Page 49 of 78 FirstFirst ... 3945464748495051525359 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,225 of 1930

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

  1. #1201
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    That house in Dewford
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    They still ARE defenseless against a shooter like the one at Sandy Hook. If a guy like that broke in, the untrained teachers with their revolvers would be shot full of holes by the guy with the assault rifle and Kelvar vest before they could get one shot off.

    And whatever school superintendent thought this was a good idea would get a lesson in Reality 101, plus a very angry community to explain things to.
    Uh, Maedar? The quote LDSman gave right there quoted the sign as saying the teachers are armed and trained.

    Anger over such a preparation would lack any rational grounds. It's a Christian school. They are making it clear to everyone, including the parents who send their kids there, that they are arming and training the teachers in order to keep people safe.

    And if a would-be shooter was stopped dead in his tracks because of an armed, trained teacher, especially after all the coverage of the Newtown shooting, the unrealistic "let's make sure nothing like this ever happens again"...that would be a lesson in reality.

    Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.

  2. #1202
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Perusing the North Pacific.
    Posts
    360

    Default

    We have armed security protecting our politicians, armed guards protecting our federally insured currency, but when it comes protecting our most precious resource, having any form of armed protection is somehow wrong? Sorry, but I find that a little revolting. And the article clearly states the teachers are trained.

    It's also worth noting that the majority of police officers hold a different view than you when it comes to civilians owning firearms.* A slim majority of law enforcement officers surveyed believe that a safety training course shouldn't be required for citizens to purchase firearms. 91% support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians, and 80% believe that a legally armed citizen would have likely reduced the casualties at Newtown and Aurora (6% believe innocent casualties would have been avoided altogether). Oh, and on the subject of schools, only 1.5% believe schools should be considered 'gun free zones'.


    *In case you have an issue with an NRA article, here's a direct link to the survey in question.
        Spoiler:- My Custom Challenges:

  3. #1203
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Maeder, police officers require a lot of training to BE POLICE OFFICERS! It's an apples and cars comparison. I don't believe the Newton shooter had a Kevlar vest. What does McVeigh have to do with this?

    Edit:

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...-narrative.htm

    Second Amendment: The White House asked the Centers for Disease Control "to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." We're pretty sure that what the CDC found wasn't what the White House was looking for.

    The Democrats, and their media allies, obsess over some shootings while ignoring many others.

    Kill innocents in a school or theater in large numbers, and the media will fixate on the tragedy while Democrats wail about America's "gun culture."

    Shoot a minority who's wearing a hoodie and the left twists the story into something it isn't while the media turn the shooter into a "white" man, though he, too, is a minority — and an Obama supporter with a mixed ethnic background.

    It was under these raw and highly charged circumstances that President Obama asked the CDC in January to perform the study. He was surely looking to manufacture a crisis that he could take advantage of.

    What that study revealed, though, does not fit in with the media-Democrat message.

    "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press.

    The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

    Here are a few more salient points from the study:

    • "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue."

    • "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

    • One "body of research" (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found "estimated annual gun use for self-defense" to be "up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent."

    • "There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective."

    Does anyone recall this study getting extensive media coverage or the administration plugging its key findings? Of course not. It doesn't support their anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun ideology. It's therefore ignored as if it never happened at all.
    Last edited by LDSman; 23rd August 2013 at 12:09 AM.
    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.

  4. #1204
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    104

    Default

    In response to the original post only, I live near Chicago. It is the ILLEGALLY obtained weapons you have to worry about. Chicago has one of the strictest gun control laws in the country. You can't even own an "air soft" bee bee gun, and there are NO shooting ranges within the county limits. Chicago has a sky high homicide rate.

    Secondly, I looked at the statistics about "school shootings." Most that are reported outside the U.S. are major terrorist attacks that made news over here in the U.S. That means that the reporting is heavily skewed towards the U.S. and ignores more mundane shootings in the rest of the world. I know because there is a major school shooting just about every month in Nigeria and NOT ONE appears on the "interactive map." Boko Haram, an Islamist organization named "Western Education is Sinful," shoots up Christian schools on a regular basis.

    The UK has low violence in general because all of London and several other major cities are on 24/7 video surveillance. Of course, you don't care enough about civil liberties to see how that might be a problem.

    Israel might have lower gun deaths than the U.S., but it more than makes up for that difference by its much higher "death by bombs" rate.

    Japan and Switzerland have a dearth of one thing that is highly predictive of the number of shootings and homicides in general: young men aged 18-25.
    I love you guys, but you do majority of the murders. Also, you must look at the overall murder rate in addition to the gun related murder rate to eliminate the possibility that the murders would have happened anyway but with a different weapon.

    Although wikipedia is a poor primary source (and I will be happy to provide additional sources), it does have good interactive maps:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...icide_rate.png
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_age.png
    Notice any correlation between low median age (i.e. more young men) and a higher overall intentional murder rate?

    Having a large percentage of your population being young leads to a higher murder rate in general and explains the difference in murder rates as well as or better than the availability of firearms. Russia is an outlier having a far higher murder rate than expected.

    Conclusion: That post was poorly argued.

    I admit in advance that I only read the first page of comments and the last two pages of comments.
    Last edited by emawerna; 5th September 2013 at 4:27 AM.

  5. #1205
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    By the way, does anyone here know what recently happened to NRA poster boy Ted Nugent, or rather, his wife? Check it out:

    http://gawker.com/here-is-the-gun-th...ted-1251536014

    Some of the most loyal NRA supporters are still screaming about how her Second Amendment Rights were violated here, either not knowing - or not caring - that trying to bring a gun on a plane is a BIG no-no, and you can't use that part of the Constitution to defend you in THAT case.

    Btw, even if her claim that she “completely forgot or never knew the weapon was in her bag" is true, which I doubt, it doesn't matter. That is NOT a legit defense in this case, as any lawyer will tell you. If she ends up in jail, this will be karmic justice at last.

    After all, IMOHO, Ted should be in jail too, because of this:

    http://gawker.com/5902854/romney-cam...te-obama-again

    Not because of the promise he made, but for threatening the President.
    Last edited by Maedar; 6th September 2013 at 5:52 PM.

  6. #1206
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Wow, what biased articles.

    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.
    One can make the argument that these odd laws are an infringement on the right to keep and bear Arms. Why does crossing an arbitrary line on the ground suddenly make you dangerous enough for an arrest?

    At most, she'll get a fine.

    Please show how stating that Ted would be dead or in jail is a threat against the Pres?
    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. #1207
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    Wow, what biased articles.
    Doesn't matter the source, whatever he uses that doesn't support your views is going to be called "biased".

    One can make the argument that these odd laws are an infringement on the right to keep and bear Arms. Why does crossing an arbitrary line on the ground suddenly make you dangerous enough for an arrest?
    It's similar to going to a crowded theatre and yelling "fire" when there is none. While technically restricting freedom of speech, it is a reasonable exception to the rule. If you intend on getting into a flying metal box, I would think most people should say it isn't the best idea to have every passenger carrying a sidearm. Same goes for attempting to do so, and for even taking it into such an overcrowded area that it isn't allowed in in the first place.

    At most, she'll get a fine.
    Sadly, you're probably right.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  8. #1208
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Doesn't matter the source, whatever he uses that doesn't support your views is going to be called "biased".
    The bias is clear when the article makes references to the wife needing the gun like others need Xanax and to cartoony phalluses.
    The source article shows no bias either way.

    http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2013...-airport.html/

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    It's similar to going to a crowded theatre and yelling "fire" when there is none. While technically restricting freedom of speech, it is a reasonable exception to the rule. If you intend on getting into a flying metal box, I would think most people should say it isn't the best idea to have every passenger carrying a sidearm. Same goes for attempting to do so, and for even taking it into such an overcrowded area that it isn't allowed in in the first place.


    Sadly, you're probably right.
    And you are wrong about the fire/theater deal. You can shout fire in a crowded theater. You can't shout "Set fire to the theater!"

    http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/...ter-19421.html

    Though the image often represents illegal speech, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own.

    The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from the Supreme Court’s 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech. In the decision, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that no free speech safeguard would cover someone "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

    The case in question did not involve fires, theaters or general panic. It instead concerned a man’s conviction for protesting the First World War’s military draft. The man, Charles Schenck, had printed 15,000 fliers that encouraged readers to resist conscription. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized such an offense, said prosecutors.

    Schenck argued that the Constitution allowed his expression, but the Court disagreed. According to their ruling, Schnenck’s fliers created a clear and present danger — a clear and present danger to the government’s recruiting efforts. He hadn’t endangered life, as falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would have, but he may as well have.

    This "clear and present danger" standard stood for half a century. Further rulings even expanded it, criminalizing additional speech. But the Supreme Court then heard a case involving a new example of questionable speech, one that modern sensibilities might find more controversial than war protests.

    Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law.

    A statute, which the state had enacted the same year as the Schenck decision, criminalized the advocacy of crime or violence. The victims of any possible crime this speech incited would face even clearer danger than patrons fleeing a crowded theater.

    Yet Brandenburg claimed the First Amendment protected his speech. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed with him, in contrast with the earlier Schenck decision. Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

    With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

    So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

    And, of course, no court will fault you for warning of a fire that actually exists.
    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. #1209
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    And you are wrong about the fire/theater deal. You can shout fire in a crowded theater. You can't shout "Set fire to the theater!"
    This is still curriculum where I was taught, and the analogy still stands regardless. My point was that there are some places and times and scenarios where even your most basic rights do not apply, and rightly so (no pun intended). Planes are definitely one of them. Bringing a gun to a restricted area with the intent to carry it with you is a crime.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  10. #1210
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This is still curriculum where I was taught, and the analogy still stands regardless. My point was that there are some places and times and scenarios where even your most basic rights do not apply, and rightly so (no pun intended). Planes are definitely one of them. Bringing a gun to a restricted area with the intent to carry it with you is a crime.
    Your curriculum is outdated then.

    Please list other rights that are restricted similarly? As in getting arrested for exercising that right. I have no problem with the airline saying no guns on the plane, I object to the arrest portion.
    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. #1211
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    LDS, you ever see the Bond flick Goldfinger? It's an old one (Sean Connery) but a classic.

    Near the beginning of the film, the villain's lady henchman (not sure if I can type her name on this website; look it up) threatens Bond with a gun on an airplane in flight. Bond quickly tells her that if she fires it, even if it hit him, it will likely go through him, then through the wall of the plane, causing it to depressurize, and end result, kill them both. She realizes he's probably right, and puts it away.

    Fast forward to the climax of the film. The villain himself (who Bond has learned by now doesn't has nearly as much sense as she did) threatens him on a plane with a gun. He mentions the warning again, but it's clear his is NOT going to put it away. But he makes the mistake of letting his guard down for a minute, so Bond decides reasoning with this guy is pointless, and tries to disarm him physically. The gun goes off, and shatters a window, and the warning he made earlier turns out to be only too true. Fortunately for all involved, Goldfinger is the only fatality. Bond and the now-reformed lady henchman survive.

    But this is truth in television. Even if you don't intend to use a gun on a plane, you aren't even allowed to bring one onboard if you're a police officer, because an accident with one can not only cause a disaster, but a pretty BIG one. An airplane may be the safest way to travel, but the few accidents that happen are pretty BIG accidents.

  12. #1212
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Maeder, have you ever watched Mythbusters? They addressed that issue. Truth in Television doesn't apply to MOVIES or to most TV shows actually! http://mythbustersresults.com/episode10

    And fyi, police officers CAN bring a firearm on a plane if they are traveling on business and fill out the proper paperwork.

    Edit: I bet you believe bullets can make cars explode because that's what they show in the movies.
    Last edited by LDSman; 8th September 2013 at 9:19 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.

  13. #1213
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    120

    Default

    I really wanna know what the point of this debate is when we all know the 2nd Amendment will never be stripped? NEVER. Even the thought of thinking it could happen shows you're delusional and oblivious to reality. All 50 states have to agree with at least an 51% (might be higher), for it to be removed as an Amendment anyways which is not even plausible. You can't get Oklahoma's, Wyoming's, Missouri's, Georgia's, Arkansas's, North and South Dakota, Kansas, and not to mention Texas's vote. The only way guns could be banned, is through a Revolutionary. Gun laws may be strict in Chicago, but guns are not BANNED. They're almost banned and it's a progressive liberal area, but even then they still can't ban guns. The only 3 states that I could see getting the peoples vote is Illinois, California, and New York. The rest either wont, or it will be close. But the states I mentioned earlier wont get the vote meaning the can't take our guns away legally.

    As for background checks, personality tests, etc yea, that could very well be added but it wont do too much. I'm completely for background checks and personality testings, but it will only work for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. I could care less if they ban guns for criminals that were incarcerated for gang activity or whatever. Reason is, when they get out they will still get a gun ILLEGALLY anyways, criminals do it all the time. You can make it harder for citizens to get a gun all you want, but only LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WILL FOLLOW! Gang bangers will still have glocks for their drive-bys, legal or not, they don't care about the law in the first place. But even saying law abiding is kinda iffy for the fact war veterans that are 70+ most likely have guns, and not just pistols and shotguns. Some of them are gun collectors, so does that make them mentally unstable to own a gun? If they have an assault rifle they're gonna go on a mass murder? The answer is NO, simple as that.
    Last edited by T3chNik4; 8th September 2013 at 8:51 PM.
    Musicians Club:


    Check out my music below and click become a fan!

    Reverbnation - http://www.reverbnation.com/seraph3?...eader_icon_nav

  14. #1214
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T3chNik4 View Post
    I really wanna know what the point of this debate is when we all know the 2nd Amendment will never be stripped? NEVER. Even the thought of thinking it could happen shows you're delusional and oblivious to reality. All 50 states have to agree with at least an 51% (might be higher), for it to be removed as an Amendment anyways which is not even plausible. You can't get Oklahoma's, Wyoming's, Missouri's, Georgia's, Arkansas's, North and South Dakota, Kansas, and not to mention Texas's vote. The only way guns could be banned, is through a Revolutionary. Gun laws may be strict in Chicago, but guns are not BANNED. They're almost banned and it's a progressive liberal area, but even then they still can't ban guns. The only 3 states that I could see getting the peoples vote is Illinois, California, and New York. The rest either wont, or it will be close. But the states I mentioned earlier wont get the vote meaning the can't take our guns away legally. .
    It gets debated because too many people believe that adding restrictions will somehow protect people from those that already break the laws.

    If you legally can't buy a gun because they are so many hoops to jump through, then to me, that is a defacto ban. Look at what happened to DC! The Supreme Court ruled that their laws were what amounts to a ban and were unconstitutional.

    Quote Originally Posted by T3chNik4 View Post
    As for background checks, personality tests, etc yea, that could very well be added but it wont do too much. I'm completely for background checks and personality testings, but it will only work for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. I could care less if they ban guns for criminals that were incarcerated for gang activity or whatever. Reason is, when they get out they will still get a gun ILLEGALLY anyways, criminals do it all the time. You can make it harder for citizens to get a gun all you want, but only LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WILL FOLLOW! Gang bangers will still have glocks for their drive-bys, legal or not, they don't care about the law in the first place. But even saying law abiding is kinda iffy for the fact war veterans that are 70+ most likely have guns, and not just pistols and shotguns. Some of them are gun collectors, so does that make them mentally unstable to own a gun? If they have an assault rifle they're gonna go on a mass murder? The answer is NO, simple as that.
    I'd rather they started prosecuting the 70,000 people that violated the laws regarding background checks. No adding more checks or tests.

    The recent presidental declaration on "corporations owning guns and a ban on reimporting "military" weapons" is another restriction on a Right that won't do anything. The first event still required a background check on the purchaser and the final owner if the corp dissolved. It was a way for people to keep their collections from being sold off if they died and kept the obscure possession laws for class 3 weapons from putting people in jail. The second covers weapons that collectors buy. Weapons that aren't being used to commit crimes!
    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.

  15. #1215
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    It gets debated because too many people believe that adding restrictions will somehow protect people from those that already break the laws.
    I lol'd

    If you legally can't buy a gun because they are so many hoops to jump through, then to me, that is a defacto ban. Look at what happened to DC! The Supreme Court ruled that their laws were what amounts to a ban and were unconstitutional.
    So what you're saying is Chicago has a gun ban? With the way you put it, I couldn't agree more. The testing and bs you have to do to get one there is ridiculous. And that's why only a very VERY small percentage owns guns legally.



    I'd rather they started prosecuting the 70,000 people that violated the laws regarding background checks. No adding more checks or tests.
    What you mean?

    The recent presidental declaration on "corporations owning guns and a ban on reimporting "military" weapons" is another restriction on a Right that won't do anything. The first event still required a background check on the purchaser and the final owner if the corp dissolved. It was a way for people to keep their collections from being sold off if they died and kept the obscure possession laws for class 3 weapons from putting people in jail. The second covers weapons that collectors buy. Weapons that aren't being used to commit crimes!
    Yeah some people think that just because you have a gun you're going to commit a crime with it which I find hilarious. So if I have a cutting knife in my kitchen I'm gonna use it to commit a crime? lol
    Musicians Club:


    Check out my music below and click become a fan!

    Reverbnation - http://www.reverbnation.com/seraph3?...eader_icon_nav

  16. #1216
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T3chNik4 View Post
    I lol'd



    So what you're saying is Chicago has a gun ban?

    What you mean?
    Chicago pretty much has a gun ban, yes.

    Lying on a background check is almost never prosecuted.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ground-checks/

    Of course the people who buy guns illegally don't have to go through a background check, so what's the point?
    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.

  17. #1217
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    Chicago pretty much has a gun ban, yes.
    Of course.. It's progressive liberal

    Lying on a background check is almost never prosecuted.
    How the **** do you get away with lying on a background check is the question?

    Of course the people who buy guns illegally don't have to go through a background check, so what's the point?
    Which is why I said it would only work for law abiding citizens.. But then again, you have war vets or in general gun collectors that wouldn't stand for it. I'm sure they would just keep their guns and say screw the testings.
    Musicians Club:


    Check out my music below and click become a fan!

    Reverbnation - http://www.reverbnation.com/seraph3?...eader_icon_nav

  18. #1218
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    LDS, bringing a gun on a plane is a serious crime, end of story. Nugent's wife will only get away with it because her husband is a celebrity. (Well, sort of.)

    You try it, see what the judge tells you if you try to use the Constitution as a defense.

    If a Democrat does anything illegal, like say, perjury, you guys claim he's a criminal who belongs in jail.

  19. #1219
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    LDS, bringing a gun on a plane is a serious crime, end of story. Nugent's wife will only get away with it because her husband is a celebrity. (Well, sort of.)

    You try it, see what the judge tells you if you try to use the Constitution as a defense.

    If a Democrat does anything illegal, like say, perjury, you guys claim he's a criminal who belongs in jail.
    But should it be a serious crime? Nugent's wife will likely face a fine, which is standard in these situations. She did have a concealed carry permit after all.

    Since I already know it's a crime, it is not something I'd try.

    I'd say that anyone who commits perjury should get jail time or fined at the least. Depends on what the perjury was about.
    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. #1220
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    LDS, bringing a gun on a plane is a serious crime, end of story. Nugent's wife will only get away with it because her husband is a celebrity. (Well, sort of.)
    Once again, you're letting your political views ruin a debate. Explain to me in a detailed format how taking a gun, even a pistol is a serious crime even though you have a carrying permit? And don't tell me, she was planning on trying to murder everyone on the plane... Please..

    You try it, see what the judge tells you if you try to use the Constitution as a defense.
    Yeah, ff it's a progressive liberal area..

    If a Democrat does anything illegal, like say, perjury, you guys claim he's a criminal who belongs in jail.
    How did we claim this, you're putting words in other mouths that wasn't intended on being spewed out. If anybody, I MEAN ANYBODY that commits a crime, celebrity or not should face charges or jail time. Depending on the severity of the crime. Possession of a gun, shouldn't even be on that list.
    Musicians Club:


    Check out my music below and click become a fan!

    Reverbnation - http://www.reverbnation.com/seraph3?...eader_icon_nav

  21. #1221
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    But should it be a serious crime?
    What can it lead to?

    9/11, that's what. Those hijackers didn't even have guns. Just think what terrorists who DO have them could do.

    So to answer your question, yes, it should lead to a LOT of jail time.

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    She did have a concealed carry permit after all.
    Which does NOT give you permission to bring one on a plane. If she does not know that, or truly DID "forget it was there", she should have it revoked, as she is ignorant of how to safely use a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    I'd say that anyone who commits perjury should get jail time or fined at the least. Depends on what the perjury was about.
    If we're talking about the guy we both know we are, consensual sex with a woman? Nope.

    And certainly not impeachment.

  22. #1222
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T3chNik4 View Post
    Which is why I said it would only work for law abiding citizens.. But then again, you have war vets or in general gun collectors that wouldn't stand for it. I'm sure they would just keep their guns and say screw the testings.
    Laws like this are almost all grandfathered in, so vets and collectors won't be bothered in the slightest. They would be held to the same standards as anyone else if they went to buy a new gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman
    Of course the people who buy guns illegally don't have to go through a background check, so what's the point?
    And what's the point of having laws against thievery when thieves are going to steal anyway? Laws are deterrents, and you are indeliberately framing gun ownership as a class in its own by saying they laws don't deter people who would attempt to attain illegal weapons. Why isn't the same argument made in the context of thievery?

    But should it be a serious crime? Nugent's wife will likely face a fine, which is standard in these situations. She did have a concealed carry permit after all.
    We know exactly how serious it is- enough to warrant a fine. It has a special consideration in discussion, though, because the we're talking about bringing a sidearm into an area where it is explicitly banned with a clear intent to bring it onto a plane. There are places where firearms just don't need to exist.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  23. #1223
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    What can it lead to?

    9/11, that's what. Those hijackers didn't even have guns. Just think what terrorists who DO have them could do.

    So to answer your question, yes, it should lead to a LOT of jail time.
    Your obviously confused about current and past events.. How can a gun on a plane lead to 9/11? I can guarantee you she didn't have the gun on the plane as a plot to murder everyone on the plane. That's stupidity at it's finest to believe so.



    Which does NOT give you permission to bring one on a plane. If she does not know that, or truly DID "forget it was there", she should have it revoked, as she is ignorant of how to safely use a gun.
    How is this not using a gun safely? Did she have it on safety lock? Did she have it in a place where the gun wouldn't go off randomly? If you can answer those questions truthfully, then you'll come to the conclusion that she is safe with a gun.. Just because you pull the trigger, doesn't mean the gun shoots a bullet. Even if it's loaded with lock off, you still gotta **** it back.
    Musicians Club:


    Check out my music below and click become a fan!

    Reverbnation - http://www.reverbnation.com/seraph3?...eader_icon_nav

  24. #1224
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    What can it lead to?

    9/11, that's what. Those hijackers didn't even have guns. Just think what terrorists who DO have them could do.

    So to answer your question, yes, it should lead to a LOT of jail time.

    .
    Just think how far the hijackers could have gotten if all the citizens who normally carry concealed had been allowed to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Which does NOT give you permission to bring one on a plane. If she does not know that, or truly DID "forget it was there", she should have it revoked, as she is ignorant of how to safely use a gun.
    .
    Right because failing to keep track of all the different gun laws directly relates to how you use the gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    If we're talking about the guy we both know we are, consensual sex with a woman? Nope.

    And certainly not impeachment.
    I actually wasn't thinking about Clinton. but hey, if the shoe fits.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Laws like this are almost all grandfathered in, so vets and collectors won't be bothered in the slightest. They would be held to the same standards as anyone else if they went to buy a new gun.

    .
    So any vet or gun collector WOULD be impacted. Meanwhile people who buy their guns illegally, or steal them, aren't affected at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    And what's the point of having laws against thievery when thieves are going to steal anyway? Laws are deterrents, and you are indeliberately framing gun ownership as a class in its own by saying they laws don't deter people who would attempt to attain illegal weapons. Why isn't the same argument made in the context of thievery?
    .
    Lets see, owning a gun is a Right listed in the Constitution. Thieving is not. An apples and cars comparison again. A tangible item versus an act. Gun Laws affect people who want to buy a gun legally. They don't affect the people who ignore those laws. Laws against theft affect only the people who steal. No one else.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    We know exactly how serious it is- enough to warrant a fine. It has a special consideration in discussion, though, because the we're talking about bringing a sidearm into an area where it is explicitly banned with a clear intent to bring it onto a plane. There are places where firearms just don't need to exist.
    Sounds like a "Gun Free Zone" argument. I have a problem with the arrest portion.
    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. #1225
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    I actually wasn't thinking about Clinton. but hey, if the shoe fits.
    Clinton?

    How'd you know I meant Clinton? I never said his name. Prove I meant Clinton.

    I could have been talking about Gingrich. He was an adulterer too.

    You say proof is needed for every comment. Prove I meant Clinton.

Page 49 of 78 FirstFirst ... 3945464748495051525359 ... 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
  •