Senator Feinstein makes new push on guns | Page 5 | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Senator Feinstein makes new push on guns
December 31, 2012
3:54 pm
Avatar
blackvault
Admin
Level 10
Forum Posts: 1777
Member Since:
August 26, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"chiselray" wrote: the same old bitter comes up, it's always a case of defensiveness before looking at what can be achieved by getting rid of the damn things..(guns)

I can't believe you are for 61 shooting sprees since the Columbine disaster,because if you weren't for it you would be voting for taking the things away...
But maybe i am being a tad harsh ,after all i am attacking your right to own something you really desire when it is really just an innocent hunk of metal tubing ...The same as your super charged car arguement ,they are just metal too and they do kill yes they do, in the wrong hands as guns do. But we don't use tehm as weapons of terrorism do we ?
We all need cars ,but we don't all need guns, the difference is clear i guess.

This is why those who want to "ban guns" sound ridiculous, and your argument falls apart. You say because I want to own a gun, I am "for 61 shooting sprees since Columbine." WHAT? What kind of an argument is that?

You contradict yourself thereafter about comparing the hunks of metal to cars, and yet, you say something like that?

We don't all "need" cars. Just like we don't all "need" guns. Keep in mind society was just fine before the Model T roamed our streets. However, it is our right, and desire to have a bit more comfort while riding to work. Just like it's our right (as American citizens) to own a gun for protection against our government (2nd amendment), sport shooting, and in some cases, legal hunting (which I do not do).

Lastly, you begin the post referencing what can be achieved by "getting rid of" the guns. Well, if you look at my earlier posts in different threads, about the statistics, and showing the nil effect in Australia and other countries... you'll see society has looked at the effects. *I* HAVE looked at the effects. It won't do anything.

I come from Los Angeles, California. Born and raised. We see "illegal" things all the times in our streets. Not only automatic weapons (illegal and banned) but multiple street drugs (illegal and banned) and so much more. Yet, they still turn up, are used in crimes, etc. My point? Banning them does nothing. It stops good people from owning their hobbies, while bad guys just have to sell a few more drugs to afford the guns from the street. They will be just as easy to obtain.

-----
John Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault Website Owner / Operator
http://www.theblackvault.com

January 1, 2013
7:45 am
Avatar
chiselray
Member
Members
Level 2
Forum Posts: 1573
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"blackvault" wrote: [quote="chiselray"]the same old bitter comes up, it's always a case of defensiveness before looking at what can be achieved by getting rid of the damn things..(guns)

I can't believe you are for 61 shooting sprees since the Columbine disaster,because if you weren't for it you would be voting for taking the things away...
But maybe i am being a tad harsh ,after all i am attacking your right to own something you really desire when it is really just an innocent hunk of metal tubing ...The same as your super charged car arguement ,they are just metal too and they do kill yes they do, in the wrong hands as guns do. But we don't use tehm as weapons of terrorism do we ?
We all need cars ,but we don't all need guns, the difference is clear i guess.

This is why those who want to "ban guns" sound ridiculous, and your argument falls apart. You say because I want to own a gun, I am "for 61 shooting sprees since Columbine." WHAT? What kind of an argument is that?

You contradict yourself thereafter about comparing the hunks of metal to cars, and yet, you say something like that?

We don't all "need" cars. Just like we don't all "need" guns. Keep in mind society was just fine before the Model T roamed our streets. However, it is our right, and desire to have a bit more comfort while riding to work. Just like it's our right (as American citizens) to own a gun for protection against our government (2nd amendment), sport shooting, and in some cases, legal hunting (which I do not do).

Lastly, you begin the post referencing what can be achieved by "getting rid of" the guns. Well, if you look at my earlier posts in different threads, about the statistics, and showing the nil effect in Australia and other countries... you'll see society has looked at the effects. *I* HAVE looked at the effects. It won't do anything.

I come from Los Angeles, California. Born and raised. We see "illegal" things all the times in our streets. Not only automatic weapons (illegal and banned) but multiple street drugs (illegal and banned) and so much more. Yet, they still turn up, are used in crimes, etc. My point? Banning them does nothing. It stops good people from owning their hobbies, while bad guys just have to sell a few more drugs to afford the guns from the street. They will be just as easy to obtain.

Hang n a sec,Yo the one who brought the deflective arguement up ,defending guns by turning everyones attention towards the motor vehicle death rate ,motor vehicles death rates are not deliberate homicides ... !
Its a touchy subject for gun loversss ...i expect you to cast blame at any other area and away from the gun topic...what eva , it's your opinion.

By the way i did not at any point contradict myself.
Guns are being used as weapons of as forms of terrorism ...mass shootings, shooting sprees ,murder suicides ect ect...of course they are..
Now i said taht guns and cars were both innocent hunks of metal yeah i did .Meaning that they are in the correct hands .They aren't in the wrong hands .
But typically this is hard to police ,mostly impossible if we are to be real about it.
We all know this ,nothing new to learn there.Still the point i made was that guns do a lot more damage and are used t deliberatey assult citizens ,especially automatic weapons in shooting spress ,but thats fine if you think that taking them away doesn't change anything ,ok whatever makes you sleep at night... :wall:

Your stats for Australia are null and void ,we are not talking about low count gun homicide (meaning small casualties) ,as i said before we are discussing Shooting spree style kilings as your Senator has outlined.

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices

Show me where Australia has failed in its gun laws to stop Mass Gun homicide ?

January 1, 2013
9:14 am
Avatar
chiselray
Member
Members
Level 2
Forum Posts: 1573
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"blackvault" wrote: [quote="chiselray"]the same old bitter comes up, it's always a case of defensiveness before looking at what can be achieved by getting rid of the damn things..(guns)

I can't believe you are for 61 shooting sprees since the Columbine disaster,because if you weren't for it you would be voting for taking the things away...
But maybe i am being a tad harsh ,after all i am attacking your right to own something you really desire when it is really just an innocent hunk of metal tubing ...The same as your super charged car arguement ,they are just metal too and they do kill yes they do, in the wrong hands as guns do. But we don't use tehm as weapons of terrorism do we ?
We all need cars ,but we don't all need guns, the difference is clear i guess.

This is why those who want to "ban guns" sound ridiculous, and your argument falls apart. You say because I want to own a gun, I am "for 61 shooting sprees since Columbine." WHAT? What kind of an argument is that?

You contradict yourself thereafter about comparing the hunks of metal to cars, and yet, you say something like that?

We don't all "need" cars. Just like we don't all "need" guns. Keep in mind society was just fine before the Model T roamed our streets. However, it is our right, and desire to have a bit more comfort while riding to work. Just like it's our right (as American citizens) to own a gun for protection against our government (2nd amendment), sport shooting, and in some cases, legal hunting (which I do not do).

Lastly, you begin the post referencing what can be achieved by "getting rid of" the guns. Well, if you look at my earlier posts in different threads, about the statistics, and showing the nil effect in Australia and other countries... you'll see society has looked at the effects. *I* HAVE looked at the effects. It won't do anything.

I come from Los Angeles, California. Born and raised. We see "illegal" things all the times in our streets. Not only automatic weapons (illegal and banned) but multiple street drugs (illegal and banned) and so much more. Yet, they still turn up, are used in crimes, etc. My point? Banning them does nothing. It stops good people from owning their hobbies, while bad guys just have to sell a few more drugs to afford the guns from the street. They will be just as easy to obtain.

We don't all need cars ?? righty o ,i couldn't disagree more with that part of the statement..but you came good ,You at least admit we don't all need guns then :mrgreen:

January 3, 2013
1:11 am
Avatar
_Billy_
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 983
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Outlaw the boomerang. :dance:

"Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez" Let the Good Times Roll

January 6, 2013
12:57 am
Avatar
chiselray
Member
Members
Level 2
Forum Posts: 1573
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A lot of inexperienced people end up hitting themselves with boomerangs ...
I wouldn'nt know one end form teh other myself ....untill it hit me.

January 11, 2013
4:07 am
Avatar
CodeBlackv2
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 418
Member Since:
July 28, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I have a gun and a super-charged motor vehicle. I like to boom and vroom. Hey after you shoot people you often have a strange need to drive 185.

Seriously though, its sad that we have to explain the Constitution to people these days, especially to Senators. When they wrote the Constitution they believed that the people should have the same weapons as the government.

And Piers Morgan is a blithering idiot, with extra blithering.

February 12, 2013
1:05 am
Avatar
AMBASSADOR_OF_KOLOB
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 77
Member Since:
February 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"blackvault" wrote: As there is with guns... and the numbers and statistics show per number... motor vehicles are more lethal.

Ban them?

I think we could get along without cars, indeed, or perhaps we should limit their speed to 10 mph, after all accidents at 10 miles per hour are for the most part "non lethal accidents" that would indeed "promote the health" of the US public and reduce the number of casualties due to accidents, but I can hear people saying this is not like a "gun control issue" at all, but it clearly is "comparable" therefore I do suggest we treat both in a similar fashion, at least we should "hang HENRY FORD" or his effigy for giving us a Car, that has promoted the mass killing on the high ways, and perhaps he also promoted "ANTI SEMITISM" as well, as a matter of fact I am reasonably sure of the fact that he together with the RUSSIAN Czars was "more influential" in spreading racial hatred than perhaps even the HITLER DICTATORSHIP, in the new book by MR JOSHUA BETHEL he will prove that "causing Anti Semitical Hatred" is not a "victimless crime" by any means but can lead to the mass murder of the "people that are being advocated as a group of people who seek world control" now he is clear to specify in his book, that any conspiracy that does in fact seek to control the planet should be abolished, but he also points out that no one belonging to this conspiracy should be killed unless of course, and this is the stipulation, they "pose a direct threat" to the freedom of the world and refuse to respond when called upon to "cede power"!

February 12, 2013
1:41 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There are tons of regulations involving the use of automobiles. :mrgreen:

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 12, 2013
2:31 am
Avatar
Wing-Zero
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 3279
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: There are tons of regulations involving the use of automobiles. :mrgreen:

Driving an automobile is not an inalienable right.

War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life

February 12, 2013
2:38 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"Wing-Zero" wrote: [quote="at1with0"]There are tons of regulations involving the use of automobiles. :mrgreen:

Driving an automobile is not an inalienable right.

Exactly.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 376
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 60
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10395
bionic: 9870
Lashmar: 5289
tigger: 4577
rath: 4297
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3815
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2842
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25840
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9902
Posts: 126568
Newest Members:
martinbrown, S, rbtmi306, Toby Shepherd, Emprise, Jim Jordon, Bey, Vanessa, Carlton Flores, jaimee
Administrators: John Greenewald: 698, blackvault: 1777