When did this thread become a gun and bills debate? Wasnt the subject like your favorite guns or do you collect guns....
I think you can see from my sig line where I stand. I have several guns--pretty much all for hunting. As for the 2nd admendment, what a lot of people fail to recognize is that its there as the doomsday option. That is its purpose. Imagine if after 9/11, Bush declared Marshall law--much like what just happened in Pakistan. Now imagine that because we're under Marshall law, anyone who spoke up against the war in Iraq, or Bush, or whatever, was put into prison. Soon, we'd have millions of political prisoners. At some point, the country would have enough. At that time, what could we do? Take up arms! Do battle against a tyrannical government. Isn't that what they did back in 1776? Frankly, if I had to go to battle against the army, I'd like my chances a lot better if I had a gun and didn't have to rely on a spear.
Guns are great, though I'm inclinded to the old ones, I'd love to get my hands on an old flintlock kentucky rifle of springfield from the civil war. The spencer was a beauty too, and above all the mauser model 98, now there was a rifle.
Sorry but I think that's horseshit. The only way that would help prevent shootings like those mentioned is to encourage kids to take guns to school? Is that what you're saying? :-/ There's never been a gun culture over here so problems such as those have never really arisen. Kids are told guns are bad news from an early age and so they never really feel the urge to go and blow their classmates' heads off. The only ever school shooting here was the Dunblane massacre in 1996, commited by an adult (who legally owned guns) on a bunch of 5 and 6 year olds. Because of that incident handguns were banned and though there were none before there's been no shootings in schools since, despite gun culture growing in popularity. The majority of shootings here now involve inner city youths 16/17/18 years old who are given glorified images of gun violence by US films and shitty rap music. They all use US rap slang and think they're gangsters because of this fake lifestyle they're sold. It's that kind of 'lil kid' mentality that makes people who want guns look dangerous. I know people can be responsible owning guns and I'm sure those of you on here who do own firearms do so responsibly and maturely. In my life and experience there's no need to though, so I personally see no point in them. They're only made for killing and so the harder they are to get hold of the better IMO. If I lived elsewhere and had different experiences in life then my views would probably be different but as is I'm not for them at all. Do what you want as long as you harm no-one else but I feel there's too much room for abuse with this culture of what are essentially instruments of death.
Go back to Europe, this thread is about gun politics, it's about discussing what your favorite makes and models are.
i'm well aware of that, and its highly irrelevant to mention. i do not claim to take any side in this, and am not arguing against guns. i'm actually relatively pro-gun, so long as they are handled as safely as possible, though for various reasons i would not want to have one in my home, most likely. i simply maintain that current laws that ban certain weapons are constitutionally valid, and that even more restrictive laws could certainly be allowable as well. so long as a man has a means to arm himself, he maintains a right to keep and bear arms. just because nobody is trying to ban all firearms completely and saying that it could be constitutionally valid doesnt mean that a literal reading of it couldnt possibly allow for a ban on guns and explosives, but not other forms of weaponry. what about the right to not be owned by another person? the bill of rights is imperfect as is any other human construct to date. there were lengthy steps taken to write the bill of rights. because they couldnt agree right away. it took years! this is what they finally agreed upon, its not some holy scripture. its their compromises and final ideals that were simply the most acceptable to the majority as possible. thats it. it certainly did not garauntee ALL unalienable rights. slavery continued until the 19th century, and remnants of segregation still exist in many american communities....the bill of rights was a basic starter, not the be-all-end-all. it was designed, like the rest of the constitution, to best serve the issues of the day and be a guiding force in american politics. i'm not suggesting guns should be banned, i think that would be a gross violation of the basic right to have them. however the second amendment says nothing about guns, just weapons in general. if its legally acceptable to restrict anything about weapon ownership at all, then guns are as acceptable an item to ban as nuclear weapons. so would knives, if guns werent banned. the thing is so long as a man has SOME real weapons they have legal access to with which to arm themselves, they still maintain the right to keep and bear arms. i'm not arguing a side, i'm speculating. i'm not asking anyone to agree with me. i'm not anti gun, and not particularly even pro constitution. i dont think america's foundation was more legitimate than any other nations, while i love the land i live in, i'm not particularly fond of our system of government and the attrocities it has committed in the past and continues to today. while i understand that within the realm of american government the law of the land must be obeyed, however, and if the constitution is the law of the land it should be used as such as much as possible, and many, many things going on today are in fact quite grossly unconstitutional. however, the constitution and bill of rights do not specifically say that a person has the right to own whatever kind of weapon they want, it just says they have the right to arm themselves. just because my idea does not follow the same reasoning as that of most legal scholars does not entirely invalidate it, even if it "the establishment" (though i hate that phrase) wouldnt buy it.
you do know joe that you are totally on the wrong forums BUT atleast it was worth reading since its deer season right now. lol
I'm already in Europe. Christ, if people as dumb as you can get their hands on firearms then evidently I worry with good reason. @ Dirk Pitt- thanks for answering articulately and maturely. I know you usually have campus police in schools and school cops etc over there, something that is very rare here. Do they not carry guns like your standard cops do? If there is a problem with gun crime in schools then surely the cops should be allowed them? Bringing up stabbings etc in schools is kind of irrelevant or do kids in the states only use guns and never knives? The amount of shootings annually over here is so miniscule that whether it increases or decreases by 5 or 10 year by year is neither here nor there really. In 2004/5 there were 73 homicides caused by firearms. Out of a population of 60mill that's a tiny statistic- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#International_comparison speaks for itself really... I think the stat 1 in 5 people know some who had/has an illegal gun is nonsense. I've never in my life met someone who owns an illegal gun here despite having had enough dealings with the criminal fraternity and the only people I've met with legal ones are folk who live on big estates in the country and use them for sport. Now as I said before I'm not anti gun completely, I know that people can be responsible, adult and safely keep firearms. I also understand that many americans feel it's their last line of defence against the government- you're a relatively young country and stability has been relatively short in the grand scheme of things. I'm saying I feel there is no point in them over here and it's something I feel quite strongly about. As far as I'm concerned in modern Britain no-one needs a gun. You say 'I feel its more the lack of respect and empathy toward ones fellow man that is the problem, not the means.' and here I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's not just guns but kids stabbing each other and all sorts of nasty shit here. BTW many of the illegal guns here, especially those that the youth get their hands on, are replicas converted to fire live ammunition so regardless of legality they can be bought easily and converted by someone with the know-how and a little money. My original post was just a reaction to the guy saying he loved weapons and the feeling that you have something in your hand that can cause such destruction. To me that's not responsible ownership and is wanting a firearm for the wrong reasons. I'm out now, carry on talking about your favourite guns and whatever. I was just answering a couple of point that made me think...
i dont recall having said anything like this, and if i did it was an error of judgment. i do not want to claim that banning guns would in ANY way reduce violence. banning SOME types of weaponry may in SOME isolated cases help prevent unnecessary tragedy, however. firing an automatic weapon out of a moving car will likely help you hit your target, as well as a few bystanders. not being able to acquire guns or guns of certain types will do nothing to stop violence, but it is possible to help curtail HOW destructive the violence is. and i'm not espousing the idea that banning guns is a good idea, either. i dont believe that. i believe in people having the liberty to do what they please so long as they dont harm others. i dont believe in unnecessary laws restricting freedoms of innocent people. i dont think banning guns will stop or even slow the homicide rate. but i do think that it could be done legally. people are too closed in to being on one side or the other. this issue has nothing to do with what people WANT to happen, just what could happen under various interpretations of legal documents. its quite clear to me that this is a potential way of interpreting the second amendment: that it garauntees the right to arm yourself, to be able to commit acts of violence should the need arise. it does not necessarily garauntee the right to ANY weapons. if your post was directed at someone else i apologize for misunderstanding your intent. i dont think any violence is positive in the long run, but i understand why some people turn to it in various circumstances (unresolvable issues with others, military reasons, revolution) i dont think gun violence is any worse than other types of violence, simply that it has more likelihood of being more destructive in some situations. i dont espouse the idea that guns SHOULD be banned, or that banning them would stop violence, or that other forms of violence are less tragic or hurtful to the people that are involved. i simply maintain that the second amendment does not specify that ANY type of weapon may be owned by civilians, and that the wording was chosen very carefuly. i dont particularly care about the constitution and the amendments, but its what we are supposed to use as a framework for how our government should behave. i think a ban on guns could be done constitutionally, even though i would view it as an outrage.
Oops Nesta... That quote was me directed at someone else- Dirk Pitt was responding and didn't put quote tags around it..
got it rev, must have missed what it was referring to. oh well. that post in general was a bit scattered and confusing, i thought...it kept seeming like he was going back and forth between what he was saying.... oh well. perhaps i shouldnt post in this kind of thread after a big bongrip
i prefer the penguins knockout gas umbrella....the gun umbrella was cool, too, though. but in reality i enjoy shooting clay pigeons....shotguns are fun as hell. and my buddy's got a taurus .38 semiautomatic handgun....its also really fun to shoot at the range. i enjoy shooting at a range and have considered owning a firearm for personal defense and for target shooting, but have, at least for the time, decided against it. ohio does allow conceal and carry permits, but i dont have one and dont know of anyone i know having one.
i'm not a gun fan yo. but i keep one in my pillowcase it keeps me safe while i sleep still i keep awake
To get back on topic: Personally I have shot and intend to purchase a wasr-10 or similar. There's nothing as sweet as an AK imo. They're the ultimate in reliability and usefulness. I like the mosin nagants and they are extremely cheap for the price, but I think I'd rather get an SKS so that I can share ammo with the wasr-10. Pistols are a long way off but I intend to get a glock 21 b/c I'm big enough to carry it concealed and I'd rather have the power, plus it has glock reliability.
The anti-gunners are worrying about 50 people dying in a school shooting How many people were killed in the holocaust again? edit: I'll stop being gay and get on topic now lol I shot a couple smith and wesson revolvers of my uncle I think it was a 357, a 45 acp, a 22, and of course the big bad 44 mag My favorite was most def. the 45 acp.
are you trying to imply the holocaust committed by the nazis didnt involve firearms as a means of inflicting death? are you comparing the grief of a dead child's parents to the grief of whole peoples affected by such horrendous acts? the two things are as comparable as apples and oranges, so to speak. apples and oranges are both fruit but are so different as to in fact be virtually NOTHING alike. school shootings are not the cause of the antiviolence and antifirearm movements. they were around long before school shootings. school massacres are simply a recent development, a new outlet of human cruelty, savagery, barbarism...and a new token issue to be used by antigun and antiviolence advocates as something that may be PREVENTED, though not elliminated, by tougher control of guns. i personally have mixed feelings about this conclusion, as violence has always and will almost definitely always occur, with or without firearms, explosives, chemical and biological weapons, or other high-tech means of inflicting pain and devastation. it isnt fair to compare the death of hundreds in tragic and relatively random instances to the systematic destruction of whole peoples committed by organized masses...they are both acts of insane and disgusting inhumanity, both cause tremendous pain and suffering...but apart from that, they are nothing alike. apples to oranges... at any rate, i personally, if i were to own a gun, would first go for a home defense shotgun. probably a simple 12 or 16 gauge. nothing too fancy...something to protect my residence that i can also have fun with at an outdoor range while honing my skills. next up, if i were to become more serious about collecting and maintaining firearms both for practical and recreational purposes, i would get a few handguns and revolvers. i dont know a hell of a lot about specific firearms, so i dont know what all i'd get, but i'd like something that'll pack a punch. if it were within my price range i'd get a legal class III weapon, were i interested in purchasing weapons. while they wouldn't likely be practical as defensive weapons, especially if they're legal (as they'd be quite old and valuable, and not worth firing regularly) it would be fucking badass to own a thompson gun, especially the ones with the circular shaped magazines (how the round magazines worked is beyond me, honestly, but like i said, i know little about the specifics of various firearms) an oldschool tec nine would be pretty fun to have if it were in usable condition and there were a range willing to let me fire it, too. and if i were unbelievably rich and had enough land to establish a legal but private and exclusively personal firing range on my own property, it would be cool to have a high powered weapon capable of being used across long distances...it would make target shooting far more challenging, i'd think, if one could do it from great distance with a weapon designed to be used in such a manner. the slightest alteration in the angle of the weapon will have more significant effect at a longer distance, and such a scenario would allow one to learn to shoot with greater accuracy, i'd imagine. either way, it would be fun, and with firearms thats pretty much all i'd care about beyond the initial ability to defend myself and my home should the need ever arise (god forbid) i'm not a hunter, not a violent person, and have no intentions of engaging in terrorist activities, and as such a gun would be worthless to me outside of recreational target shooting, self defense, and possibly (though not likely, unless i were rich) as a collectors item.
Anti-gunners push for gun bans for CIVILIANS. they never push for gun bans for military/leos What im trying to say is that having a government monopoly on weapons has the potential to be MANY, MANY, MANY times worse than any civilian gun violence caused by liberal gun laws. Thus, I think the arguement that "guns in the hands of civilians cause school shootings, so they should be banned/heavily regulated" is very, very silly.
This just can't stay on topic. I think the way I'd argue this topic is: You believe marijuana should be legal because even though it ruins some people's lives most people use it peacefully and harmlessly, and to infringe on the majority of marijuana users due to the actions of a few is pointless and unethical. Now replace marijuana with guns. Anti-gunners owned if I do say so myself.
