|
Post by Word™ on Jun 14, 2016 19:02:41 GMT -5
For the record, I a not a gun owner and I never plan on owning one.
But the reason we have the 2nd amendment goes a lot deeper than protecting your home.. Our founding fathers actually implemented our right to bare arms to not only protect our home, but to protect our homeland.. To help prevent a complete government takeover of the people.
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Jun 14, 2016 19:07:12 GMT -5
For the record, I a not a gun owner and I never plan on owning one. But the reason we have the 2nd amendment goes a lot deeper than protecting your home.. Our founding fathers actually implemented our right to bare arms to not only protect our home, but to protect our homeland.. To help prevent a complete government takeover of the people. Your name is appropriate when it comes to a statement like this. Word!
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jun 14, 2016 19:30:57 GMT -5
For the record, I a not a gun owner and I never plan on owning one. But the reason we have the 2nd amendment goes a lot deeper than protecting your home.. Our founding fathers actually implemented our right to bare arms to not only protect our home, but to protect our homeland.. To help prevent a complete government takeover of the people. word
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 14:55:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 20:52:43 GMT -5
Some of you need to stop using certain media sources for your talking points. Every time this discusion happens, its like a broken record. "Oh chicago has strict gun laws" "What about Paris" Its a fact that the gun problem in chicago, is being fueled by LEGALLY bought guns elsewhere. And paris is a total different country and was a planned out isis attack. It is known that majority of these shooters all get their guns legally or in an easy way. Dont act like you know they would use something else, because you dont. But apparently the logic of "Killers are killers" Is better than taking a precaution that might work. People are getting abortions "Ban them" People are getting birth control "Make it harder to get" Gays are getting married "Ban it" Mass shootings are become much more common "Killers are killers and it would of happened either way" A ban on assault rifles is the smart way to go. When the amendments were written they had muzzleloader..so dont even mention its your birth right to have one. Take a step back and think to yourself, if this hobby is worth sacraficing in order to possibly save a few lives. Its a tragedy what happened and it should never happen. You cant just not do anything about it Then the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet. So all the gun problems in Chicago are because of everywhere else? That is what you're inferring correct? If these guns legally purchased are becoming problems in Chicago, then why aren't they problems where they're legally being purchased? Paris is a different country, which was victim to 2 attacks in the last year or so.. well 3 as of yesterday.. What are Paris' gun laws? Pretty sure that they can't own firearms. Do you realize how asinine it sounds when you point out that another country having a problem is a "planned out attack.. nothing could be done" but when it happens in a place where guns are legal like the US the tune changes to "ban all the guns!1!" Banning "assault rifles" as you say it (that's a political term, not an actual term) will accomplish nothing. We proved that in '94 like I said earlier in the thread. Gun violence decreased after the ban was lifted, not during. This "hobby" as you call it, is not worth sacrificing at all, because it's a fundamental right. That's like saying you can no longer be gay or Mexican or black or Jewish so that we can save some lives. This country was founded on rights that are guaranteed. Yes, this is a tragedy and should never happen, but taking it out on an inanimate object is not going to do a damn thing. That's like crushing your car because it got a flat tire. If you looked at actual statistics, the mass majority of guns used in violent crimes in chicago are bought out of state, where laws are less strict. Thats not an opinion, its a fact. The paris attacks were orchestrated by a sleeper cell of terrorists. Not the same as this situation, that we know little about at this time. "Just like in 94" is the new one thats sprouting up this week. That shouldnt even be brought up at all. Before that ban, assault rifles were rarely used in shootings or crime at all. They werent as readily available and were much more expensive then they are now. Research on the ban was inconclusive or showed no improvements because of this. Its a right given by man and can be taken by man. Not even close to the same as being gay or of certain ethnicity. Theres no reason for a civilian to have one of these weapons. I have a pistol and a few hunting rifles. I dont think they should out right ban guns, but there is no defense to have one of these.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 14:55:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 21:03:09 GMT -5
Then the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet. So all the gun problems in Chicago are because of everywhere else? That is what you're inferring correct? If these guns legally purchased are becoming problems in Chicago, then why aren't they problems where they're legally being purchased? Paris is a different country, which was victim to 2 attacks in the last year or so.. well 3 as of yesterday.. What are Paris' gun laws? Pretty sure that they can't own firearms. Do you realize how asinine it sounds when you point out that another country having a problem is a "planned out attack.. nothing could be done" but when it happens in a place where guns are legal like the US the tune changes to "ban all the guns!1!" Banning "assault rifles" as you say it (that's a political term, not an actual term) will accomplish nothing. We proved that in '94 like I said earlier in the thread. Gun violence decreased after the ban was lifted, not during. This "hobby" as you call it, is not worth sacrificing at all, because it's a fundamental right. That's like saying you can no longer be gay or Mexican or black or Jewish so that we can save some lives. This country was founded on rights that are guaranteed. Yes, this is a tragedy and should never happen, but taking it out on an inanimate object is not going to do a damn thing. That's like crushing your car because it got a flat tire. If you looked at actual statistics, the mass majority of guns used in violent crimes in chicago are bought out of state, where laws are less strict. Thats not an opinion, its a fact. The paris attacks were orchestrated by a sleeper cell of terrorists. Not the same as this situation, that we know little about at this time. "Just like in 94" is the new one thats sprouting up this week. That shouldnt even be brought up at all. Before that ban, assault rifles were rarely used in shootings or crime at all. They werent as readily available and were much more expensive then they are now. Research on the ban was inconclusive or showed no improvements because of this. Its a right given by man and can be taken by man. Not even close to the same as being gay or of certain ethnicity. Theres no reason for a civilian to have one of these weapons. I have a pistol and a few hunting rifles. I dont think they should out right ban guns, but there is no defense to have one of these. So... you still place the blame on the gun instead of the person pulling the trigger. My mom has slept with a gun under her bed for years and years. It hasn't hurt anyone. It doesn't spontaneously fire at a child or animal or even a gay club. She doesn't think that being gay is right. Neither do I. But not I, nor my mom has killed another person based off the way we feel. The problem will always be a prominent one so long as some continue to blame objects instead of human actions. It's the simplest thing to comprehend. That gun is under her bed to protect her. My mother. If someone breaks in, she knows what to do. And in today's society, she'd get blamed. If that right there doesn't turn on a light bulb then some of you are just fishing with no bait.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Jun 14, 2016 21:07:53 GMT -5
Those that say "you dont need an AR15 to protect your home" are the same ones who's daddy never had the cajones to let them shoot his old shot gun and dislocate your shoulder and put you on your ass. If you dont know, then you dont know.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jun 14, 2016 21:19:27 GMT -5
Then the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet. So all the gun problems in Chicago are because of everywhere else? That is what you're inferring correct? If these guns legally purchased are becoming problems in Chicago, then why aren't they problems where they're legally being purchased? Paris is a different country, which was victim to 2 attacks in the last year or so.. well 3 as of yesterday.. What are Paris' gun laws? Pretty sure that they can't own firearms. Do you realize how asinine it sounds when you point out that another country having a problem is a "planned out attack.. nothing could be done" but when it happens in a place where guns are legal like the US the tune changes to "ban all the guns!1!" Banning "assault rifles" as you say it (that's a political term, not an actual term) will accomplish nothing. We proved that in '94 like I said earlier in the thread. Gun violence decreased after the ban was lifted, not during. This "hobby" as you call it, is not worth sacrificing at all, because it's a fundamental right. That's like saying you can no longer be gay or Mexican or black or Jewish so that we can save some lives. This country was founded on rights that are guaranteed. Yes, this is a tragedy and should never happen, but taking it out on an inanimate object is not going to do a damn thing. That's like crushing your car because it got a flat tire. If you looked at actual statistics, the mass majority of guns used in violent crimes in chicago are bought out of state, where laws are less strict. Thats not an opinion, its a fact. The paris attacks were orchestrated by a sleeper cell of terrorists. Not the same as this situation, that we know little about at this time. "Just like in 94" is the new one thats sprouting up this week. That shouldnt even be brought up at all. Before that ban, assault rifles were rarely used in shootings or crime at all. They werent as readily available and were much more expensive then they are now. Research on the ban was inconclusive or showed no improvements because of this. Its a right given by man and can be taken by man. Not even close to the same as being gay or of certain ethnicity. Theres no reason for a civilian to have one of these weapons. I have a pistol and a few hunting rifles. I dont think they should out right ban guns, but there is no defense to have one of these. That's because guns are almost impossible to get in Chicago. You still did not answer the question I posed. If these guns are such a problem, why is it that where those guns are legal they are not having the same problems that they have in Chicago? Seems like the whole "Gun Free Zone" thing at work. So an attack coordinated by a supposed ISIS sympathizer is completely different than an attack coordinated by a sleeper cell? Both are acts of terrorism. 1994-2004 (the Clinton Ban) is a valid argument. Those firearms were available during that time, and crime statistics showed NOTHING that they deterred crime over the 10 year span of the law. States like NY have continued the Clinton Era ban and made it worse for citizens, yet it has had no effect what so ever on crime. Also, please stop using the term "Assault Rifle" as you are using it in the incorrect context. A real Assault Rifle is capable of select fire and they have been HEAVILY regulated since 1934. The political term you use is to scare people into thinking that a rifle is more lethal because of the features of it. Truth be told, a semi-auto rifle is as deadly as an AR-15.. only difference is one looks scary. Look into the FBI Crime stats for 2014, 3% of all gun related deaths were from rifles. This includes "Assault Rifles", shotguns, hunting rifles and lever action rifles. Please tell me again how banning "Assault Rifles" will solve the problem. You take one right away, you're going to lose the whole thing. There is no reason for me to have a car that goes over 70MPH, there is no reason for me to have Fire Extinguishers in my house, there is no reason for me to shower once a day. Just because you can't see the reason doesn't mean that it's not there. You are honestly part of the problem. What we in the industry call a FUDD. All you worry about is your hunting rifles thinking "Oh, they'll never try to ban these". Well I hate to tell you this Chief, it'd be only a matter of time before your Hunting Rifle becomes branded a "sniper rifle" and they go after that. An attack on the second amendment is an attack on EVERY gun owner. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. It's about being able to defend yourself, your family and your loved ones. It's about personal responsibility. It's about defending the beliefs that our forefathers laid out when they took this land back from an oppressive government and said "Never again"
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 14:55:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 21:29:53 GMT -5
Those that say "you dont need an AR15 to protect your home" are the same ones who's daddy never had the cajones to let them shoot his old shot gun and dislocate your shoulder and put you on your ass. If you dont know, then you dont know. People that say things like this, never had a real life situation where their life is threatened with a gun. You know, like breaking down on rt4 in orlando and unknowingly walking down the wrong street, in the wrong neighborhood and being forced to your knees with a gun to your head, just to steal the $4 you had and your cell phone. If you cant defend yourself with a pistol, you shouldnt try to defend yourself with an ar15.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jun 14, 2016 21:32:31 GMT -5
what difference is it to you if its a pistol or an ar15 (both have the same function and provide the equal threat)?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 14:55:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 21:37:02 GMT -5
If you looked at actual statistics, the mass majority of guns used in violent crimes in chicago are bought out of state, where laws are less strict. Thats not an opinion, its a fact. The paris attacks were orchestrated by a sleeper cell of terrorists. Not the same as this situation, that we know little about at this time. "Just like in 94" is the new one thats sprouting up this week. That shouldnt even be brought up at all. Before that ban, assault rifles were rarely used in shootings or crime at all. They werent as readily available and were much more expensive then they are now. Research on the ban was inconclusive or showed no improvements because of this. Its a right given by man and can be taken by man. Not even close to the same as being gay or of certain ethnicity. Theres no reason for a civilian to have one of these weapons. I have a pistol and a few hunting rifles. I dont think they should out right ban guns, but there is no defense to have one of these. That's because guns are almost impossible to get in Chicago. You still did not answer the question I posed. If these guns are such a problem, why is it that where those guns are legal they are not having the same problems that they have in Chicago? Seems like the whole "Gun Free Zone" thing at work. So an attack coordinated by a supposed ISIS sympathizer is completely different than an attack coordinated by a sleeper cell? Both are acts of terrorism. 1994-2004 (the Clinton Ban) is a valid argument. Those firearms were available during that time, and crime statistics showed NOTHING that they deterred crime over the 10 year span of the law. States like NY have continued the Clinton Era ban and made it worse for citizens, yet it has had no effect what so ever on crime. Also, please stop using the term "Assault Rifle" as you are using it in the incorrect context. A real Assault Rifle is capable of select fire and they have been HEAVILY regulated since 1934. The political term you use is to scare people into thinking that a rifle is more lethal because of the features of it. Truth be told, a semi-auto rifle is as deadly as an AR-15.. only difference is one looks scary. Look into the FBI Crime stats for 2014, 3% of all gun related deaths were from rifles. This includes "Assault Rifles", shotguns, hunting rifles and lever action rifles. Please tell me again how banning "Assault Rifles" will solve the problem. You take one right away, you're going to lose the whole thing. There is no reason for me to have a car that goes over 70MPH, there is no reason for me to have Fire Extinguishers in my house, there is no reason for me to shower once a day. Just because you can't see the reason doesn't mean that it's not there. You are honestly part of the problem. What we in the industry call a FUDD. All you worry about is your hunting rifles thinking "Oh, they'll never try to ban these". Well I hate to tell you this Chief, it'd be only a matter of time before your Hunting Rifle becomes branded a "sniper rifle" and they go after that. An attack on the second amendment is an attack on EVERY gun owner. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. It's about being able to defend yourself, your family and your loved ones. It's about personal responsibility. It's about defending the beliefs that our forefathers laid out when they took this land back from an oppressive government and said "Never again" Any thing i say, any facts i post, you wont believe.. So i'm not gonna reply to this nonsense anymore, because i know it'll only end up with you or someone else banning me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 14:55:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 21:37:48 GMT -5
what difference is it to you if its a pistol or an ar15 (both have the same function and provide the equal threat)? A pistols not capable of shooting 800 rounds per minute.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 14:55:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 21:38:08 GMT -5
Those that say "you dont need an AR15 to protect your home" are the same ones who's daddy never had the cajones to let them shoot his old shot gun and dislocate your shoulder and put you on your ass. If you dont know, then you dont know. People that say things like this, never had a real life situation where their life is threatened with a gun. You know, like breaking down on rt4 in orlando and unknowingly walking down the wrong street, in the wrong neighborhood and being forced to your knees with a gun to your head, just to steal the $4 you had and your cell phone. If you cant defend yourself with a pistol, you shouldnt try to defend yourself with an ar15. You have Swiss logic dude. There's so many holes in it. Who all totes guns to the gay club? They weren't expecting to get murdered. You can't fantasize your own perfect situations to accommodate your stance on it. Once the government has the power of full gun control, there's nothing we can do, as a people, to fight against what we fought to get away from initially. Our country is a child. Less than 250 years. We became so great because of our great foundation that we built off of. We have amendments. We have rights. We have FREEDOM. Once that's gone, we'll have nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jun 14, 2016 21:46:59 GMT -5
what difference is it to you if its a pistol or an ar15 (both have the same function and provide the equal threat)? A pistols not capable of shooting 800 rounds per minute. you cannot get a gun on earth legally that shoots 800 rounds a minute I'll send you 500 bucks cash if you send me a video of you shooting 800 rounds a minute with an AR15
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jun 14, 2016 21:49:00 GMT -5
Time for the gays to arm themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Colter on Jun 14, 2016 22:22:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Jun 14, 2016 22:24:33 GMT -5
Those that say "you dont need an AR15 to protect your home" are the same ones who's daddy never had the cajones to let them shoot his old shot gun and dislocate your shoulder and put you on your ass. If you dont know, then you dont know. People that say things like this, never had a real life situation where their life is threatened with a gun. You know, like breaking down on rt4 in orlando and unknowingly walking down the wrong street, in the wrong neighborhood and being forced to your knees with a gun to your head, just to steal the $4 you had and your cell phone. If you cant defend yourself with a pistol, you shouldnt try to defend yourself with an ar15. 2 totally different scenarios. Under no circumstances should anyone be allowed to just walk around in public carrying an AR-15 cause they have a carry permit. However, its 3am in the morning and you've been asleep for the past 5-6hrs and you hear a door bust open or a window break, you grab a pistol and you're groggy as hell, chances are you're not gonna hit what you're shooting at (that and pistols are not as easy as they seem to shoot) and the difference between 1 shot and 2 shots could be life or death. Ill take the AR-15 any day and just start shooting down a hall way, Id be much more likely to hit what Im shooting towards. A pistols not capable of shooting 800 rounds per minute. you cannot get a gun on earth legally that shoots 800 rounds a minute I'll send you 500 bucks cash if you send me a video of you shooting 800 rounds a minute with an AR15 Like I said, those who dont know, dont know.
|
|
|
Post by Colter on Jun 14, 2016 22:32:33 GMT -5
Okay aside from the Jim Jefferies bit, here's where I stand on guns. If you disagree, cool. I'm not looking to get into a big debate about it, because in the end, no matter what any of us think, the world is going to keep turning and bad will still happen to good people. Anyways, I'm not a gun person. Now, I've shot them. I've owned them. But they don't really appeal to me and I don't understand why people lose their minds over their guns. I understand having one for protection. That is your total and complete right. But for protection, you don't need a military grade weapon. You're not fighting ISIS when a guy busts into your house for your TV. Unfortunately, and this is just personal experience here, people I see think "gun control" means " you, we're taking away your guns." They proceed to get all worked up and threaten this and that. Listen -- WE NEED GUN CONTROL. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WALTZ INTO A GUN STORE AND BUY A RIFLE IN UNDER 10 MINUTES. I believe we as a nation need stricter laws to prevent people with histories of violence and crime and god forbid what else from getting their hands on guns. If you need a gun, it, go for it. Own it. Go out to the range and blast some targets or whatever. But don't even start crying about gun control and "oh no THEY'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS" and all that other bull when you know damn well that's not what they're doing. There comes a time when people need to stop being dickheads to one another and shooting them. Basically, I don't like guns, 90% of this forum will probably be quoting this post and bitching at me, and we need stricter laws. Yeah, that's where I stand. If this doesn't make sense, blame it on finals and sleep deprivation. Or don't. Just call me dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Planktung on Jun 14, 2016 22:42:40 GMT -5
Okay aside from the Jim Jefferies bit, here's where I stand on guns. If you disagree, cool. I'm not looking to get into a big debate about it, because in the end, no matter what any of us think, the world is going to keep turning and bad will still happen to good people. Anyways, I'm not a gun person. Now, I've shot them. I've owned them. But they don't really appeal to me and I don't understand why people lose their minds over their guns. I understand having one for protection. That is your total and complete right. But for protection, you don't need a military grade weapon. You're not fighting ISIS when a guy busts into your house for your TV. Unfortunately, and this is just personal experience here, people I see think "gun control" means " you, we're taking away your guns." They proceed to get all worked up and threaten this and that. Listen -- WE NEED GUN CONTROL. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WALTZ INTO A GUN STORE AND BUY A RIFLE IN UNDER 10 MINUTES. I believe we as a nation need stricter laws to prevent people with histories of violence and crime and god forbid what else from getting their hands on guns. If you need a gun, it, go for it. Own it. Go out to the range and blast some targets or whatever. But don't even start crying about gun control and "oh no THEY'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS" and all that other bull when you know damn well that's not what they're doing. There comes a time when people need to stop being dickheads to one another and shooting them. Basically, I don't like guns, 90% of this forum will probably be quoting this post and bitching at me, and we need stricter laws. Yeah, that's where I stand. If this doesn't make sense, blame it on finals and sleep deprivation. Or don't. Just call me dumb.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 14:55:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 23:13:50 GMT -5
Those that say "you dont need an AR15 to protect your home" are the same ones who's daddy never had the cajones to let them shoot his old shot gun and dislocate your shoulder and put you on your ass. If you dont know, then you dont know. People that say things like this, never had a real life situation where their life is threatened with a gun. You know, like breaking down on rt4 in orlando and unknowingly walking down the wrong street, in the wrong neighborhood and being forced to your knees with a gun to your head, just to steal the $4 you had and your cell phone. If you cant defend yourself with a pistol, you shouldnt try to defend yourself with an ar15. I lived in Birmingham Alabama in the ghetto throughout most of my college time. Needless to say. I have had my life threatened with guns. I own guns. Gtfo with your nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Jun 14, 2016 23:55:11 GMT -5
Any thing i say, any facts i post, you wont believe.. So i'm not gonna reply to this nonsense anymore, because i know it'll only end up with you or someone else banning me. Nobody is going to ban you here. We're just having a discussion. There have already been several mods and admins here and the only reason JS even mentioned banning was because of snarky comments. what difference is it to you if its a pistol or an ar15 (both have the same function and provide the equal threat)? A pistols not capable of shooting 800 rounds per minute. That "800 rounds" is the measure of cyclic ROF (Rate of Fire) and that doesn't apply here because the AR-15 has no full auto or burst settings. With an AR-15, the weapon does not fire another round until the trigger is released and pulled again...so ROF is however fast you can pull the trigger. That creates another situation. AR-15s tend to jam if they're fired too fast or for too long. To say that an AR-15 can tear through 800 rounds in a minute is patently false. That would indicate that you first modified the weapon into a fully automatic version and then had an ammo drum with 800 rounds on a feeder belt. The AR-15 would almost assuredly jam before you got to the last bullet.
|
|