly be taking them away from responsible tank, stealth bomber, and F-22 owners! It's so ridiculous.

    Where do you draw the line and say "Aha! Semi automatic and automatic firearms are all we need. We're good. You can take everything else that has more firepower away from us government."
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 29th March 2013 at 1:29 AM.

  12. #737
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    Okay, if we're using this whole slippery slope argument as to why the government shouldn't be able to regulate firearms, than aren't you entitled to own a tank? A stealth bomber? An F-22? After all, if the government forbids the populace from owning them, they'd ownly be taking them away from responsible tank, stealth bomber, and F-22 owners! It's so ridiculous.
    Actually doing some research, you can buy a tank and a F-22 from various countries, you will need the needed permits, and more than likely it's weapon systems are turned off by the seller country or company as to not piss off the U.S. Government. But apparently you can own them, just as you could probably own say a old military sailing ship back in the day.

    http://www.military-heat.com/27/mili...market/#_blank
    http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1#_blank
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  13. #738
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Actually doing some research, you can buy a tank and a F-22 from various countries, you will need the needed permits, and more than likely it's weapon systems are turned off by the seller country or company as to not piss off the U.S. Government. But apparently you can own them, just as you could probably own say a old military sailing ship back in the day.

    http://www.military-heat.com/27/mili...market/#_blank
    http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1#_blank
    Well, that is interesting, if not somewhat disturbing, but I think my argument was working under the assumption these weapons would be fully functional. Do you think it's a persons God given right to own a fully functioning stealth bomber?

  14. #739
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    Well, that is interesting, if not somewhat disturbing, but I think my argument was working under the assumption these weapons would be fully functional.
    Well problem with that is you are going to have to find somebody that will actually sell active weapons to a civilian, and seeing how the Government practically owns all military contracts, and those contractors will not risk losing the contracts to what essentially would be a very small niche market, it is practically a impossible scenario.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  15. #740
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Well problem with that is you are going to have to find somebody that will actually sell active weapons to a civilian, and seeing how the Government practically owns all military contracts, and those contractors will not risk losing the contracts to what essentially would be a very small niche market, it is practically a impossible scenario.
    I don't think it really matters how possible or how likely a scenario it is, when it comes down to it. Down playing the chances of the scenario is to avoid the main question. Do you think it's a right for a civilian to own these things? If semi automatic and automatic weapons, hypothetically, were as difficult to obtain as F-22's, for the same reasons you listed here, would you protest championing that they be more readily available?

  16. #741
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    I don't think it really matters how possible or how likely a scenario it is, when it comes down to it. Down playing the chances of the scenario is to avoid the main question. Do you think it's a right for a civilian to own these things? If semi automatic and automatic weapons, hypothetically, were as difficult to obtain as F-22's, for the same reasons you listed here, would you protest championing that they be more readily available?
    Actually yes I would, because those weapons do not have the same destructive firepower as a F-22. Mind you price is also a factor, a F-22 costs hundreds of millions of dollars ( If not over a billion dollars with markup ), a Semi Automatic weapon costs less than a thousand. One any person could own, the other only a select few amount of people to own. So even if both were on the open market in the same way, it would be almost impossible for more than a select few to own a F-22.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 29th March 2013 at 1:53 AM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  17. #742
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Actually yes I would, because those weapons do not have the same destructive firepower as a F-22.
    Bingo. That's my point. A semi automatic has more firepower than a pistol, a tank has more firepower than a semi automatic, and obviously an F-22 has more firepower than a tank. I'm asking you where do you draw the line and say "This amount of firepower is okay for civilian use" and "This amount of firepower is not okay for civilian use."

  18. #743
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    Bingo. That's my point. A semi automatic has more firepower than a pistol, a tank has more firepower than a semi automatic, and obviously an F-22 has more firepower than a tank. I'm asking you where do you draw the line and say "This amount of firepower is okay for civilian use" and "This amount of firepower is not okay for civilian use."
    You seem to be missing my greater point, firepower is not a limiting factor in your scenario, money is. I have no problem with civilians having the same quality of firearms that are accessible to either the police or the military. And mind you I am saying firearms, not military jets and tanks, as money and a variety of other reasons are a limiting factor in that scenario that automatically discount it.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  19. #744
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    I don't draw a line. Lines are too easy to move. Look at how often the gun control line has moved. No autos, no this, no that, licensing, background, age, etc.

    If someone could afford to buy and store a tank or plane, I say mor power to them. Heck, I'd love to have a tank! And an anti-tank rifle! Can't afford one, so I don't have either.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  20. #745
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Perusing the North Pacific.
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    Bingo. That's my point. A semi automatic has more firepower than a pistol, a tank has more firepower than a semi automatic, and obviously an F-22 has more firepower than a tank. I'm asking you where do you draw the line and say "This amount of firepower is okay for civilian use" and "This amount of firepower is not okay for civilian use."
    Ok, well ignoring for a second all the semi-automatic pistols out there, that's still not nessecarily true. Ultimately it depends on the caliber and model of the guns being compared. For example, a majority of AR-15's, the gun most people think of when anyone says "assault weapon", are actually a great deal weaker than your average deer rifle and most handguns. There are higher calibers that are used for hunting, but most people use the gun for recreational shooting and opt for the smaller, more accurate, .22 caliber, which can't hold a candle to the power of a .45 Colt. That's part of the reason why the homicide statistics for these weapons, and rifles in general, are so low, only accounting for about 2.7% of homicides from 2007-2011. To put that in perspective, nearly five times as many people were killed with knives during that same time period, over twice as many by hands and feet. Yet, it's the low powered rifles that are hardly used to commit crime that everyone's trying to ban, simply because it looks like a military weapon, ignoring the fact that it actually isn't.
        Spoiler:- My Custom Challenges:

  21. #746
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    Bingo. That's my point. A semi automatic has more firepower than a pistol, a tank has more firepower than a semi automatic, and obviously an F-22 has more firepower than a tank. I'm asking you where do you draw the line and say "This amount of firepower is okay for civilian use" and "This amount of firepower is not okay for civilian use."
    As BigLutz said, it's not the firepower it's the money problem. Military tanks cost millions of dollars meaning no one is going to have them. Just because someone has a tank doesn't mean they're a bad person all I can say, "more power to them" especially if our govt. turns to tyranny. If they turn to tyranny I think tanks and jets are completely necessary.

    What's the problem with having a semi automatic? I see no issue in owning a semi automatic, so what they're more accurate and more powerful than pistols. If it's a danger issue then I don't know what to tell you because bare hands can be deadly as well. Just because you have a "semi automatic" doesn't mean you're gonna go on a killing rampage in the future I know people that own semi automatic guns and they aren't harmful in any way. A gun's a gun fully auto, semi auto, bolt action, etc it still fires a bullet. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they're or someone around them is in danger I own 3 pistols a Glock 19, .9mm, and a .22 pistol and I have them for my safety. I see no reason WHY I shouldn't have my guns, I believe I have every right in the world to own my guns and if they try to take that away from me, me and the law/govt. is gonna have some major problems.
    My Soundcloud

    My ReverbNation

    Music & Musicians Alliance Club


  22. #747
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    These United States.
    Posts
    396

    Default

    You know it's time to turn pro Second Amendment when the big banks, corporations and the U.N. like a disarmed populace.

  23. #748
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,085

    Default

    A list of weapons I think the genral public should have the opt to have:

    Hands and feet
    knifives
    a sword
    nunchuku
    a pistol
    a rifle

    What I do not think the public needs to have:
    A-K 47
    semi automamtics
    tanks
    F-22
    basically any weapeons f that only the mitlatary can buy.


    This is my thoughts tho so off couse it can and will differ from yours.

  24. #749
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildHennaCharizard View Post
    A list of weapons I think the general public should have the option to have:

    Hands and feet
    knives
    a sword
    nunchaku
    a pistol
    a rifle

    What I do not think the public needs to have:
    AK-47
    semi automatics
    tanks
    F-22
    basically any weapons that only the military can buy.


    These are my thoughts though so of course they can and will differ from yours.
    An AK-47 is a rifle AND a semi-automatic.
    The majority of pistols are semi-automatic.
    Many people already own planes and tanks and they aren't committing crimes with them.
    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the people to resist a tyranical government. Limiting what they can have defeats that purpose. I think that if someone can afford to buy it and store it properly, then they should be able to own it.


    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/07...handgun-class/

    Apparently, a large number of educators in Texas are willing to fight back for their students.
    The proposal calls for 16 hours of training to instruct teachers how to first conceal children during an attack, and then return fire. It would apply to charter schools as well as public schools that don’t already employ armed guards.
    Last edited by LDSman; 7th April 2013 at 2:15 PM.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  25. #750
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the people to resist a tyranical government. Limiting what they can have defeats that purpose. I think that if someone can afford to buy it and store it properly, then they should be able to own it.
    The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the US to have a militia, as it didn't have a military at the time.
    I don't care what weapons you have, they're not going to protect you from a tyrannical government. You may have an AK-47, but the government has SWAT teams that will take you out in an instant. The only difference said AK-47 would make is taking one or two of them with you. Don't delude yourself into thinking the government sees armed civilians as a threat to the country as a whole, they only see them as threats to OTHER CIVILIANS.
    Ash nazg durbatulűk, ash nazg gimbatul,
    ash nazg thrakatulűk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sakuma
    No morals for you evolutionists.
    Please avoid saying things like that.

Page 30 of 78 FirstFirst ... 2026272829303132333440 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •