Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: with all the gun hype in america.......

  1. #1

    Default with all the gun hype in america.......

    all the bullshit from one extreamist to the next on both sides of the spectrum are really getting annoying. republicans want to keep them un regulated, and democrats just want to out right ban them. i just wish both sides would STFU and listen to reason. this artical (The AR-15, you don't need one and they are too dangerous to own | The Daily Caller) is probbly the most rational thing ive heard in a while when it comes to reasoning. to be honest i fully support an americans right to keep and maintain assult class weapons. but i also agree with the democrats (never thought id say that) than the process for obtaining them needs to be reformed. now ill admit that i have a Colt M4A1 semi-auto assult rifle in the safe in my room. it always has a loaded clip in a redily accessable location. but in the 2 years ive had it its never been used for a violent crime like the democrats want you to belive. many of us gun owners will agree that reform is needed however we also belive than just banning the weapon and sweeping it under the rug will only create more violence in the long run. now a little saying i found on the internet. it was meant to be a joke but it carries more weight than its creator realised. " if you make owning a gun a criminal offence, then won't criminals still own them?" this ban is stupid yeah you may stop one mass shooting with the ban by taking it out of reach of common man. but what about the thousands of criminals that still have them and use them for crime and home invasions every year. whats being done to stop them. now to my point i think ive come up with a reasonable solution to the "people who buy them just so they can kill school kids" (whch is a rediculious notion that us owners all support that behavior)

    Manditory Meantal health screenings twice a year will keep the unstable ones from owning and subsequently Useing these weapons.

    Very thorough background screens as well as minor investigations into personal life and potential use of the weapon. before purchase as well as yearly recaps

    Manditory semi monthly inspections of the securment device (such as safe or cabinet) to make sure while accessable to the owner it is not accessable to anyone who shouldnt be handling it.

    all these could be easily enacted with little to no opposition and some on them would create thousands of government jobs Country wide. but no instead of finding a solution to the problem lets just bicker back and forth pushing for two diffrent outcomes that are stupid and dangerous for boh government workers as well as civilians. these are three very simple rules that could be enacted very easily and will take a good deal of the gun weilding idiots off the streets with these guns while maintaining a law abiding citizens right to own and protect his family with these weapons. can they be dangerous? yes! but they can also save lives where a ordinary pistol or shotgun Cant making it easy to engage multiple armed criminals. to be honest if you were a murderer who would you rather kill the right wing anti gun activist thats never held a gun in their life or the guy who openly owns and maintains an assult rifle? whats your honest RATIONAL opinion on the rules i proposed?

  2. #2

    Default

    Wow... Just, wow...

    So, apparently you've never heard of the 4th amendment? Or it sounds like the 2nd either. What does "shall not be infringed" and "unreasonable searches and sezuires" mean to you? Sounds like the mandatory screens, inspections, searches, ect. which you propose would, by any defiition, "infringe" and are "unreasonable."

    Not a chance in hell I'm going to let some doctor decide if I should be able to excercise my right to own a firearm. If something like that actually happened, I can personally guarantee you that 1776 will commence again MUCH quicker than it is currently.

    "all of these could be enacted with little or no opposition..." You obviously don't know much of anything about politics. Especially considering, as pointed out, all of your suggestions are in direct violation of the U.S. Contitution.

    "...create thousands of governemtn jobs countrywide..." Don't you get that our government is broke, and each and every citizen holds nearly $60,000 of that debt??? Where on Earth do you think this money would come from? (Actually, the Chinese would probably very keen on funding it, since it's a socialistic program designed to enslave citizens.)

    (P.S.: Before you quit your day job to solve all the worlds' problems, I suggest you brush up on your spelling and grammar; Otherwise anything you say can't be taken seriously at all. Also, you might want to learn the basics about the topic. Such as: "assault weapon" is not an actual class of firearm; Your M4 has has a loaded magazine in it, not a clip; ect...)

    Sickening...
    Last edited by abdl690; 19-Mar-2013 at 06:04.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by w0lfpack91 View Post

    Manditory Meantal health screenings twice a year will keep the unstable ones from owning and subsequently Useing these weapons.



    Manditory semi monthly inspections of the securment device (such as safe or cabinet) to make sure while accessable to the owner it is not accessable to anyone who shouldnt be handling it.
    please forgive me for cutting your whole post down to just two points;
    and let me qualify myself by saying that i am a flaming liberal dem.... so i really like the idea of gun control. But...... even i don't want to start down that/your slippery slope!

    point #1. the pre-emptive or invasive medical test as a requirement in order that a citizen may freely exercise his or her constitutionally guaranteed rights will, in my opinion, not pass constitutional muster.

    point #2. the pre-emptive or invasive search of a citizens private, personal and or real property without "due-process" whether once, or on a continuing bases, most certainly will not pass constitutional muster.
    Last edited by littlelodgewrecker; 17-Mar-2013 at 03:09.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by w0lfpack91 View Post
    all these could be easily enacted with little to no opposition and some on them would create thousands of government jobs Country wide. but no instead of finding a solution to the problem lets just bicker back and forth pushing for two diffrent outcomes that are stupid and dangerous for boh government workers as well as civilians. these are three very simple rules that could be enacted very easily and will take a good deal of the gun weilding idiots off the streets with these guns while maintaining a law abiding citizens right to own and protect his family with these weapons. can they be dangerous? yes! but they can also save lives where a ordinary pistol or shotgun Cant making it easy to engage multiple armed criminals. to be honest if you were a murderer who would you rather kill the right wing anti gun activist thats never held a gun in their life or the guy who openly owns and maintains an assult rifle? whats your honest RATIONAL opinion on the rules i proposed?
    The problem with firearms "guns" is that they are considered the biggest threat to daily security by persons who have little knowledge of how they work. They, by some, are considered to be the only device to commit large scale violent acts or by many the easiest tool to commit massacre. This line-of-thought is however far from the truth. There are, for example, many killed with blunt objects, sharp objects, heavy objects, arson, physical assault, incindiary devices (explosives), poisoning, strangulation, and by simply using an automobile.

    While I commend your creative attempt to come to a solution it fundamentally violates many personal freedoms and civil rights. The right to privacy is highly regarded in this country as well as emminent domain. An interesting expanation is found in the Declaration of Independence where those risking treason wrote to the King a letter of why they were declaring independence. In the letter we can understand the preamble and intentions of the freedoms we wished to persue and fight for. It gives a an understanding to the written letter of the later work in the Constitution of The United States of America. Millions of Americans have since fought to protect these freedoms and is testimony to why our country became what it is. To further protect it we must remain diligent in it's writings. Still being sensitive to it's intent and mindfull of the consequences of it's renderings.

    The right to bear arms is among the most important rights and freedoms we share today. Much of the world has different interpretations of these kind of rights but to subdue or alter them to a degree is dangerous. The laws should still remain to punish those that misuse a firearm much in the same way that all crime is punished being that someone who "may" commit a crime has NOT commited a crime. If we had similar laws about the priviledges of owning a drivers license then there would be very few being issued or renewed. I used this example even though it doesn't explore the same avenues of rights but can be similarily understood as how we cannot force pre-judgement on those wishing to make their way in lives with the same rights that others enjoy with ease. It is a downhill slide. The solution is tricky but may include harsher punishments for those who ,with malice, infringe the rights of others and cause harm.

    The basis for these conclusions is that you can't take the criminal out of the person. The black market exploded during prohibition and led to some of the biggest criminal minds and exploitation of innocent people. It only furthered the creativity and territory marking much the same way that the drug "scene" in America and most countries have today. I live in Arizona and read about everyday a large drug confiscation or a drug tunnel into the U.S. The solutions of gun bans don't offer up any reduction in crime but provide new problems. Kinda' like a dog chasing it's own tail.

    While I don't have the solution for mass murders I hope you can continue being creative on the solution. It may exist. No one so far has been able to come to a solution but it doesn't mean that it won't be yourself. It is the collective and informed minds that together solve problems without infringing the foundations that our freedoms rely on. Not absolute resolutions that hinder freedoms to put band-aids on complex issues. Sometimes the solution takes a lifetime and comes through teaching and nurturing. It does not completely radicate an issue but offers a reduction in the crimes involved perhaps.

    There are many sellers on ebay ,for say, that offer copies of the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, and The Constitution for as little as a couple of bucks and is a most interesting read. Has the world changed? Yes, but it doesn't mean that civil liberties have to.

  5. #5

    Default

    As an owner of firearms, I would say that I sometimes agree that some regulations should exist. I recall attending a gun show and purchasing a scoped rifle simply by paying the gentleman roughly $400. I was uncomfortable with the fact that a person could simply buy a rifle or a shotgun from another private citizen as though they were buying a coffee pot at a garage sale. Car sales and such between private citizens require more regulation than that.

    However I find myself under the belief that most of the regulations restricting the sale and transfer of firearms is simply "feel-good" legislation. I understand that a rather significant portion of crimes are committed by people that will not abide nor honor the laws regarding gun ownership. I also understand that there is a significant number of crimes that are prevented due to a weapon being presented or used for self-defense. I find that increased legislation concerning firearms only adds to the significant number of laws that are already difficult to enforce or are simply ignored. I can't bring myself to agree that increased legistlation and restrictions will affect the rate of violent gun crimes.

    As far as owning them? I've known veterans that outright lie to mental health professionals about their experiences or issues simply because they don't want to have their firearms or their right to own them taken away. I'm not entirely uncertain that private citizens would do the same. I've had room inspections before and I will tell you that the inspector nor the inspected wish to be there and I'm under the impression that a government thug wouldn't want to come to your house every other week to see that you still haven't fixed that leak in the roof and that you store your weapons properly.

    - - - Updated - - -

    As an owner of firearms, I would say that I sometimes agree that some regulations should exist. I recall attending a gun show and purchasing a scoped rifle simply by paying the gentleman roughly $400. I was uncomfortable with the fact that a person could simply buy a rifle or a shotgun from another private citizen as though they were buying a coffee pot at a garage sale. Car sales and such between private citizens require more regulation than that.

    However I find myself under the belief that most of the regulations restricting the sale and transfer of firearms is simply "feel-good" legislation. I understand that a rather significant portion of crimes are committed by people that will not abide nor honor the laws regarding gun ownership. I also understand that there is a significant number of crimes that are prevented due to a weapon being presented or used for self-defense. I find that increased legislation concerning firearms only adds to the significant number of laws that are already difficult to enforce or are simply ignored. I can't bring myself to agree that increased legistlation and restrictions will affect the rate of violent gun crimes.

    As far as owning them? I've known veterans that outright lie to mental health professionals about their experiences or issues simply because they don't want to have their firearms or their right to own them taken away. I'm not entirely uncertain that private citizens would do the same. I've had room inspections before and I will tell you that the inspector nor the inspected wish to be there and I'm under the impression that a government thug wouldn't want to come to your house every other week to see that you still haven't fixed that leak in the roof and that you store your weapons properly.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by abdl690 View Post
    (P.S.: Before you quit you're day job to solve all the worlds' problems, I suggest you brush up on your spelling and grammar; Otherwise anythig you say can't be taken seriously at all. Also, you might want to learn the basics about the topic. Such as: "assault weapon" is not an actual class of firearm; Your M4 has has a loaded magazine in it, not a clip; ect...)

    Sickening...
    you say call it one thing i call it another fact remains it hold enough rounds to get the job done. first off you dont know me or anything about me just because i cant spell to good means your better than me well fuck you i dont write too good because i have never been able to fully grasp the all to fucking confusing english language. i barley passed high scholl english with a D at my best effort so FUCK OFF i atleast tried to come up with a solution without either simply banning them and causing more problems or disregarding them allowing it to happen again

  7. #7

    Default

    Your semi-automatic rifle is not an "assault" rifle, nor is it part of any "assault" class. Rounds are stored in a magazine. People use the term "assault rifle" as a scare tactic in order to give it a military connotation or to try and make the weapon itself inherently violent, or it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the weapon.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by RetrieverPup View Post
    Your semi-automatic rifle is not an "assault" rifle, nor is it part of any "assault" class. Rounds are stored in a magazine. People use the term "assault rifle" as a scare tactic in order to give it a military connotation or to try and make the weapon itself inherently violent, or it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the weapon.
    holy shit the most reasonable reponse so far. and i agree with you 100% these guns are definately misunderstanded though i refer to them as assault class weapon because thats the term flying around DC right now when discribing my gun, as far as obama and his subordinates go if it looks like it can be adapted to millitary use its an assault weapon. the 5.56 NATO is not an all powerful round like democrats and gun activists want you to believe. i personally use Hollow points (or soft points How ever you want to slice it) but the round cant and wont over penatrate when fired into an actual body. its powerful enough to stop a deer or God forbid if the need arises a home invader, but as far as the myth about it over penetrating and hitting someone else through a wall it just wont happen even with a FMJ. another issue ive discovered with it is the larger the mag the easier it is to jam. ive had to replace all three mags i have due to this issue. the larger the mag = a larger spring. when that spring gets weak its not going to have enough force to push the next round up properly causing the gun to jam and stop firing. in all honesty democrats want to limit mag/clip size to under 10 rounds. all there doing is improving the functionallity of the weapon by reducing the probbobility of a jam. whats to stop you from carrying 5 or 6 9 round clips/mags with you. still same if not more rounds and less chance of jam. definatly just as dangerous if not more so

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by abdl690 View Post

    (P.S.: Before you quit you're day job to solve all the worlds' problems, I suggest you brush up on your spelling and grammar; Otherwise anythig you say can't be taken seriously at all. Also, you might want to learn the basics about the topic. Such as: "assault weapon" is not an actual class of firearm; Your M4 has has a loaded magazine in it, not a clip; ect...)

    Sickening...
    How about before insulting his grammar and spelling, you look at your own. I've gone and highlighted your mistakes.

    First your use of "You're" is wrong, you basically said "Before you quit you are day job"

    Second your spelling of "Anything" you missed a letter.

  10. #10

    Default

    First, this medium is perforce one that employs written English. Your inability/unwillingness to create coherent and easily understandable text makes me disinclined to spend the effort to try and decipher/decrypt/decode your response.
    Second, you're either incapable or unwilling to employ the correct terminology for the discussion: the first implies a severe lack of understanding/knowledge, the latter an utter disregard for the conventions of the field. Neither option renders you credible on the subject.
    Third, although I suspect you'll have a hard time with it, try reading the Constitution in the original and then some of Majority and Dissenting Supreme Court Opinions relating to Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Similar Threads

  1. What are we doing, America?
    By BabyLink76 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 26-Nov-2010, 05:27
  2. Adult diapers in South America? ¿Pañales en Latino America?
    By snowbird in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-Oct-2010, 04:26
  3. Diaper hype?
    By ForeverSmall in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-May-2009, 17:43

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.