|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 21:41:42 GMT -5
What do you think makes other guns worse? They are higher capacity and have the ability to kill more people in a smaller amount of time. With your traditional firearms, the killer can only do little damage before he's stopped. And quite frankly, I don't think a civilian should be using a tactical shotgun like the ones used by SWAT teams. Jared Lee Loughner had a handgun and he killed six people and injured 13. Did you know the gun Adam Lanza used in Newtown shoots the exact same bullets as a hunting rifle? It also had the same amount of rounds (30) as some hunting rifles? I'm guessing you dislike the other guns because they look scary.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 21:43:57 GMT -5
Should the first amendment apply to the internet and TV since they were not around then and they couldn't have imagined them? You are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. They didn't realize computers and phones would be around then so I guess it'd be ok if the police just took those things from you since there was no way the founders could have imagined computers and phones. Listen man I'm not even from the states so none of this applies to me. All i'm saying is is that I don't think it would be a bad idea to pass this law. Don't try to bring up peanuts or anything because we both no that guns and peanuts are VERY different. That's find that you have your opinion and I have mine and i doubt either of us will change our minds. And in regards to the internet thing, well guns are designed for hurting people, computers are not. Once again very different topics. Just gonna change the subject, anyone else think it's weird kinder eggs are banned in US but not guns? But the point still stands. If the founding fathers didn't intend for the guns of today to be used then obviously they didn't mean for computers and phones to be used like they are so they should be regulated. Peanuts kill. 200 or so people die each year from a peanut allergy. Shouldn't we do something to stop that? Yes, it is weird. The eggs shouldn't be banned either.
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Apr 17, 2013 23:16:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 23:20:12 GMT -5
I still wish someone, anyone would answer me about the 1st amendment applying to internet and TV. The Founders couldn't have imagined those things yet I don't hear anyone saying they wouldn't have wanted the 1st amendment to protect those things. So why do people say they wouldn't have approved of guns today because they only had muskets back then?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Apr 17, 2013 23:26:26 GMT -5
I don't think guns should be banned or illegal or anything like that but something's gotta be done.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 17, 2013 23:39:36 GMT -5
People really need to wake up and do some freaking research. Some of the responses on here about violating our Constitutional rights and how every Bill like this is one more step towards the American people becoming slaves......it's down right frightening that some of you are that ignorant and uniformed. "THEY'RE TAKIN MA GUNZ" is your only leg you have to stand on.....and it's incorrect.
Do some research. This Bill was NOT taking your precious guns away. This bill was NOT making background checks harder to pass. This Bill was NOT changing the background checks in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. All this Bill was designed to do was to take the SAME BACKGROUND CHECK that you have to do every time you buy a gun from an actual gun store and extend that to online gun sales and gun show sales. THAT'S IT. If you can pass the background check you can buy as many freaking guns as you want, nobody is stopping you and nobody is trying to take away the ones you already have.
Would this Bill have stopped all gun violence? NO Would this Bill have kept all guns out of the hands of criminals? NO Would this Bill have prevented the sale of guns illegally or off the books? NO Would this gun have potentially helped keep some guns out of the wrong hands? YES
This Bill was just to attempt to prevent a criminal or a person with a severe mental condition who would not pass a background check from circumventing the system and anonymously acquiring one.
So let's smarten up and do some actual research, people. Stop making yourselves look ignorant and trashy by basically reacting to every piece of gun legislation by essentially responding with "THAT DAMN NEGRO PRESIDENT IS TAKIN MA GUNZ!".
Because quite honestly, you people are embarrassing yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 17, 2013 23:43:00 GMT -5
i feel much safer being canadian. we don't have guns and we're just fine. weird.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 23:44:46 GMT -5
People really need to wake up and do some freaking research. Some of the responses on here about violating our Constitutional rights and how every Bill like this is one more step towards the American people becoming slaves......it's down right frightening that some of you are that ignorant and uniformed. "THEY'RE TAKIN MA GUNZ" is your only leg you have to stand on.....and it's incorrect. Do some research. This Bill was NOT taking your precious guns away. This bill was NOT making background checks harder to pass. This Bill was NOT changing the background checks in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. All this Bill was designed to do was to take the SAME BACKGROUND CHECK that you have to do every time you buy a gun from an actual gun store and extend that to online gun sales and gun show sales. THAT'S IT. If you can pass the background check you can buy as many freaking guns as you want, nobody is stopping you and nobody is trying to take away the ones you already have. Would this Bill have stopped all gun violence? NO Would this Bill have kept all guns out of the hands of criminals? NO Would this Bill have prevented the sale of guns illegally or off the books? NO Would this gun have potentially helped keep some guns out of the wrong hands? YES This Bill was just to attempt to prevent a criminal or a person with a severe mental condition who would not pass a background check from circumventing the system and anonymously acquiring one. So let's smarten up and do some actual research, people. Stop making yourselves look ignorant and trashy by basically reacting to every piece of gun legislation by essentially responding with "THAT DAMN NEGRO PRESIDENT IS TAKIN MA GUNZ!". Because quite honestly, you people are embarrassing yourselves. Thanks for ignoring my post where I talk about the gun show loop hole myth. The myth has been circulated and is based on a survey of 250 people from 1993 and 1994. Not exactly a great representation of the whole population or of today. I have zero guns for the government to take and yet here I am still talking about these awful laws. The race of the President has nothing to do with this. Why is that always the go to argument? Anytime someone disagrees with what the President is doing they're racist. Black people who disagree with the President have been accused of internalized racism and have been called racist things for disagreeing with the President. Let's look at the race of the Senators pushing this. Dianne Feinstein, white. Harry Reid, white. Chuck Schumer, white. Or is being against this also misogynistic, anti-Morman and anti-Semitic?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 23:50:31 GMT -5
I wonder what you all would have said to the Korean business owners who defended their stores with "assault" weapons during the LA riots.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 18, 2013 0:06:06 GMT -5
The bill should've passed, but let's be honest here, a background check wouldn't have prevented any of the tragedies we've seen in recent months and years. In fact, some of those people passed background checks before they purchased the gun(s) they used. and we have a winner. While I support background checks for everyone wanting to purchase a gun, its not going to stop things from happening. Especially when you can take a trip to Walmart-Home Depot and the Library and end up doing what happened just yesterday in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 6:49:17 GMT -5
People really need to wake up and do some freaking research. Some of the responses on here about violating our Constitutional rights and how every Bill like this is one more step towards the American people becoming slaves......it's down right frightening that some of you are that ignorant and uniformed. "THEY'RE TAKIN MA GUNZ" is your only leg you have to stand on.....and it's incorrect. Do some research. This Bill was NOT taking your precious guns away. This bill was NOT making background checks harder to pass. This Bill was NOT changing the background checks in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. All this Bill was designed to do was to take the SAME BACKGROUND CHECK that you have to do every time you buy a gun from an actual gun store and extend that to online gun sales and gun show sales. THAT'S IT. If you can pass the background check you can buy as many freaking guns as you want, nobody is stopping you and nobody is trying to take away the ones you already have. Would this Bill have stopped all gun violence? NO Would this Bill have kept all guns out of the hands of criminals? NO Would this Bill have prevented the sale of guns illegally or off the books? NO Would this gun have potentially helped keep some guns out of the wrong hands? YES This Bill was just to attempt to prevent a criminal or a person with a severe mental condition who would not pass a background check from circumventing the system and anonymously acquiring one. So let's smarten up and do some actual research, people. Stop making yourselves look ignorant and trashy by basically reacting to every piece of gun legislation by essentially responding with "THAT DAMN NEGRO PRESIDENT IS TAKIN MA GUNZ!". Because quite honestly, you people are embarrassing yourselves. Thanks for ignoring my post where I talk about the gun show loop hole myth. The myth has been circulated and is based on a survey of 250 people from 1993 and 1994. Not exactly a great representation of the whole population or of today. I have zero guns for the government to take and yet here I am still talking about these awful laws. The race of the President has nothing to do with this. Why is that always the go to argument? Anytime someone disagrees with what the President is doing they're racist. Black people who disagree with the President have been accused of internalized racism and have been called racist things for disagreeing with the President. Let's look at the race of the Senators pushing this. Dianne Feinstein, white. Harry Reid, white. Chuck Schumer, white. Or is being against this also misogynistic, anti-Morman and anti-Semitic? Gabby Giffords husband was able to order a gun online without passing a background check. Do you not think that loophole should be closed? Still waiting for someone to tell me why and how this bill infringes on any rights.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Apr 18, 2013 7:36:07 GMT -5
Thanks for ignoring my post where I talk about the gun show loop hole myth. The myth has been circulated and is based on a survey of 250 people from 1993 and 1994. Not exactly a great representation of the whole population or of today. I have zero guns for the government to take and yet here I am still talking about these awful laws. The race of the President has nothing to do with this. Why is that always the go to argument? Anytime someone disagrees with what the President is doing they're racist. Black people who disagree with the President have been accused of internalized racism and have been called racist things for disagreeing with the President. Let's look at the race of the Senators pushing this. Dianne Feinstein, white. Harry Reid, white. Chuck Schumer, white. Or is being against this also misogynistic, anti-Morman and anti-Semitic? Gabby Giffords husband was able to order a gun online without passing a background check. Do you not think that loophole should be closed? Still waiting for someone to tell me why and how this bill infringes on any rights. Yes but what was failed to mention is that in order to actually take possession of the firearm you have to pass the background checks. It gets delivered to an FFL dealer such as a gun shop, not to your home. Then you have to go pick it up. Once you go to pick it up you have to fill out the paperwork and pass the background checks or you do not get the firearm.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 8:06:28 GMT -5
i feel much safer being canadian. we don't have guns and we're just fine. weird. Same with being from the UK. I like being able to go out at night without fearing (realistically) I could be shot.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 18, 2013 9:52:43 GMT -5
I propose an experiment. We ban guns in the USA, and see what happens.
For every second that the USA doesn't become a world-recognised dictatorship/police state, I am right and Libertarians are wrong. As soon as that does happen, you guys were right and I was wrong.
Deal?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 10:03:22 GMT -5
Gabby Giffords husband was able to order a gun online without passing a background check. Do you not think that loophole should be closed? Still waiting for someone to tell me why and how this bill infringes on any rights. Yes but what was failed to mention is that in order to actually take possession of the firearm you have to pass the background checks. It gets delivered to an FFL dealer such as a gun shop, not to your home. Then you have to go pick it up. Once you go to pick it up you have to fill out the paperwork and pass the background checks or you do not get the firearm. So what is the problem with the proposed law then? The gun lobby should be in favor of it because it makes no changes to existing laws apparently and will make the anti-gun nutjobs happy.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Apr 18, 2013 11:47:33 GMT -5
Yes but what was failed to mention is that in order to actually take possession of the firearm you have to pass the background checks. It gets delivered to an FFL dealer such as a gun shop, not to your home. Then you have to go pick it up. Once you go to pick it up you have to fill out the paperwork and pass the background checks or you do not get the firearm. So what is the problem with the proposed law then? The gun lobby should be in favor of it because it makes no changes to existing laws apparently and will make the anti-gun nutjobs happy. Exactly, that's the problem. I do not give two 'you know whats' about making them happy. I do not want anyone draining the second amendment more and more, because ultimately what will make them really happy and what their goal is, is defenseless honest citizens and the abolishment of the second amendment. They are anti-gun, not pro-more background checks. Read my other post. JS
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 11:57:55 GMT -5
I propose an experiment. We ban guns in the USA, and see what happens. For every second that the USA doesn't become a world-recognised dictatorship/police state, I am right and Libertarians are wrong. As soon as that does happen, you guys were right and I was wrong. Deal? When I'm wrong, nothing happens. When you're wrong, I die. Seems like a fair trade-off.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 11:59:18 GMT -5
So what is the problem with the proposed law then? The gun lobby should be in favor of it because it makes no changes to existing laws apparently and will make the anti-gun nutjobs happy. Exactly, that's the problem. I do not give two 'you know whats' about making them happy. I do not want anyone draining the second amendment more and more, because ultimately what will make them really happy and what their goal is, is defenseless honest citizens and the abolishment of the second amendment. They are anti-gun, not pro-more background checks. Read my other post. JS Yeah, I'm sure anyone who is anti-gun is a nutjob who would love the government to take control of everyone's lives
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 12:07:37 GMT -5
So what is the problem with the proposed law then? The gun lobby should be in favor of it because it makes no changes to existing laws apparently and will make the anti-gun nutjobs happy. Exactly, that's the problem. I do not give two 'you know whats' about making them happy. I do not want anyone draining the second amendment more and more, because ultimately what will make them really happy and what their goal is, is defenseless honest citizens and the abolishment of the second amendment. They are anti-gun, not pro-more background checks. Read my other post. JS How does the proposed law "drain the second amendment"? This is my issue with both sides. Neither one wants to make any compromises even when they're reasonable ones.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 14:59:05 GMT -5
Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to "compromise" my Constitutional right to own a gun, as a free person.
By the way, again, I don't even own a gun. I just don't want people regulating crapmore than it is now.
|
|