Gun Control for States and State Actors

[General Cockroach]

I hear many brilliant arguments for gun control here by first and foremost my civilised fellow Europeans soldiers and civilians.
Arguments such as: “There is no need for civilians to own guns in self defence that’s the job of the police”
“ its one thing to own a hunting rifle, but give me one reason for owning an assault rifle, an assault rifle is made for the army and its made for killing people!

We have seen many deaths by guns in the US and as gun control advocates we all know that the lax gun laws are the fault. Horrible events such as Virginia Tech should have resulted in the outlawing firearms in civilian possession, if this happens we will all live in a much safer world.
This is however far from enough and there is an even bigger problem that needs addressing with our morally superior logic.

The case for Police disarmament:
The USA and civilian citizens is however not the only one suffering from mass shooting caused by guns, as a matter of fact the worst mass killing done by a single person was committed in South Korea when Police Officer Wou Bom-Kon went amok and killed 57 innocent civilians with a rifle and hand grenades in April of 1982 (Guinness book of records). In many South American countries the police carry out murder by contract for organised crime and the government on everything from rival businesses people to unwanted street children.

Think of all the people who are killed each year by police officers carrying weapons for self defence which are originally military weapons designed for killing on mass scale. Many of these killings don’t however get the prime time television coverage as they generally occur in the world’s ghettos so there isn’t much bad publicity.
Some of you might say that these are criminals and psychopaths and that the overwhelming majority of police officers are good and because they are armed a lot of crime is prevented. But our gun control logic is unquestionably sounder and better, the major reason behind these killing are the availability of guns in the hands of police officers.
Most police officers carry semiautomatic pistols such as the Glock which was used by the Virginia Tech shooter or an equivalent thereof. Surly there can’t be a legitimate role for these pistols in the hands of the police as they where originally designed for warfare and killing multiple people!
Then there is the proliferation of automatic weapons that are becoming more wide spread among various special police forces, since when do a policeman need full auto submachine gun with a 30 round clip to mow down a gang of 20 to 30 criminals at once?

The case for military disarmament:
There have, as many of you know, been quite a few killings of civilians by soldiers especially in the time of war. Now the likelihood of a county getting into war in Europe is pretty slim there haven’t really been a war between countries here for some 60 years. Yet many countries and the soldiers that serve them claim that there is a need for military weapons and armies to defend against a foreign or domestic force.

This logic is flawed as soldiers and armies are much more likely to kill innocent civilians than defend against a foreign or domestic force.
The world most foremost expert on mass killing Professor Rudolph J. Rummel´s show in his statistics that during the twentieth century 4 times as many people died by the hands of their own government as opposed to those who died in combat! The numbers add up to 170 millions compared to 38.5 millions killed in battle.

Here is an example of the tip of the iceberg: in September of 1941 the well disciplined soldiers of the Waffen SS acting under strict command and oversight from the top of German government gunned down 34 000 Jews at a place called Babi Yar.
Now some of you might say that the overwhelming Military soldiers and armies are very disciplined have strict control over the usage of weapons and that murders are carried out by criminal/tyrannical governments or by individual soldiers that has lost their mind.
But our feelings about this is clear and as advocates we all know, it is without a shadow of a doubt the wide spread and easy availability of weapons among military soldiers under governments all over the world that are the reason why these mass killings happens. The killings are the creation of firearms!

In peacetime
Then there are countries such as Sweden which haven’t participated in wars for a very long time.
Sweden for example has not been to war for some 300 years yet they still claim they need weapons for self defence. I say that Sweden and all the rest of the armies of the world are far more likely to kill some of there own people then that of a foreign invader.
Case in point in 1931 Swedish military open fire on protesting workers killing 5 people and in 1995 a deranged Swedish solider kills five people in cold blood with his service rifle. The amount of mass shootings has been increasing in the late 20th century and plenty of weapons from the military have illegally found their way into the hands of the civilian population.
In 1994 a small time criminal that had been refused entrance to a pub went home got his illegally acquired Norwegian assault rifle and started spraying bullets a people standing in line killing 4 people instantly.
It would have been logical and prudent to call for the disarmament and destruction of Norway’s assault rifles by the Swedish government but to my dismay Swedish Gun control advocates did nothing on this issue.
Something good came out of it though as the civilian possession of firearms for hunting and sports shooting was restricted further by these incidents in the 1990ties.
Of course a total ban would have been preferable there is no need for a handgun or a bolt action hunting rifle as the latter where yesterday weapons of war for the ordinary soldier. As a matter of fact the bolt action rifle is still today choice for the most lethal of soldier, the sniper. Charles Whitman demonstrated (and many others) this in the 1966 Texas campus killings!
However, all these mass shootings could have been avoided if the military had no assault weapons or other firearms.
Now the number of people killed in Sweden don’t quite add up to what happens in mass shootings in US but keep in mind that Sweden only have a population the size of New York City so proportionally there isn’t that much of a difference.

It is high time to disarm the police and militaries of the world to make it a better and safer place for us all. Think of the millions of lives that could (about 170 millions in total) and can be saved, we need to do this for the children!

Surly there is now need for an assault rifle, sniper rifle or any other firearm in the hands of any human being, be it police or military, think about it, they where designed for genocide and mass murder!

Like one poster put it on this forum:

“giving a violent culture easy access to weaponry is like giving matches to a child and hoping that they aren't going to play with them once your back is turned”

Indeed and we better start with the biggest and most violent of actors: governments with police and military entities as they harbour a very violent culture, responsible for the worst mass murders in human history.

Hey what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

[Klatuu]

“giving a violent culture easy access to weaponry is like giving matches to a child and hoping that they aren't going to play with them once your back is turned”

And that, my friend, is exactly how people who think you should need proof of need and/or competency beforehand to exercise a basic human right percieve you. They see you as a child.

Ever try to spank a child who has an M-16?

Ever try to take candy from a kid with an AK?

You begin to see their problem with you having guns?

Almost universally, the people who espouse disarming law-abiding citzens are the same people who espouse taking your property away from you based on THEIR judgement of your neccesity to have it in the first place.

The question at this point becomes not "why should you have guns?", but "why aren't you using them yet?".

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

[NeedsABetterName]

I hear many brilliant arguments for gun control here by first and foremost my civilised fellow Europeans soldiers and civilians. Really? So you're implying that those that don't quite see eye-to-eye with you are uncivilized? Just wanted to make sure I read that right.
Arguments such as: “There is no need for civilians to own guns in self defence that’s the job of the police”
“ its one thing to own a hunting rifle, but give me one reason for owning an assault rifle, an assault rifle is made for the army and its made for killing people! What's the reason to own a car that can theoretically go faster than the speed limit?

We have seen many deaths by guns in the US and as gun control advocates we all know that the lax gun laws are the fault. Really? So it has nothing to do with the fact that, most of the time, the guns used were illegally bought? Horrible events such as Virginia Tech should have resulted in the outlawing firearms in civilian possession, if this happens we will all live in a much safer world. On the contrary... Take a look at Washington, D.C.'s crime rate and their gun laws.
This is however far from enough and there is an even bigger problem that needs addressing with our morally superior logic.Sounds like a guy that I read about in the history books once upon a time.

The case for Police disarmament:
The USA and civilian citizens is however not the only one suffering from mass shooting caused by guns, as a matter of fact the worst mass killing done by a single person was committed in South Korea when Police Officer Wou Bom-Kon went amok and killed 57 innocent civilians with a rifle and hand grenades in April of 1982 (Guinness book of records). In many South American countries the police carry out murder by contract for organised crime and the government on everything from rival businesses people to unwanted street children. Really? So, though other "morally superior" viewpoints claim that soldiers and police are the only ones responsible enough to own a gun, you're saying that they're too irresponsible? If this is the case, why aren't there more shootings by police/military? (Note that, tragic though these incidents are, they're carried out by, you guessed it, mentally unstable and/or corrupt officials)

Think of all the people who are killed each year by police officers carrying weapons for self defence which are originally military weapons designed for killing on mass scale. Think about all of those innocent people that are killed each year by drunks driving cars designed to go faster than the speed limit. Many of these killings don’t however get the prime time television coverage as they generally occur in the world’s ghettos so there isn’t much bad publicity.Really? Says whom? 50 Cent?

Some of you might say that these are criminals and psychopaths and that the overwhelming majority of police officers are good and because they are armed a lot of crime is prevented. That's about the gist of it, seeing as I don't know many cops that are mentally unstable and haven't been through some sort of firearms safety course/shooting practice (though, for many, not enough is practiced on their own time--they just meet the minimum requirements). But our gun control logic is unquestionably sounder and better Refer to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, but scratch out gun control and insert (certain groups' right to live, basic human rights, etc. etc.), the major reason behind these killing are the availability of guns in the hands of police officers.So, why aren't there millions of shootings by police each year in the US? Just about every police department I know of issues their officers some form of handgun, shotgun, or rifle/carbine, or gives them guidelines on what type of weapon they may carry.

Most police officers carry semiautomatic pistols such as the Glock which was used by the Virginia Tech shooter or an equivalent thereof. Should they carry muskets? Surly there can’t be a legitimate role for these pistols in the hands of the police as they where originally designed for warfare and killing multiple people! Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=3601
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1952869.stm

A whole bunch of corpses say otherwise (though posting those is no use, I can already tell--you'll just point to the fact that they never would have happened had the US enacted gun bans/control laws. See items 3, 4, and 5).

Then there is the proliferation of automatic weapons that are becoming more wide spread among various special police forces, since when do a policeman need full auto submachine gun with a 30 round clip to mow down a gang of 20 to 30 criminals at once? That's implying that those that use those automatic rifles/submachine guns are using them to "mow down" large groups of criminals. Not the case. Most (well, all competent police SWAT teams/similar units) train their officers to fire in small, accurate bursts--to do more is a waste of ammunition, as most will say. The whole point of that type of weapon is to outgun a criminal--it's no use trying to fight off seven guys armed with MP-5s and a shotgun, plus sharpshooters outside, when you're holed up in a small building with a .22 hunting rifle. On the chance that the criminal will have weapons like those used at North Hollywood, their need is even more pressing.

The case for military disarmament Tell me, what is the purpose of the military?:
There have, as many of you know, been quite a few killings of civilians by soldiers especially in the time of war. They also occurred (probably more widespread, even) in little things like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Guns weren't in existance at the time, unless Stargate is real.

Now the likelihood of a county getting into war in Europe is pretty slim there haven’t really been a war between countries here for some 60 years. That's good. Why hasn't there been a war in sixty years? Deterrance and alliances (EU). Both of those are a result of those nations' respective militaries and the larger groups like NATO. Yet many countries and the soldiers that serve them claim that there is a need for military weapons and armies to defend against a foreign or domestic force. So, I take it that you advocate pulling out of Kosovo/Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq (for those European nations that are involved there), and anywhere else that those forces are deployed, whatever their purpose may be?

This logic is flawed as soldiers and armies are much more likely to kill innocent civilians than defend against a foreign or domestic force. So why is the ratio of enemy combatants/soldiers to innocent civilians so skewed in the times where wars or small conflicts do occur?
The world most foremost expert on mass killing Says whom? Professor Rudolph J. Rummel´s show in his statistics that during the twentieth century 4 times as many people died by the hands of their own government as opposed to those who died in combat! The numbers add up to 170 millions compared to 38.5 millions killed in battle. A source for this?

Here is an example of the tip of the iceberg: in September of 1941 the well disciplined soldiers of the Waffen SS That's a laugh, considering their allegiance and role. acting under strict command and oversight from the top of German government And what did the then-Nazi government advocate and commit? And, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't the SS a force that swore allegiance to Hitler (under his direct control), as opposed to the traditional German army? gunned down 34 000 Jews at a place called Babi Yar. So? When did this occur, out of curiosity? If you answer that correctly, what did those who committed that act advocate and eventually carry out? Their mental state? Goals?
Now some of you might say that the overwhelming Military soldiers and armies are very disciplined have strict control over the usage of weapons and that murders are carried out by criminal/tyrannical governments or by individual soldiers that has lost their mind. Pretty much, seeing as the US Army, as a policy, doesn't go around slaughtering certain ethnic/religious/different hat-wearing groups (read: genocide). Neither do those legitimate armies found in Europe and abroad.

But our feelings about this is clear Your feelings or "our" feelings? Also, who is the "us" in this situation. and as advocates we all know, it is without a shadow of a doubt the wide spread and easy availability of weapons among military soldiers under governments all over the world that are the reason why these mass killings happens. The killings are the creation of firearms! So, removing humans from the equation, are the firearms still killing? And also, name a free, non-dictated/communist government (Democracy/Republic, in essence) that has voted and/or decided as a nation to commit the genocide that you're describing above.

In peacetime
Then there are countries such as Sweden which haven’t participated in wars for a very long time. Good for them. Why do they still have a military/Defence Force?
Sweden for example has not been to war for some 300 years yet they still claim they need weapons for self defence. I say that Sweden and all the rest of the armies of the world are far more likely to kill some of there own people then that of a foreign invader. During the 40s, there was a very, very real danger of nations like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union changing that... (this could go back all the way to the time that they decided to become neutral). See WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and quite a few inter-European wars back further.
Case in point in 1931 Swedish military open fire on protesting workers killing 5 people OK. Was this a result of a deranged commander, the protest becoming violent, or the government deciding to shut down that protest for whatever reason? A little background would be nice. and in 1995 a [I]deranged Swedish solider kills five people in cold blood with his service rifle. See the highlighted word. Please define that word for me. The amount of mass shootings has been increasing in the late 20th century and plenty of weapons from the military have illegally found their way into the hands of the civilian population. See the highlighted word. Please define that word for me.

In 1994 a small time criminal that had been refused entrance to a pub went home got his illegally acquired Norwegian assault rifle and started spraying bullets a people standing in line killing 4 people instantly. And this person's mental condition? Also, please note the highlighted words/phrases and define them for me.
It would have been logical and prudent to call for the disarmament and destruction of Norway’s assault rifles by the Swedish government After my laughing stops, I do have a question... but to my dismay Swedish Gun control advocates did nothing on this issue.I'll admit I don't have knowledge on this and, despite what I think, I'll go ahead and ask. Is the Norwegian military under Swedish control?
Something good came out of it though as the civilian possession of firearms for hunting and sports shooting was restricted further by these incidents in the 1990ties. OK. Has there been a shooting since then?
Of course a total ban would have been preferable there is no need for a handgun or a bolt action hunting rifle as the latter where yesterday weapons of war for the ordinary soldier. Why is there no need? Is there any other use for these weapons but to kill? As a matter of fact the bolt action rifle is still today choice for the most lethal of soldier, the sniper. Charles Whitman demonstrated (and many others) this in the 1966 Texas campus killings! OK, they're lethal. No more lethal than a trained/reasonably accurate shooter with a handgun or automatic or semi-automatic rifle/carbine.
However, all these mass shootings could have been avoided if the military had no assault weapons or other firearms. Are you saying that "assault weapons" are the problem or firearms in general are the problem? If you are, please note the words/phrases "criminal," "illegally-acquired," and "mentally unstable."
Now the number of people killed in Sweden don’t quite add up to what happens in mass shootings in US but keep in mind that Sweden only have a population the size of New York City so proportionally there isn’t that much of a difference. And if the weapons were totally banned (or are they--again, my knowledge on the laws over there isn't what it is for the United States and its own laws)?

It is high time to disarm the police and militaries of the world to make it a better and safer place for us all. And who does this leave holding the guns? If I'm not mistaken, there is a gun for every four people in the world, so not only is "disarming everyone" about as practical as trying to stop a flood with a single sandbag, the only people that would be left holding the guns would be:
- Terrorists
- Criminals
- Nations that decide that they're not so keen on giving up their weapons (read: shifting the balance of power/deterrance to those [probably] tyranical regimes and their world views. Connect the dots.

Think of the millions of lives that could (about 170 millions in total) and can be saved, we need to do this for the children! Now, we're going to present you with a scenario. Those (for lack of a better term) "law abiding nations" have given up their weapons. China, Cuba, and a few dictatorships have not. What happens next?

Surly there is now need for an assault rifle, sniper rifle or any other firearm in the hands of any human being, be it police or military, think about it, they where designed for genocide and mass murder! Have an idea on how to un-invent the gun?

Like one poster put it on this forum:

“giving a violent culture easy access to weaponry is like giving matches to a child and hoping that they aren't going to play with them once your back is turned”

Indeed and we better start with the biggest and most violent of actors: governments with police and military entities as they harbour a very violent culture, responsible for the worst mass murders in human history.

Hey what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

I do hope that you've got a way to un-invent the gun. Otherwise, I hope you've got a way to magically make all the firearms and tools to make them/tools to make the machines to make them/tools to make the machines that make the machines to make firearms/materials to do all of the above disappear.


The message you have entered is too short.

[Chulo]

The message you have entered is too short.lol.. good message..

[lider_r]

“giving a violent culture easy access to weaponry is like giving matches to a child and hoping that they aren't going to play with them once your back is turned”

And that, my friend, is exactly how people who think you should need proof of need and/or competency beforehand to exercise a basic human right percieve you. They see you as a child.

Ever try to spank a child who has an M-16?

Ever try to take candy from a kid with an AK?

You begin to see their problem with you having guns?


are you advocating spanking a child with a firearm?



Almost universally, the people who espouse disarming law-abiding citzens are the same people who espouse taking your property away from you based on THEIR judgement of your neccesity to have it in the first place.

One could argue that a parents property has been taken away (their sons/daughters life) because of somebody elses judgment that they must have a gun no matter what.

As the all too regular firearm related headlines show, if you want to live somewhere where your unlikely to be shot then the US is probably not the place to be.

[Shinobi]

In Korea north no people is shot never of gun.

[perdurabo]

In Korea north no people is shot never of gun.
knight RULZ!

[WarriorMonk]

EDIT: Did not realize this was satire, I'm terribly sorry.

[Durandal]

Ever try to spank a child who has an M-16?

Not too sure who is the bigger idiot, you or loud mouth Cockroach.

You are simply...well, dumb and General Cockroach is simply doing his first post looking for a fight. WHich makes us pro-gun folks look like jackasses.

[Hollis]

Not too sure who is the bigger idiot, you or loud mouth Cockroach.

You are simply...well, dumb and General Cockroach is simply doing his first post looking for a fight. WHich makes us pro-gun folks look like jackasses.


Yep, another day at the funny farm. We really don't need any gun owners trying to scare the hell out of non gun owners. The anti-gun nuts are doing that.

It is about responsible gun ownership VS illegal or irresponsible gun ownership. I don't know any gun owner who does not condemn morons with firearms and criminals with firearms. That is something we all agree on. The fight, it seems, is between responsible gun owners and those who would see responsible gun owners punished for the irresponsible acts of morons with firearms and criminals.

[PPSH41]

@original poster
I'm getting sick and tired of being forced to live my life by what the stupidest idiot might someday do. Theres enough laws as it is. Enforce what we already have and leave me the heck alone.

[Geezah]

@original poster
I'm getting sick and tired of being forced to live my life by what the stupidest idiot might someday do. Theres enough laws as it is. Enforce what we already have and leave me the heck alone.

Quoted for truth, the original poster, General ****-roach is a troll..........

[Jobu]

If you take away my second amendment rights, can I take away your first amendment rights?

It's only fair.

[General Cockroach]

I look’s like I’m being out posted fast! I could really need some help here, where are all the gun control activists on this forum when I need them!



are you advocating spanking a child with a firearm?




One could argue that a parents property has been taken away (their sons/daughters life) because of somebody elses judgment that they must have a gun no matter what.

As the all too regular firearm related headlines show, if you want to live somewhere where your unlikely to be shot then the US is probably not the place to be.

Yes very good point just like parents own their children so do governments own their people and if the intelligent authorities had better control more lives can be saved.

It is therefore necessary to go down the enlightened road of collectivism or socialism where the expropriation of property and businesses are under central control so there is more responsibility. This will be equally good when it comes to both guns and the offspring’s from the subjects. History has shown that this path was good and created better and more prosperous living situation for all!

[Martial]

OMFG! Where the f*ck are you from, dude? Fantasy Land? Holy sh*t! Do you need your government to hold you d*ck while you pee or do you pee sitting down?

Surely this topic has been covered here before.

[WarriorMonk]

EDIT: Did not realize this was a satire - holy cow...I'm terribly sorry.

[General Cockroach]

Good folks before this gets out of hand, what I wrote was a satire and I wouldn’t have posted it on just any forum.
The arguments in this forum mostly put forward by Europeans who are serving in the military or simply has an interest in the military world but advocate prohibition of arms for the civilian population was to me both annoying and hypocritical.
So I wrote and posted something that is in line of how they view gun ownership but applied their logic against police and military.



I wasn’t trying to pick a fight with the pro gun folks on this forum.


To be frank Gun control never eliminates guns and it certainly doesn’t stop violence in our violent world.
There are plenty of firearms in every society and plenty of people who are willing to use them so the question comes down to who have access to firearms and who does not. That question will most likely determine who will live and who will die if violence where to visit us.
The examples I put forward simply shows that governments are just as likely to be criminal or become one under the right circumstances as individual among the civilian population are. But I would argue when military or police becomes the mass murderers the effects are much more devastating.
If people with good intention think that by collective disarmament they can create a more peaceful world then they are deceiving themselves. The end result is a world where we only turn over the access of weapons into the wrong hands. The outcome is not difficult predict or observe where it has been tried.
Places like Babi-Yar, which was on of the most appalling massacre of world war II happened in the former Soviet Union upon helpless Jews. As citizens of the Soviet Union the victims at Babi Yar where not allowed to own guns because of a suppressive government.
Srebrenica where Bosnians where disarmed in the name of peace by the UN who then disgracefully never even tried to uphold their promise of protecting the very people they made defenceless. One could go on forever with example from history...

The facts that the number of people dead in combat as opposed murdered by government is true and it is a chilling reminder why the right to self defence is so important, and that that right is useless if you don’t recognise the right to keep and bear arms. If a government becomes tyrannical who can prevent the catastrophe but an armed populace.

There is an example of which gun control advocated tries to ignore namely the Warsaw uprising. It showed how a few weapons smuggled and put into action by a group of ragtag starved people where able keep 2000 German soldiers and police busy for three days. The fighting escalated and the Jewish resistance group increased to some 1500 and likewise the Germans to 12000. In the end the rebels held out for 28 days.
They did not succeed but they were given a choice a choice of not being starved to death our slaughtered like animals. Given the choice they fought and died rather then suffer what the Germans had in store for them. And thats the bottom line, no one should remove that choice from you even if it proves to be ineffective or bad because that choice is the foundation of a free people.

Last I would like to know where the gun grabbers are who has a supportive interest in what this forum has to offer but adhere to civilian arms prohibition. If you truly believe in gun control then you should support my first post but I doubt it because if you do then you should resign from this interest or profession.

[Klatuu]

are you advocating spanking a child with a firearm?


Yes. Exactly. That's the smartest analysis I ever heard. You're going to be Goddamned general one day, Gump. How'd that elephant get in your pajamas?


One could argue that a parents property has been taken away (their sons/daughters life) because of somebody elses judgment that they must have a gun no matter what.

Sure, if one is ignroant enough to argue that:

1. Parents own their children.

2. That having a gun = using a gun illegally.

3. That the law allows guns "no matter what", when there are over 20,000 laws restricting the manufacture, possesion, transportation, and trade of firearms in the US.

So yeah, one could physically make that statement, but you'd have to be pretty *******up to think it was an accurate analyisis of the state of nature. Know anyone like that?


As the all too regular firearm related headlines show, if you want to live somewhere where your unlikely to be shot then the US is probably not the place to be.

I'm more concerned with living free than existing in captivity. You're welcome to do as you see fit. Let's make a deal and agree that I won't make you own a gun, which would force you to yell "no please don't" at me, and you won't try to make me give mine up, which would force me to shoot you. Sort of a live and let live policy that we can both live with. In fact, we're already doing it, see how easy it is?

Freedom means doing anything you want, as long as it doesn't stop anyone else from doing anything they want. It's a simple concept, even though it propagates a mulititude of implications. Implications like, for example, if you do act in a manner that does violate someone else's rights, you weren't acting in a manner that was "free", meaning you were acting in a manner known as "criminal". However, and here's the part the good-intentioned authoritarians amoung us (pay attention, this concerns you) really have the problems with: you aren't a criminal until you commit the act.

Now, if you live under a government that is going to hold as it's highest value the respect and protection of individual rights, meaning it protects it's citizens from illegitimate force and fraud, that government cannot treat you like a criminal until you are one, and remain a "just government deriving it's powers from the consent of the governed". (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/)



Not too sure who is the bigger idiot, you or loud mouth Cockroach.

You are simply...well, dumb and General Cockroach is simply doing his first post looking for a fight. WHich makes us pro-gun folks look like jackasses.

Well, I don't know how big he is, but I'm 6'3" and around 260 lbs, so there's a good chance it's me. Maybe he'll let us know. In meantime, sugar britches, you might consider that when it comes to you looking like one of them jack-a-whats-its, you're completely self-sufficient. Sort of "self-uneducated", as it were :)

Hee Haw. rofl

[Klatuu]

Given the choice they fought and died rather then suffer what the Germans had in store for them. And thats the bottom line, no one should remove that choice from you even if it proves to be ineffective or bad because that choice is the foundation of a free people.


Are you telling me I'm not free to give up YOUR freedom? That has all kinds of implications, like maybe I can't justly take the money you earn away from you by convincing a politican I need it more than you do, and that I'll vote for him if he does. It sounds suspiciously like you might even think rights don't come from government at all.

You sure you're European? Keep talking like that, and they're going to kick you out.

I thought guys like you were extinct, maybe you're just coelacanths?

[Durandal]

Last I would like to know where the gun grabbers are who has a supportive interest in what this forum has to offer but adhere to civilian arms prohibition. If you truly believe in gun control then you should support my first post but I doubt it because if you do then you should resign from this interest or profession.

Zip it man. If you took the time and actually searched the political and gear sections for firearm ownership related topics you will realize that..

A) A large number of folks on this forum own firearms...be they American, German, British, the crazy Kiwis..Finish...and so on.

B) THere are more pro-gun people here than anti-gun.

C) Even some of those in nations that are historically anti-gun are sometimes in awe and I'll even go as far as to say jealous of our freedoms.

D) A few anti-gun types here (*cough* MIN!) have actually been swayed to some degree because of smart conversations dealing with the subject.

Finally, while this is the Political/Rants part of the forum we like discussing gun arguments centered around a specific law, event, or personality...not a deliberately, provoking and insulting (to both sides of the argument) opening, especially from a new member that has obviously not spent the time to actually get to know the forum, its members, and its discussions.

[General Cockroach]

Are you telling me I'm not free to give up YOUR freedom? That has all kinds of implications, like maybe I can't justly take the money you earn away from you by convincing a politican I need it more than you do, and that I'll vote for him if he does. It sounds suspiciously like you might even think rights don't come from government at all.

You sure you're European? Keep talking like that, and they're going to kick you out.

I thought guys like you were extinct, maybe you're just coelacanths?

That’s right on the money, rights are not granted in exchange for good behaviour and they cannot be redrawn for bad behaviour, I consider them to be unalienable.

I’m from Europe but my heart feels very much at home in most of the US, and yes you do feel like a species on the verge of extinction when having those views here.

[General Cockroach]

Zip it man.

No I will not!



If you took the time and actually searched the political and gear sections for firearm ownership related topics you will realize that..

I have searched and read quite a lot here.



A) A large number of folks on this forum own firearms...be they American, German, British, the crazy Kiwis..Finish...and so on.

Absolutely correct one of the reasons I have read a lot of the posts here.



B) THere are more pro-gun people here than anti-gun.

Once again this is my assessment as well and my posting was no to imply otherwise.



C) Even some of those in nations that are historically anti-gun are sometimes in awe and I'll even go as far as to say jealous of our freedoms.

Yes and I’m one of them and I say that in a good way, as I would like to se similar freedom for the rest of the worlds people.



D) A few anti-gun types here (*cough* MIN!) have actually been swayed to some degree because of smart conversations dealing with the subject.

Good job, But I believe that the people how wrote the quotes that I used in my post are beyond your reach.




Finally, while this is the Political/Rants part of the forum we like discussing gun arguments centered around a specific law, event, or personality...not a deliberately, provoking and insulting (to both sides of the argument) opening, especially from a new member that has obviously not spent the time to actually get to know the forum, its members, and its discussions.

There is a reason why it is called rant and that’s what I did, funny how you find out who the minors are that likes to play moderator. Satire and irony was highly valued among your American forefathers when it came to political debate and free speech, nothing to be apologize for or ashamed of.
Different people have different ways of entering a “room” (sort to speak) this was mine like or not. Sure it was provoking but the discussion and philosophy of state agent or civilian access to specific arms it is as relevant to the discussion of gun rights as individual cases of law. To suggest my writing was insulting is however a mischaracterization, the arguments I used was taken right out of their own anti-gun textbook.

[akd]

There is a reason why it is called rant and that’s what I did, funny how you find out who the minors are that likes to play moderator. Satire and irony was highly valued among your American forefathers when it came to political debate and free speech, nothing to be apologize for or ashamed of.
Different people have different ways of entering a “room” (sort to speak) this was mine like or not. Sure it was provoking but the discussion and philosophy of state agent or civilian access to specific arms it is as relevant to the discussion of gun rights as individual cases of law. To suggest my writing was insulting is however a mischaracterization, the arguments I used was taken right out of their own anti-gun textbook.

Well, perhaps you should have titled it "A Modest Proposal." ;)

Also, you left out one important point: we must also ensure that any possible alien civilization in the universe is not armed, then we can start on citizens, police and military.

[Laworkerbee]

You anti-gunners can blather on all you want

I'm not giving up my firearms period!!!

[lider_r]

it begs the question-

if guns are such a good thing for the US then why, out of the 26 developed nations in the world, do 83% of all firearm deaths occur within the United States of America?

[Durandal]

it begs the question-

if guns are such a good thing for the US then why, out of the 26 developed nations in the world, do 83% of all firearm deaths occur within the United States of America?

Wrong question to ask.

The proper question to ask is:

"In America's violent society, do guns protect the innocent?"

This, however, is just one of the many reasons for firearm ownership.

[lider_r]

they didnt seem to protect the virgina tech students.....


i dont see why its so unreasonable for proper background checks to be the norm when buying a gun, and these high capacity clips are rediculous

[Durandal]

they didnt seem to protect the virgina tech students.....

Well, of course not, the only one armed on campus were criminals and police.

Hard to use V Tech as an example of a population, numerous and armed, being a safer place.

If anything its more proof that gun control does not work.



i dont see why its so unreasonable for proper background checks to be the norm when buying a gun, and these high capacity clips are rediculous

There are proper background" checks unless it is a sale between citizens of the same .

[Shinobi]

Well, of course not, the only one armed on campus were criminals and police.

Hard to use V Tech as an example of a population, numerous and armed, being a safer place.
Try Kenessaw, Georgia.

[Durandal]

they didnt seem to protect the virgina tech students.....

Well, of course not, the only one armed on campus were criminals and police.

Hard to use V Tech as an example of a population, numerous and armed, being a safer place.

If anything its more proof that gun control does not work.



i dont see why its so unreasonable for proper background checks to be the norm when buying a gun, and these high capacity clips are rediculous

There are proper background" checks unless it is a sale between citizens of the same. Like me selling a firearm to Geezah.

What high capacity clips? What you mean is, you want civilians to have access to nothing but LOW capacity magazines. 15 or 17 rounds for a 9mm is a normal capacity for a medium or large frame pistol.

The .22 he was using DID have LOW capacity mags.

Not too sure what capacity has do with killing ability.

If you research our history of public mass shootings, most had normal capacity mags, but for some reason killed a whole lot less.

Thus, less magazine capacity does not mean less deaths.

[Durandal]

Try Kenessaw, Georgia.

I know Kenessaw all to well...

Gun Town, passed a town ordinance: every head of household must maintain a firearm and ammunition for that gun, unless they are by State law, prevented from owning a firearm or object to owning a firearm do to religious or personal reasons.

Violent crime dropped 89%.

[TacoDelRio]

they didnt seem to protect the virgina tech students.....


i dont see why its so unreasonable for proper background checks to be the norm when buying a gun, and these high capacity clips are rediculous

Hahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!111



On another note, what makes "our society" (someone please define that) "violent"? Uh, is it any more outstandingly violent than, say, back in the day when we had sabretooth cats and mastadons running around, and had to stab sh*t with spears to fight off them big furry bastards? Or when folks had swords...

[Durandal]

On another note, what makes "our society" (someone please define that) "violent"?

According to the U.N. "attacks" by one person on another, regardless of whether they are armed or not.

Old news but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm

2 years ago, Britain and Australia were both twice as violent (both we very restrictive gun control measures and some sort of socialized nanny government) or more than the United States.

But, shhhhh, we wouldn't want this to get out.

[TacoDelRio]

I hear ya. Thanks for the link & info Durandal. I just find it insanely assanine that people think our society is violent. If the UN says so, I'm not surprised, they seem rather "off" anyway.

Especially when they compare a country the size of New Jersey (with a fraction fo the population) to the USA. (Just an example in case someone tries to "call me out" in the assumption that I give a sh*t.)

[lider_r]

Well, of course not, the only one armed on campus were criminals and police.

Hard to use V Tech as an example of a population, numerous and armed, being a safer place.

If anything its more proof that gun control does not work.


What gun control?

There is no gun control in the US.

There have never been more guns in the US as is there is now and hasn't been able to stop massacres like this. I can't see how adding even more guns to the mix is going to act as any kind of a deterrant.


There are proper background checks

They are obviously too weak, that loophole in the background check that allowed him to buy the gun proved to be a massive ****-up. There could be more mental cases out there that have managed to get hold of guns despite there history of psychiatric problems. Its good that the loophole has been closed now, but its unbelievable that they would leave that open for so long, it was just asking for trouble.


unless it is a sale between citizens of the same .

Then that kind of renders any kind of background check useless. As i understand it you can buy a firearm at a gun show without a check too? (correct me if im wrong)


What high capacity clips? What you mean is, you want civilians to have access to nothing but LOW capacity magazines. 15 or 17 rounds for a 9mm is a normal capacity for a medium or large frame pistol

Not too sure what capacity has do with killing ability.


Obviously its quicker to shoot 30 bullets out of gun than it is to shoot 15 or 17 rounds out of a gun then have to reload and shoot another 15 or 13. Having those things in the public domain is an invitation to disaster.

If capacity has nothing to do with killing then shouldn't people be able to own drums for their rifles?

[TacoDelRio]

Hey Lider R,

When was the last time you ran a DROS on someone? When was the last time you had a customer fill out an ATF form 4473?

This is an honest question, since you are obviously someone who sells and registers firearms as a legal dealer in the United States of America.

[Durandal]

What gun control?

There is no gun control in the US.

rofl More today than ever before. You are obviously young and do not know what it was like prior to say, the mid-70s.

There used to be no background check. Ammo and guns were dirt cheap, even the high end stuff. You mail order guns. Kids could walk into their schools with shotguns or .22s had them over to the principle and then get them back at the end of the day to hunt with...or shot cans.

Almost every home had a gun in it prior to 1900 and somewhere, as our populations became more urban and less rural that all began to change.


They are obviously too weak, that loophole in the background check that allowed him to buy the gun proved to be a massive ****-up. There could be more mental cases out there that have managed to get hold of guns despite there history of psychiatric problems. Its good that the loophole has been closed now, but its unbelievable that they would leave that open for so long, it was just asking for trouble.

It hasn't been closed, nor was it a loophole. It was simply poor paper work on the government end. People have still be purchasing guns, background checks being done, and Firearms Dealers doing their job...all of it has been "working" but unfortunately you have local governments not filing information with the background check. The system is only as good as the information in the system.

That will NEVER change.

Its not a "loophole" its human nature.




Then that kind of renders any kind of background check useless. As i understand it you can buy a firearm at a gun show without a check too? (correct me if im wrong)

Gunshow loophole is a political term. There is no such thing. There is NOTHING special about a gun show at all. But the propaganda has made you think there is.

Firearm dealers will always have to do background checks be they in a shop, in their home, or at a gunshow. A private single gun sale from one lawful citizen to another that reside in the same State is completely legal and from one lawful citizen to another of another state via an FFL is completely legal.

Can this happen at a gun show? Yes. Can it happen any other time? Sure.

Does a law effecting ANY of this effect criminals? Not at all.


Obviously its quicker to shoot 30 bullets out of gun than it is to shoot 15 or 17 rounds out of a gun then have to reload and shoot another 15 or 13. Having those things in the public domain is an invitation to disaster.

That is your opinion. I have seen with my own eyes, guys with 5 round revolvers and 7 round 1911s do magazine changes and shoot faster than I or anyone I know can with a 15 round mag.

The magazines used at VT were 10 and no more than 17. So I guess the whole 30 round thing is irrelevant. You argue that till we got down to a 1 round breechloader...then we would be bitching about brass cartridges vs. black powder, and then so on.

[/QUOTE]If capacity has nothing to do with killing then shouldn't people be able to own drums for their rifles?[QUOTE]

Some people do.

I just went through a Beta mag of 5.56 in a FA FNC three weeks ago.

Pure joy.

[Hollis]

Hey Lider R,

When was the last time you ran a DROS on someone? When was the last time you had a customer fill out an ATF form 4473?

This is an honest question, since you are obviously someone who sells and registers firearms as a legal dealer in the United States of America.

Taco our buddy Lider is clueless and just blowing smoke. Maybe he figures if a person is attacked, all they need to do, is hung the attacker and sing the Barney song with the attacker and everything will turn out wonderful. :hug:

[lider_r]

rofl More today than ever before.

How can that be so if somebody who was treated for psychiatric problems able to get a weapon so easily? I faily to see how there is any kind of restriction put in place when somebody can own military style weapons.


It hasn't been closed, nor was it a loophole. It was simply poor paper work on the government end. People have still be purchasing guns, background checks being done, and Firearms Dealers doing their job...all of it has been "working" but unfortunately you have local governments not filing information with the background check. The system is only as good as the information in the system.

Virginia Closes Gun Loophole-Governor Tightens State Law That Allowed Virginia Tech Shooter To Obtain Guns (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/30/virginiatechshooting/main2742609.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2742609)



Gunshow loophole is a political term. There is no such thing. There is NOTHING special about a gun show at all. But the propaganda has made you think there is.

But if you can buy a gun from a gunshow without getting a background check then it is a loophole....


That is your opinion. I have seen with my own eyes, guys with 5 round revolvers and 7 round 1911s do magazine changes and shoot faster than I or anyone I know can with a 15 round mag.

Everyone was expert with a gun then id agree with you, but thats obviously not the case. If there is issue in terms of shooting speed with a 30 round magazine then it should be ok to ban them...



I just went through a Beta mag of 5.56 in a FA FNC three weeks ago.

Should everyone be able to have these? What would the ramifications of this be?

Where do we draw the line? Should people be able to own gatling guns with an infinite amount of ammo? There has to be some sort of restriction somewhere along the line...

[lider_r]

Hey Lider R,

When was the last time you ran a DROS on someone? When was the last time you had a customer fill out an ATF form 4473?

This is an honest question, since you are obviously someone who sells and registers firearms as a legal dealer in the United States of America.

What has this got to do with anything? Why would being a firearm dealer make you more worthy than somebody else in such a discussion?

Just because i dont hold the same views as you there is no need to patronise me.


Taco our buddy Lider is clueless and just blowing smoke. Maybe he figures if a person is attacked, all they need to do, is hung the attacker and sing the Barney song with the attacker and everything will turn out wonderful. :hug:

well your stance of 'more guns and everything will get better' has had its time in the sun, and it doesnt look like massacres are going to end anytime soon so how about listening to some different ideas for a change. You can critisize them all you want but belittling other people isnt the most mature way of discussing these things.

[Hollis]

well your stance of 'more guns and everything will get better' has had its time in the sun, and it doesnt look like massacres are going to end anytime soon so how about listening to some different ideas for a change. You can critisize them all you want but belittling other people isnt the most mature way of discussing these things.


a little hint, your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning. Where did I say, "More guns...." in my post?

I think your doing one hell of a job at "belittling" yourself. You really don't need my help.


Carry ON............... rofl

[General Cockroach]

it begs the question-

if guns are such a good thing for the US then why, out of the 26 developed nations in the world, do 83% of all firearm deaths occur within the United States of America?

Linder_r you are good at asking questions of why guns are needed for civilians, what the need is for this or that type of weapon.
The burden of proof is not upon us who cherish liberty and the right of self defence. The burden of proof lies upon you and your fellow gun grabbers who strive to take it away or infringe upon our right of self defence. I have yet to se a compelling argument of why any of your ideas are sound.

It is now your turn, put forwards you case samples, these other counties that you talk about (28 developing) please name them and recite their peaceful history because of civilian arms prohibition.

”it begs the question-”

Why other nations will suffer war, dictatorships and genocide on a horrific scale compared to the US but still there is a myth that America is more violent?

Why is democide so widespread in “peaceful” Europe and other continents?

Last I would like to leave you this quote:

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.”

Samuel Adams 1776

[lider_r]

a little hint, your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning. Where did I say, "More guns...." in my post?

I think your doing one hell of a job at "belittling" yourself. You really don't need my help.

Carry ON............... rofl


well you obviously dont agree with gun control, so you must anti-gun control

and in reference to your previous post- yes, perhaps if there was a little more respect and kindness towards each other instead of put downs and threats by people who like violence and violent weapons then maybe there wouldnt be so much gun use.

[lider_r]

Linder_r you are good at asking questions of why guns are needed for civilians, what the need is for this or that type of weapon.
The burden of proof is not upon us who cherish liberty and the right of self defence. The burden of proof lies upon you and your fellow gun grabbers who strive to take it away or infringe upon our right of self defence. I have yet to se a compelling argument of why any of your ideas are sound.


How much more proof do you need? 2 more massacres? 3? 10?

Surely 32 deaths a day on average is sign that something needs to change.....


Why other nations will suffer war, dictatorships and genocide on a horrific scale compared to the US but still there is a myth that America is more violent?


America has suffered -on a horrific scale.

Since the 60's they've lost more of their own citizens to guns than all the soldiers theyve lost in wars.

With the proper of a pourous southern border what would happy if 30 alquada fighters made it across and took advantage of the guns in the US? Thats a huge potential terrorist threat.

[General Cockroach]

Linder_r, if you would like to save lives with your gun ban logic you should focus your efforts on disarming the Australian military and police now that the civilian population has more or less have been disarmed.
You should find a good ally in your Prime Minister John Howard how thinks guns are evil. The name on this thread is Gun control for state and state actors, I put forward a few cases of mass murder committed by state actor I’m sure you can find a few more and add to the case of disarming the police and military.


And I'm waiting for a compelling argument with cases to show that this is so,
I like a little more than you saying so.

[akd]

I think your doing one hell of a job at "belittling" yourself. You really don't need my help.


Carry ON............... rofl


I'm beginning to wonder if this is our same little Aussie friend from earlier gun control threads. If so, do not engage. It is incapable of simple logic. If you point out logical fallacy, it will cry that it is being attacked and belittled.

If not the same, then this begs the question if there is something in the water in Oz...?

[lider_r]

Linder_r, if you would like to save lives with your gun ban logic you should focus your efforts on disarming the Australian military and police now that the civilian population has more or less have been disarmed.


how were you able to interpret the idea gun control and stretch it to apply to the military and the police?

Perhaps if the police and military went around guns blazing in the streets of Australia's capital cities and harrased the citizens i'd agree with you. But from what i can tell on the net this doesnt seem to happen.

[lider_r]

i dont understand how pro gun folk, when the issue of safety is raised, suddenly recoil into 'your not taking my guns'

Im not even talking about banning guns, im talking putting some simple things in place which could stop things like virginia tech happening.

[lider_r]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is our same little Aussie friend from earlier gun control threads. If so, do not engage. It is incapable of simple logic. If you point out logical fallacy, it will cry that it is being attacked and belittled.

If not the same, then this begs the question if there is something in the water in Oz...?


im aussie? says who?

[General Cockroach]

how were you able to interpret the idea gun control and stretch it to apply to the military and the police?

Perhaps if the police and military went around guns blazing in the streets of Australia's capital cities and harrased the citizens i'd agree with you.

Obviously this is not the case.

It happened in South Korea, Sweden to name a few so it could happen in Australia.
Australia can be considered to be a law abiding gun owner but no one knows what might happen in the future.

Because guns are the cause of mass murder and inflation in crime, then the conclusion must be the same for all situations weather their civilian, police or soldier, right? Australian military use guns in Iraq to kill people don’t they?

And it’s it more important to reduce death by guns then death in general right?


I’m still waiting for a compelling argument with cases to show that civilian disarmament makes a county more peaceful and reduces crime.

[lider_r]

It happened in South Korea, Sweden to name a few so it could happen in Australia.
Australia can be considered to be a law abiding gun owner but no one knows what might happen in the future.

When ddi South Korean and Swedish police/army kill their citizens? An army coup in australia sounds pretty paranoid.


Because guns are the cause of mass murder and inflation in crime, then the conclusion must be the same for all situations weather their civilian, police or soldier, right? Australian military use guns in Iraq to kill people don’t they?

Yes.

But soldiers use their weapons in wars, and police in the line of duty not in everyday civilian life.


I’m still waiting for a compelling argument with cases to show that civilian disarmament makes a county more peaceful and reduces crime.

Nobody made any claims to gun control reducing all crime, just gun crime and ive given you evidence of that in previous posts.

[General Cockroach]

When ddi South Korean and Swedish police/army kill their citizens? An army coup in australia sounds pretty paranoid.


Read my first post




But soldiers use their weapons in wars, and police in the line of duty not in everyday civilian life.


How does that matter if they still kill people?



Nobody made any claims to gun control reducing all crime, just gun crime and ive given you evidence of that in previous posts.

That’s not compelling evidence and it has been pulled to pieces!

The German military killed a lot of innocent people in WW2 why should they have guns?

[Shinobi]

When ddi South Korean police/army kill their citizens?
1980 Gwanju Massacre http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/752055.stm

But soldiers use their weapons in wars, and police in the line of duty not in everyday civilian life.
June 23, 2001. On that day, a perilous car chase occurred on a Montréal’s expressway. Driving the pursuing car was Jocelyn Hotte, an RCMP cop who worked as a politicians’ and foreign dignitaries’ bodyguard, the same sort of praetorian La Presse wants to see behind Pierre Pettigrew everywhere. The pursued car was driven by Hotte’s former girlfriend, Lucie Gélinas, who was riding with three male friends. Shooting his RCMP issued pistol from his moving car, Hotte pumped some 15 bullets into Ms. Gélinas’s car.

The jury later heard the 911 recording of Lucie Gélinas screaming for help as Hotte was ramming her car and shooting. The three passengers could not return fire because, of course, they were not armed, which would have been a Criminal Code offence liable to several years in jail. Lucie Gélinas was hit and killed. Her three passengers sustained serious bullet wounds. Four years later, Pierre Mainville, one of the passengers, says about Hotte, “He got 25 years in prison and I got life in a wheelchair.”

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/index.html

[lider_r]

How does that matter if they still kill people?


Because thats what is supposed to happen in wars. Unless you regard every waking moment of your life in the suburbs as a war then it matters.


That’s not compelling evidence and it has been pulled to pieces!

You mean you've disproved that gun massacres and shootings haven't gone down in Australia?


The German military killed a lot of innocent people in WW2 why should they have guns?

Because the allies overthrew the nazi regime, tried its war criminals and nurterd a new armed forces, one that respects human rights. Armies tend to need guns otherwise it makes their job of defending people a little bit harder.

[TacoDelRio]

What has this got to do with anything? Why would being a firearm dealer make you more worthy than somebody else in such a discussion?

Just because i dont hold the same views as you there is no need to patronise me.



well your stance of 'more guns and everything will get better' has had its time in the sun, and it doesnt look like massacres are going to end anytime soon so how about listening to some different ideas for a change. You can critisize them all you want but belittling other people isnt the most mature way of discussing these things.

Because then you'd actually know WTF you're talking about.

[lider_r]

Because then you'd actually know WTF you're talking about.

So it takes owning a gun shop to realise that when 32 people die each day from guns,its a bad thing?

Considering that some gun dealers are crooked, it seems to suggest that maybe they aren't the best people to be trusted when it comes to this issue.

[TacoDelRio]

Wait... people die from guns? Just like people die from getting hit by lightning? Why do we need Soldiers and Police Officers if guns do all the work on their own?

'Cause, uh, I've kinda got alot of guns, and uh, nobody here has died yet...

It takes knowledge of how the whole registration thing works, here in the USA, to be able to make an EDUCATED comment on how registration works here in the USA. Harumph.

There are crooked people in every business. Saying there are crooked firearms dealers holds no water.

[General Cockroach]

"Because thats what is supposed to happen in wars."


I though you wanted to reduce gun death on civilians and as civilian are those how suffer the most from wars on a scale many time higher then deaths caused by "gun violence" on one civilian on another, shouldnt this be a priority of yours?


Armies tend to need guns otherwise it makes their job of defending people a little bit harder.

Really but about a 1 million civilians who uses a gun each year in the US to prevent a possible deadly violent attack shouldn’t be able to defend themselves? And the civilians at Babi-yar sould not be able to defend themself nor should the jews in the warsaw getto, right?



You mean you've disproved that gun massacres and shootings haven't gone down in Australia

Don’t answer a question with another question, still it is you who should put forward a compelling argument for civilian disarmament not me or other people who believe in the right to self defence. Once again you fail to do so.

[Geezah]

they didnt seem to protect the virgina tech students.....

How could they, the college was a GUN FREE ZONE, another piece of feel good legislation that only the law abiding pay attention to!



i dont see why its so unreasonable for proper background checks to be the norm when buying a gun

What do you mean proper background checks??
Do you have any idea what type of background checks are in place over here??



, and these high capacity clips are rediculous

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f156/Wrenchman/hairclip.jpg

I agree, why would anyone try and put HAIR clips in a firearm????

[lider_r]

Wait... people die from guns? Just like people die from getting hit by lightning? Why do we need Soldiers and Police Officers if guns do all the work on their own?

So guns dont have anything to do with killing people? How can you compare a random act of nature with a premeditated action?


'Cause, uh, I've kinda got alot of guns, and uh, nobody here has died yet...

I guess that means gun violence doesnt happen and is an illusion?


There are crooked people in every business. Saying there are crooked firearms dealers holds no water.

So because there are criminals in other businesses it means criminals in the firearms business aren't crooked? Strange logic you have there my friend.

[lider_r]

I though you wanted to reduce gun death on civilians and as civilian are those how suffer the most from wars on a scale many time higher then deaths caused by "gun violence" on one civilian on another, shouldnt this be a priority of yours?

Why are you comparing a war to everyday civilian life?


Really but about a 1 million civilians who uses a gun each year in the US to prevent a possible deadly violent attack shouldn’t be able to defend themselves? And the civilians at Babi-yar sould not be able to defend themself nor should the jews in the warsaw getto, right?

So by your reasoning its ok for iraqis to have guns and shoot at the occupying forces just like jews in the warsaw getto, right?

[lider_r]

How could they, the college was a GUN FREE ZONE, another piece of feel good legislation that only the law abiding pay attention to!

Unfortunatly the rest of the state around the gun free zone was full of guns so it was quite pointless.

Its like ropeing off a 5m by 5m section in the middle of the ocean to swim in and complaining when you get attacked by a shark.



What do you mean proper background checks??
Do you have any idea what type of background checks are in place over here??


Obviously the ones that allow people like Cho to buy a gun.


I agree, why would anyone try and put HAIR clips in a firearm????

I dont know, why would they?

[akd]

So by your reasoning its ok for iraqis to have guns and shoot at the occupying forces just like jews in the warsaw getto, right?

Iraqi citizens are allowed to keep a firearm in their house for self-protection.

[Calanen]

According to the U.N. "attacks" by one person on another, regardless of whether they are armed or not.

Old news but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm

2 years ago, Britain and Australia were both twice as violent (both we very restrictive gun control measures and some sort of socialized nanny government) or more than the United States.

But, shhhhh, we wouldn't want this to get out.

Sydney is one of the more dangerous cities I have lived in. But its all covered up.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/30/1085855438034.html?from=moreStories

Terror on the roads: violent thefts rise as Sydney becomes car-jack capital

By Joshua Dowling, Motoring Editor
May 31, 2004 [yeah old, but i saw a recent article that i cant find which said we had 171 carjackings in the last 12 months]

Not only is Sydney Australia's car-jacking capital, but the rate of such thefts is increasing faster than anywhere in the country.



Police figures and research by car insurers show that motorists - particularly those driving expensive European imports - are more likely to be car-jacked here.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

Gee who would have predicted that, the crims didn't hand their guns in.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070429/23/13a1m.html

In Sydney last year there was a carjacking every three days, but the government is reluctant to admit that this constitutes a crime wave.

According to the New South Wales Police Minister, David Campbell: "If you contrast that with the total number of vehicles on the road it's a small number of individual events."

Det Supt Cotter agrees: "In fact, the statistics reveal a decrease of thirty per cent over recent years."
The areas in Sydney where the most carjackings are reported are Canterbury-Bankstown, Fairfield, Liverpool and western Sydney.

Its very hard to know what is going on from the statistics, because they place everything into broad categories.

If you ever come here, keep away from the places listed above. Stick to the north and the east, and only go into the city after 10pm with a group of friends. Those suburbs are dangerous, and not just for carjackings. The public only believes there is crime if it is reported in the news or if it happens to them. The true extent of what is going on is hidden.

[TallGuy]

I agree that the background checks in the U.S. could be more thorough. The background checks here are pretty thorough.

Here are the requirements for a firearm license in Iceland:

No criminal record.
Signed note from a doctor saying you are physically and mentally fit to carry a firearm.
At least two references.
Three day basic firearm course.

[LaoSexMachine]

Fvck you! I'm keeping my guns.

[akd]

No criminal record.
Signed note from a doctor saying you are physically and mentally fit.
At least two references.


Driver's licenses first!

[TallGuy]

Driver's licenses first!
I think most people already have a driver's license when they apply, because the minimum age for a gun license is 20.

[akd]

That was a joke. If people had to get a note from a doctor certifying them physically and mentally fit to drive, traffic jams might be a thing of the past. ;)

[General Cockroach]

Why are you comparing a war to everyday civilian life?


Because violence is factor in both enviroments although less frequent in the former.



So by your reasoning its ok for iraqis to have guns and shoot at the occupying forces just like jews in the warsaw getto, right?

First answer my question and then I will answer yours?

You have stated that: "Armies tend to need guns otherwise it makes their job of defending people a little bit harder." But some armies are not defending they are the one how are doing the killing.
You recognize that soldiers should have the ability to defend other people and themselves I suppose, should civilians not have the right do defend themselves?
The majority of armies are also in a state of peace so they live in a civilian environment as well but they have arms don’t they?

[Geezah]

Unfortunatly the rest of the state around the gun free zone was full of guns so it was quite pointless.

Good, I'm glad we both agree that GUN FREE ZONES are pointless, after all, those that are bent on breaking the law will do so no matter what laws are on the books!



Its like ropeing off a 5m by 5m section in the middle of the ocean to swim in and complaining when you get attacked by a shark.

Not quite!



Obviously the ones that allow people like Cho to buy a gun.

So it wasn't the fault of the background check, but a case of the nut job not being certified!




I dont know, why would they?

Well, you mentioned something about high capacity clips, and that's the only type of clip I know about, other than stripper clips or M1 Garand clips but none of those fit into a pistol!

[11 Bravo]

Well, you mentioned something about high capacity clips, and that's the only type of clip I know about, other than stripper clips or M1 Garand clips but none of those fit into a pistol!


A clip is not a magazine , nor vis versa. As a sidenote there is the Roth steyr and the steyr Hahn pistols that are charged with chargers like rifles ( clips for those that like that snazy slang )as their magazines are integral to the pistols construction. Their are earlier mannlicher pistols charged the same way.
If memory serves me was not the compact Grendel 380 and it's 32ACP twin loaded via chargers as well ?.

[TacoDelRio]

So guns dont have anything to do with killing people? How can you compare a random act of nature with a premeditated action?



I guess that means gun violence doesnt happen and is an illusion?



So because there are criminals in other businesses it means criminals in the firearms business aren't crooked? Strange logic you have there my friend.

Wait, what?

You suggested that guns do the killing.

Gun-violence, as a phrase or compound noun (that means two words combined as one), is illogical. That's like saying "Hamburger Fatness".

And as for the last part about businesses, I don't know how to comment on that, as I really have no idea how you come up with this stuff.

Either way your logic is flawless. Congratulations, my friend. You have reached eternal enlightenment.

And yeah, background checks aren't thorough enough, seeing as I live in LA, sold in LA, and it took me an hour and change to do the paperwork to sell a handgun. Thank God it's so lengthy here. That's what keeps LA's streets so notoriously clean and safe! woot woot woot woot Smiley faces all around! Cheers.

[lider_r]

Because violence is factor in both enviroments although less frequent in the former.

violence is a factor in the animal kingdom as well, are you going to compare that to a war too?



You have stated that: "Armies tend to need guns otherwise it makes their job of defending people a little bit harder." But some armies are not defending they are the one how are doing the killing.
You recognize that soldiers should have the ability to defend other people and themselves I suppose, should civilians not have the right do defend themselves?


Soldiers have to defend themselves against snipers, mortar attacks, armoured vehicles, tanks, helicopter gunships, fighter planes and multiple enemy soldiers with heavy weapons.

When was the last time you faced that kind of threat in your neighbourhood?


The majority of armies are also in a state of peace so they live in a civilian environment as well but they have arms don’t they?


Speak english.

So now to your question- seeing as you think it was ok for the jews in the warsaw ghetto to have guns to defend themselves against an occupying force then you must think its ok for iraqis to have guns to defend themselves against an occupying force, yes?

[Calanen]

Soldiers have to defend themselves against snipers, mortar attacks, armoured vehicles, tanks, helicopter gunships, fighter planes and multiple enemy soldiers with heavy weapons.


He lives in LA.........maybe not tanks, or armoured vehicles, but you would not be using firearms on them anyway.


So now to your question- seeing as you think it was ok for the jews in the warsaw ghetto to have guns to defend themselves against an occupying force then you must think its ok for iraqis to have guns to defend themselves against an occupying force, yes?

Under Iraqi law, a family can own 1 AK and 2 mags. Thats fair. And its to defend themselves against insurgents and bandits, not the occupying force. Honest and good people dont need to defend themselves against the americans.

[lider_r]

So it wasn't the fault of the background check, but a case of the nut job not being certified!

yeah it was the fault of a mental person that he passed a test set by the non-mental person?

by that logic its a baby's fault it starved to death because the parents didnt feed it.

[General Cockroach]

violence is a factor in the animal kingdom as well, are you going to compare that to a war too?

No, I don’t considered animals and humans to be on a comparable level when it comes to issues of rights, do you?



Soldiers have to defend themselves against snipers, mortar attacks, armoured vehicles, tanks, helicopter gunships, fighter planes and multiple enemy soldiers with heavy weapons.

When was the last time you faced that kind of threat in your neighbourhood?


Guess where back where we started, the burden of proof is not upon us who cherish liberty and the right of self defence. The burden of proof lies upon you and your fellow gun grabbers who strive to take it away or infringe upon our right of self defence. I have yet to se a compelling argument of why any of your ideas are sound.

For your information, I’m as likely to face a threat as an ordinary soldier in the armed forces in my country is.



Speak english.

So now to your question- seeing as you think it was ok for the jews in the warsaw ghetto to have guns to defend themselves against an occupying force then you must think its ok for iraqis to have guns to defend themselves against an occupying force, yes?

It is unfortunate that you dont understand my english if this continues then we might as well end this exchange. Let me try again: should the civilians at Babi-yar, Warsaw getto, Srebrenica, Darfur etc. have the means to be able to defend them themselves?

[Durandal]

A clip is not a magazine , nor vis versa. As a sidenote there is the Roth steyr and the steyr Hahn pistols that are charged with chargers like rifles ( clips for those that like that snazy slang )as their magazines are integral to the pistols construction. Their are earlier mannlicher pistols charged the same way.
If memory serves me was not the compact Grendel 380 and it's 32ACP twin loaded via chargers as well ?.

THank you for that irrelevant piece of information that has NOTHING to do with the conversation.

[Durandal]

How can that be so if somebody who was treated for psychiatric problems able to get a weapon so easily? I faily to see how there is any kind of restriction put in place when somebody can own military style weapons.

First of all, right now, we are not talking about pre-1986 military weapons. We are talking about commercial weapons that are self-loading or single shot (Double action, bolt action, pump action, or breach loading).

We are not talking about heavily controlled weapons like machine guns, short barreled, or silenced weapons. Those are regulated under a whole lot stricter and more costly process.

The background check is mainly criminal. Its up to each State (unless the Feds have something to do with it) to add people into the system that have psychiatric problems.

The thing is that you have two groups of people one that says all medical documents should be private and then another group that thinks just because a person has psychiatric problems, without something in place to rate the issues is it REALLY fair to deny them a right (like free speech or religion) simply because they spent some time in a ward?

I had a friend that had a nervous breakdown about a decade ago. It was mainly stress related, his wife had left him and their daughter had passed away a year or two earlier.

He just broke. Things came around though and I think he is mentally fit as anyone else and is no threat to society. He has a new family, wife, and twin boys.

He also owns 2 handguns and 4 longarms.

People simplify this to "do they have a problem or not?" Which is not the solution to this. Reactionary legislation NEVER really solves a problem and usually creates more.



Virginia Closes Gun Loophole-Governor Tightens State Law That Allowed Virginia Tech Shooter To Obtain Guns (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/30/virginiatechshooting/main2742609.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2742609)

Not too sure what this link proves. The governor has not made a single change in the gun laws. The people that can legally buy firearms are still allowed to purchase firearms.

As I have said earlier, all they have done, is made sure the VA is responsible for making sure the VA psychos are on the list when the FBI runs a background check.

That s not a "loophole"


But if you can buy a gun from a gunshow without getting a background check then it is a loophole....

Except it is NOT a loophole. The law that allows a PRIVATE individual to purchase a firearm from another private individual has NOTHING to do with gun shows. A licensed seller STILL has to do background checks at a gun show.


Everyone was expert with a gun then id agree with you, but thats obviously not the case. If there is issue in terms of shooting speed with a 30 round magazine then it should be ok to ban them...

We allow police officers to carry and they are by no stretch EXPERTS with their firearms. Most soldiers are not either.


Should everyone be able to have these? What would the ramifications of this be?

You tell me. I know the statistics on legally owned NFA controlled weapons used in crimes.

That does not matter though does it? I could tell you that more people die from lightning and shark attacks each year than legally owned weapons that are controlled by he National Firearms Act, but you could care less.

There is a level of irrational fear of something you either do not like or understand.


Where do we draw the line? Should people be able to own gatling guns with an infinite amount of ammo? There has to be some sort of restriction somewhere along the line...

People DO own gatling guns. Legally, after a massive background check and giving up certain rights of privacy. They own them.

The infinite supply of ammo would be, technically, impossible. Though my friend has probably 90 to 100K rounds in his basement, mainly 8mm, for his MG34 and MG42.

Geezah and I know a guy that has probably several million rounds of various ammo, an AMTrack, 2 M114, a Gamma Goat, a Duster with twin 40mm Bofors (demilled), 2 Dueces, and a recover Duece...oh, and a couple Jeeps..both Korean War and Vietnam era Fords. He also has one of the largest collections of .50 BMG machine guns.

Does he need that?

Yes and know. Most the stuff we own we do not need. No one needs an XBox, or even a computer really, and especially no one needs forums to argue in.

We have them though.

I know the guy REALLY enjoys collecting the stuff its his hobby and life style. He lives outside the city, owns about 90 acres and a huge warehouse to store the stuff.

If he can afford it, who cares, so long as he does it legally.

The point is, when we begin telling people what to do because it is not necessary we start walking a thin line. Where do we stop?

[Geezah]

yeah it was the fault of a mental person that he passed a test set by the non-mental person?

What, that makes as much sense as the CLIP comment!?



by that logic its a baby's fault it starved to death because the parents didnt feed it.

It would be nice to know how you're able to compare a nutcase to a baby?

[Hollis]

It would be nice to know how you're able to compare a nutcase to a baby?


Geezah are you reaching for the impossible?

[lider_r]

No, I don’t considered animals and humans to be on a comparable level when it comes to issues of rights, do you?

Yes. What makes you think you have any more of a right to live than my dog?



Guess where back where we started, the burden of proof is not upon us who cherish liberty and the right of self defence. The burden of proof lies upon you and your fellow gun grabbers who strive to take it away or infringe upon our right of self defence. I have yet to se a compelling argument of why any of your ideas are sound.

Unfortunatly the burden of proof is on you to provide a compelling case as to why you should be allowed assault weapons and machine guns when your not facing the same threats a soldier is.


For your information, I’m as likely to face a threat as an ordinary soldier in the armed forces in my country is.
rofl

Take a drive around the neighbourhoods in iraq then come back and talk to us about how dangerous life is in the suburbs. Ive not been to LA but im quite sure they don't have roadside bombs and snipers.


It is unfortunate that you dont understand my english if this continues then we might as well end this exchange. Let me try again: should the civilians at Babi-yar, Warsaw getto, Srebrenica, Darfur etc. have the means to be able to defend them themselves?

Who said i didnt? Your comparing a civilian situation to a war time situation. Since when were you under threat from hords of armed men from rival ethnic factions, nazis and janjaweed militia?

Now answer my question: as you believe in the right for citizens to arm themselves against invading/occupying forces then i guess you are ok with iraqis owning AK's to shoot back at occupying forces, right?

[TacoDelRio]

Hey Lider, are you white?

Wanna go to Watts in South Central LA with me? It's lots of fun. It's like being sent back to the 1980's, except everyone gives you these nasty stares and it kinda looks like some messed up city in Yugoslavia during the wars...

Oh you don't need anything to defend your life with. Screw that. plus it's hot. Who wants to be carrying around that heavy gun?

Oh well, talk is cheap. Typing is even cheaper.

[lider_r]

What, that makes as much sense as the CLIP comment!?

It would be nice to know how you're able to compare a nutcase to a baby?

you said:

"So it wasn't the fault of the background check, but a case of the nut job not being certified!"

Does this mean you are blaming the nut job for the inadequate background check?

[General Cockroach]

Linder I'm not from the US but from Europe, and my country and its soldiers has not been at war for a very long time, they still have assault rifles though and there is really no threat in sight. It is peacetime not war and they still have assault rifle why do you think that is?

As for Iraqis, there has been a democratic election in which the people of Iraq have spoken. The elected Iraqi government wants the American to stay until its government is able to sustain itself. Thus the legitimacy of fighting the American forces is lacking.
I do believe as do the Americans that you should be allowed to keep an AK for self defence against crime and oppression.
Comparing the events such as Babi-Yar, Warsaw uprising, Srebrenica etc to Iraq is truly like comparing apples and oranges. The American goal is not to exterminate the Iraqi people which were the goals of the Nazis when it came to the Jews.
But let’s suppose that the American haven’t allowed for democratic election but imposed a government upon the Iraqi people. Would the Iraqis have the right to resist by arms, unlike you in regards to my question, my answer is clearly YES.

Last, your dog comment says a lot about you views. It implies that an animal’s life is equal to that of a human’s life.

[lider_r]

Under Iraqi law, a family can own 1 AK and 2 mags. Thats fair. And its to defend themselves against insurgents and bandits, not the occupying force. Honest and good people dont need to defend themselves against the americans.

why not?

if iraq invaded and occupied america im sure there would be a few americans shooting at iraqi troops

[deadtired]

Unfortunatly the burden of proof is on you to provide a compelling case as to why you should be allowed assault weapons and machine guns when your not facing the same threats a soldier is.



Since when?

[lider_r]

Linder I'm not from the US but from Europe, and my country and its soldiers has not been at war for a very long time, they still have assault rifles though and there is really no threat in sight. It is peacetime not war and they still have assault rifle why do you think that is?

Because its their job to defend the homeland, and a military needs more than pitchforks to fight another army with?


As for Iraqis, there has been a democratic election in which the people of Iraq have spoken. The elected Iraqi government wants the American to stay until its government is able to sustain itself. Thus the legitimacy of fighting the American forces is lacking.

Maybe through western eyes, but if you were an iraqi and foreigners came into your country, piped the oil out of your land and sold it onto the rest of the world for 3 times the price they paid you for it, unleashed their corporate juggernaut to reap billions out of shady deals and killed an unknown amount of civilians in the pursuit of terrorists and offered a mere apology and a few hundred dollars compensation for doing it then i think you may see things a lot differently.

So if you dont think iraqi's are allowed to keep their weapons to use against occupying forces that would mean you do believe in some form of gun control? If you say no then that means you dont mind letting iraqis keep their guns which are being used to shoot at coalition forces.


Comparing the events such as Babi-Yar, Warsaw uprising, Srebrenica etc to Iraq is truly like comparing apples and oranges. The American goal is not to exterminate the Iraqi people which were the goals of the Nazis when it came to the Jews.

It was to extermine certain elements within Iraq, and in the process many thousands of people who had nothing to do with violence have paid with their lives, regardless of whatever the reasons were given for invasion.

They didnt ask to be occupied, the coalition entered at a time of its choosing under circumstances which suited them, not the iraqis. The invasion was illegal in terms of international law.

When the American companies started to make profits from the country's natural resources it became clear that the US military had not been used by bush and co for the noble purpose you have described.


But let’s suppose that the American haven’t allowed for democratic election but imposed a government upon the Iraqi people. Would the Iraqis have the right to resist by arms, unlike you in regards to my question, my answer is clearly YES.

The government clearly isnt representative of its people if its asking Coalition forces to stay as most of the population want them out,which begs the question- how much legitimacy does the iraqi government have? There is already widespread allegations of vote fraud, government corruption and state sponsored violence.

Seeing as the sunni's have had a government basically imposed on them which has been accused of having ministers in its ranks which have been in charge of attacks against the sunni's,then by your reasoning the sunni's have the right to fight back against the coalition supporting the very government thats attacking them.



Last, your dog comment says a lot about you views. It implies that an animal’s life is equal to that of a human’s life.


It says a lot about yours as well, why should an animal have less of a right to live than you? Who gave you the right to decide that? After all we humans are animals as well (mammals).


Since when?

Since people started to realise that a .50 cal sniper rifle was probably overkill when it came to having to ward off home invaders not to mention the possibly of terrorists within the country being able to stockpile such weapons and use them against US civilians,soldiers and police.

[akd]

This is why you don't even need to debate gun control. Just let these people open their mouths and it is abundantly clear what deep sh!t we'd be in if we let such people decide who does and does not have the right to be armed.

[Geezah]

you said:

"So it wasn't the fault of the background check, but a case of the nut job not being certified!"

Does this mean you are blaming the nut job for the inadequate background check?

The background check works just fine, but as you are not completely aware of the events that took place, in that case you are looking to point your finger at anything that can be blamed.............especially if it has a detremental(sp) affect on the legal possesion(sp) of firearms.

Haven't got time to spell check, in somwhat of a rush.

[Kant]

I've been swayed by certain pro-gun posters to be more tolerant when it comes to the right to bear arms. If you want them ,then that is fine. But if I buy a gun it will not be for my personal protection, it will be because I want a gun.

You gun control people should stop preaching and just let gun owners be. They don't come around and shove their beliefs in your face, yet you do the same in your self procclaimed cloak of 'concern'. Grow up. It's just because you don't like guns.

[lider_r]

The background check works just fine, but as you are not completely aware of the events that took place, in that case you are looking to point your finger at anything that can be blamed.............especially if it has a detremental(sp) affect on the legal possesion(sp) of firearms.


The background check is fine? Even though it let Cho get a gun?

Wasnt there a story in todays news about some american citizens who had planned to kill some soldiers in the US, they had even put some time in on a driving range.

[lider_r]

I've been swayed by certain pro-gun posters to be more tolerant when it comes to the right to bear arms. If you want them ,then that is fine. But if I buy a gun it will not be for my personal protection, it will be because I want a gun.

You gun control people should stop preaching and just let gun owners be. They don't come around and shove their beliefs in your face, yet you do the same in your self procclaimed cloak of 'concern'. Grow up. It's just because you don't like guns.

There is nothing immature about trying to stop certain people from getting dangerous weapons. A majority of Americans were all for disarming a certain dangerous someone of dangerous weapons in another country, so it seems somewhat hypocritical that they won't practice what they preach in their own country.

I think you are a bit confused about the whole 'shoving beliefs in faces stuff'- when people argue for tighter background checks etc they doing it out of a sense of safety, to prevent more mass shootings. People who insist on loose gun laws and the ability to own any type of gun they want are the ones actually forcing their beliefs on others, as in the case of virginia tech it was the people who weren't carrying guns who beared the consequences- not the gun carriers themselves.

[deadtired]

The background check is fine? Even though it let Cho get a gun?

Wasnt there a story in todays news about some american citizens who had planned to kill some soldiers in the US, they had even put some time in on a driving range.

Nobody ever bothered to diagnose Cho or take any legal action that would've red-flagged him during the background check. You can just as easily blame the mental health laws in the US as you can the gun laws.

BTW, three of those wannabe terrorists were in the US illegally, two had green cards, and only was a naturalized US citizen. All were busted trying to buy weapons that have been illegal since the 1930's. How this helps your argument is beyond me. And they went to a shooting range, not a driving range. You gonna tell me that anyone how goes to a shooting range should be out on the terrorist watchlist?

[Geezah]

The background check is fine? Even though it let Cho get a gun?

Again, you show your ignorance to what took place.

Read up on the facts then preech.....



Wasnt there a story in todays news about some american citizens who had planned to kill some soldiers in the US, they had even put some time in on a driving range.

And they were trying to buy arms from an arms dealer, from what I recall they were looking to buy RPGs along with AK47s.


Where are you located, you sound allot like a poster that was booted a couple of months ago?????

[lider_r]

Again, you show your ignorance to what took place.

Read up on the facts then preech.....


Im not sure how you can suggest that there is nothing wrong with a background check that could let someone like him get a gun. If the check can't raise a flag about someone who has been ordered by a court to get psychiatric treatment (http://www.physorg.com/news96294710.html).


And they were trying to buy arms from an arms dealer, from what I recall they were looking to buy RPGs along with AK47s.

and this isn't a problem? Aren't there a whole heap of iraqi refugees living in America now, some of which could be real pissed at whats happening in their country and are entitled to buy a gun under the constitution?


Where are you located, you sound allot like a poster that was booted a couple of months ago?????

sorry i don't give my details out on a first date, there's weirdos out there.

But im a kiwi if your that interested. No, not the bird.

[akd]

But im a kiwi if your that interested. No, not the bird.

Ah, the fruit then!*










Or do you think we don't know what "im a kiwi" means?

[TacoDelRio]

There is nothing immature about trying to stop certain people from getting dangerous weapons. A majority of Americans were all for disarming a certain dangerous someone of dangerous weapons in another country, so it seems somewhat hypocritical that they won't practice what they preach in their own country.

Sh*t, you got me there. You're right, we should practice what we preach. I'll get rid of my anthrax-contaminated 500lb bombs, stocks of nerve gas in my bathroom, and my nukes. :roll:

Go back to kindergarten, high-speed.

[Laworkerbee]

I'm still trying to figure out why a Kiwi is starting a pissing match about firearms ownership in the United States since it's no business of his.

He apparently has nothing else better to do with his time

[Hollis]

I'm still trying to figure out why a Kiwi is starting a pissing match about firearms ownership in the United States since it's no business of his.

He apparently has nothing else better to do with his time


hint, the word TROLL comes to mind.

[General Cockroach]

Because its their job to defend the homeland, and a military needs more than pitchforks to fight another army with?


Good observation it seams that we are getting somewhere, indeed militaries need to have the necessary and most effective means to defend a nation although there has not been a threat in sight for generations.
The same analogy goes for a private citizen who has a natural right to defend life, liberty and family with the most effective means available. This goes right back to your original inquest namely: when has there been a threat in my neighbourhood, thus this is not reverent and you arguing with a forked tong.
Using history as a witness the very fact that more people died by the hands of there own government then died in combat during 20th century, the most violent century in human history so far, the justification of effective arms in civilian possession needs NOT to be questioned unless you are serious about addressing the biggest violators.





So if you dont think iraqi's are allowed to keep their weapons to use against occupying forces that would mean you do believe in some form of gun control? If you say no then that means you dont mind letting iraqis keep their guns which are being used to shoot at coalition forces.

You need to read my post again, let me repeat myself one last time: I think as do the Americans that the Iraqi civilian has the right to keep weapons at home such as the AK47 for their personal protection. That might in my view be against criminals, terrorists, domestic and foreign oppressors.
Ultimately the choice of fighting or not fighting the American forces lies in the hands of the Iraqi people.
Weather they are justified to do so is a different debate, my view is that there is a lack of justification but ultimately the choice lies with them.
The fact is however that the vast majority of Iraqis are not fighting the occupying forces. If the overwhelming majority had decided to fight with arms against the American forces in Iraq then they would probably have left by now.




It says a lot about yours as well, why should an animal have less of a right to live than you? Who gave you the right to decide that? After all we humans are animals as well (mammals).

If you would like to extent the hypothesis that humans are equal to all other mammals and deserves the same rights then you are free to argue this. My position is that they don’t but this doesn’t contradict my position on the right to arms for civilians.

You suggest that we all have equal rights.
But at the same time you and your fellow gun control advocates argue that you can put yourselves above the rights of other humans by taking away the means of which makes self defence possible.


Last if you want to specifically rant about why you dislike the Americans presence in Iraq then choose another thread, don’t hijack this one unless it is relevant to the topic.

[Geezah]

Im not sure how you can suggest that there is nothing wrong with a background check that could let someone like him get a gun.

How can the background check be at fault if Cho was never certified, surely that would put the onus of blame on those that felt he was not quite over the edge?



If the check can't raise a flag about someone who has been ordered by a court to get psychiatric treatment (http://www.physorg.com/news96294710.html).

Ordering him to get psychiatric help is not the same as the courts ruling him insane and putting him under the control of the state. But considering what he had been doing up until that point I am surprised the courts did not lock him in the nut house.




and this isn't a problem? Aren't there a whole heap of iraqi refugees living in America now, some of which could be real pissed at whats happening in their country and are entitled to buy a gun under the constitution?

Are you a frinkin Moron, they were ethnic Albanians that were looking to buy military grade weapons, what on Earth are you going on about Iraqis for. Should we now look at locking up all refugees???



sorry i don't give my details out on a first date, there's weirdos out there.

But im a kiwi if your that interested. No, not the bird.


Actually, I think you're rb132, you see some people just can't keep away from these types of discusions. But if you are a Kiwi, why would you care about our firearm laws when you can get access to full auto/select firearms over there???

[Durandal]

The background check is fine? Even though it let Cho get a gun?

Again, the background check worked fine and had the State entered in the data to the system it would have been flagged.

But it wasn't. The system/law did not fail, the bureaucracy did.


People who insist on loose gun laws and the ability to own any type of gun they want are the ones actually forcing their beliefs on others, as in the case of virginia tech it was the people who weren't carrying guns who beared the consequences- not the gun carriers themselves.

Silliness.

You are blaming me for a criminals actions? Because I believe in freedom and an open society?

[lider_r]

Sh*t, you got me there. You're right, we should practice what we preach. I'll get rid of my anthrax-contaminated 500lb bombs, stocks of nerve gas in my bathroom, and my nukes. :roll:

Go back to kindergarten, high-speed.

You mean the nukes and chemical weapons that we found in iraq that vindicated the reasons for going to war.

You must be living on a different version of Earth than the rest of us.


I'm still trying to figure out why a Kiwi is starting a pissing match about firearms ownership in the United States since it's no business of his.

He apparently has nothing else better to do with his time

Many in the US have no problem telling other people how their countrys should be run.

[lider_r]

Using history as a witness the very fact that more people died by the hands of there own government then died in combat during 20th century, the most violent century in human history so far, the justification of effective arms in civilian possession needs NOT to be questioned unless you are serious about addressing the biggest violators.


More people have died in the US by firearms than all the casulties they've suffered in wars since the 60's

Guns Reported to Kill 440,000 In U.S. Since Kennedy's Death (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E4DE1039F93BA15752C1A964948260)

Im not sure all those guns have really kept those 440,000 very safe...


You need to read my post again, let me repeat myself one last time: I think as do the Americans that the Iraqi civilian has the right to keep weapons at home such as the AK47 for their personal protection. That might in my view be against criminals, terrorists, domestic and foreign oppressors.

Then you are sanctioning their right to keep arms which are used against American troops.


Ultimately the choice of fighting or not fighting the American forces lies in the hands of the Iraqi people.

So you have given them the right to decide weather or not they attack coalition forces.


The fact is however that the vast majority of Iraqis are not fighting the occupying forces. If the overwhelming majority had decided to fight with arms against the American forces in Iraq then they would probably have left by now.

The overwhelming majority my not be engaged in fighting, but they support attacks against troops which speaks volumes



You suggest that we all have equal rights.
But at the same time you and your fellow gun control advocates argue that you can put yourselves above the rights of other humans by taking away the means of which makes self defence possible.


Gun control, specifically proper background checks in this case, is about ensuring peoples right to not have to worry about people like cho mowing them down in class. But if you want to uphold the right for suspected terrorists and mentally ill people to be able to get guns then thats your call.


Last if you want to specifically rant about why you dislike the Americans presence in Iraq then choose another thread, don’t hijack this one unless it is relevant to the topic.

I could of swarn you disliked the american presence in iraq seeing as you wont support taking away guns from people who are using them to shoot at US troops.

[lider_r]

How can the background check be at fault if Cho was never certified, surely that would put the onus of blame on those that felt he was not quite over the edge?

How can the background check be adquate if doesnt raise alarm bells about somebody who was a stalker and was also ordered to get psychiatric help from a court?


Ordering him to get psychiatric help is not the same as the courts ruling him insane and putting him under the control of the state. But considering what he had been doing up until that point I am surprised the courts did not lock him in the nut house.

Its not the same, but its reason enough to be cautious about selling somebody a gun.


Are you a frinkin Moron, they were ethnic Albanians that were looking to buy military grade weapons, what on Earth are you going on about Iraqis for. Should we now look at locking up all refugees???

Keep your hair on fella.

They were suspected terrorists planning to carry out a terrorist attack within the US and had access to weapons. What if one of the iraqis exiled in the US suddenly has a bad day, goes home to see a news story of the likes of Haditha and decides that the US is the worst place in the world and must pay?


Actually, I think you're rb132, you see some people just can't keep away from these types of discusions. But if you are a Kiwi, why would you care about our firearm laws when you can get access to full auto/select firearms over there???

Whatever.

Judging by your constant replies on this topic it seems you can't stay away either.

Why do i bother about discussing your laws? Because when things like school massacres happen then things obviously need to be discussed. There is no guarentee your going to agree with everything that i say, nobody says you have to, but that doesn't mean we should stop listening to other peoples ideas on things.

[Durandal]

He's a kiwi?

His nation's gun laws are more liberal than ours.

WTF.

His country is living proof that the LACK of gun laws do not contribute to crime.

[lider_r]

new zealand don't have no culture of violence likes the states though

[Durandal]

Huh? Oh wait, now its about "culture of violence"...

How do you regulate that?

[lider_r]

you can;t unless you can come up with a mind control device to make sure nobody ever gets angry/violent. If people live in a society where sorting disputes with violence is the norm, then selling them guns probably isn't the smartest thing to do.

[Durandal]

rofl

Except we are far from the most violent society on earth.

[Laworkerbee]

Durandal

why are you still playing with this guy?

[Hollis]

Durandal

why are you still playing with this guy?


You know maybe Durandal is going to adopt him as his pet, maybe for alligator fishing. :hug:

[TacoDelRio]

Durandal

why are you still playing with this guy?

You post one more time and I'm going to have to solve this...

...with VIOLENCE.

[Laworkerbee]

You post one more time and I'm going to have to solve this...

...with VIOLENCE.

You running off to the hills again this weekend? I want to drop my rifle off to you to do a once over on her.

And don't say no! you know I have a tendency to get violent over simple things like ice cream that melts

[TacoDelRio]

You running off to the hills again this weekend? I want to drop my rifle off to you to do a once over on her.

And don't say no! you know I have a tendency to get violent over simple things like ice cream that melts

Yup, send me an email and all will be well. I'll hafta pick up a beer for ya as well.

Lemme know if you wanna go to ze montanes mit mir as well.

[akd]

Durandal

why are you still playing with this guy?


It's like watching a cat with a mouse. At first you want to take away the mouse because it just doesn't seem fair, but then you think "hey, it's just nature" and sit back for the show.

[TacoDelRio]

It's like watching a cat with a mouse. At first you want to take away the mouse because it just doesn't seem fair, but then you think "hey, it's just nature" and sit back for the show.

I'm waiting for the hawk to swoop in to take the mouse away to some hungry chicks. Or for a truck to run it over as it crosses the street.

[Durandal]

Durandal

why are you still playing with this guy?

Just practicing. It gives me something to do while I fill out business documents for "Lost Bridge Gun Club, LLC"

:)

I have a theory about people that want to control guns.

They fall into two groups:

Group A: Irrational/Rational Fear.

Group B: Control/Ban (Nanny/Tyrrany)

Group A is usually suffering from a simple lack of education/information/experience when it comes to firearms. Most suffer from an irrational fear...of something unknown...or something they THINK they know. A few, a VERY few, have a legit fear as a result of a break in, violence, or a slaying against them/friend/family member. The Irrational group breaks two ways...*IF* you discuss it with them logically, use data, inform them of the actual laws and support punishment for gun related crime AND sometimes even take them shooting they not only become far less anti-gun (if anti-gun at all) but a couple even end up owning their own firearm. The small number of of the other irrational will ALWAYS fear something they do not understand, or are sooo brainwashed (usually because of a low IQ or low self-esteem) it simply does not matter what is said.

The rational group is made up of people who either because of post traumatic fear or an abhorrence to violence what nothing to do with firearms. Never argue with these people. Never even discuss the issue.

Group B is about control and makes up the minority of the anti-gun types.

Simply put for one of two reasons they want the government to control firearms as much as possible either in the form of massive controls and bottlenecks or out right bans.

The people that want the bans are the least of our worries, even if they have more wealth (e.g. George Soros and his kind). The control types carry the most weight and APPEAR to be the most rational, especially to the Group A: Irrational Fear types.

Group B: Control (as opposed to Group B: Ban) also has the ability till just recently to fight using a broken tort system bankrupting small manufacturers in suits that mainly focused on liability of use (was used in a crime) and ease of acquisition (price), neither of which are grounds for a suit but, you never know in this day and age.

That said, both B Subgroups tend to believe fundamentally in Federal Control both at a local level and national level. Both tend to want what a large government. Subgroup Ban, unlike sub group Control is in the smallest of minorities and usually includes people that want to also ban other civil liberties or freedoms...guarantees.

See, very few people actually WANT to ban firearms. The ones that do, and I mean an outright ban, usually include people that want to also remove protections from the government we enjoy.

Like, for instance, removing HIPA laws to gain access to medical data to prevent people like Cho from doing "bad things" again or, detaining individuals (citizens) for indefinite periods of time without charges being pressed or an appearance before a judge. There are plenty of people that think we should do these things anyways BUT support gun ownership...its just that the support outright bans also seem to support stuff like this as well.

These people do not fall into Group A: Irrational Fear. Their logic is VERY sound. Disarm the population and the population will depend on you (regardless of whether something is provided) or it will fear you...or both, which is the goal.

Whooooooo....not many errors and not too sober. :)

[lider_r]

its funny whenever you mention something as simple as say, having a better background check so spazzies and potential terrorists cant buy guns then everyone goes on the defensive- "Your not taking my guns away!"

If thats not irrational fear i dont know what is.

If its unreasonable not to want crazies and jihadists to get gun permits then im not sure there is any hope for seeing an end to more massacres in the near future in America.

[lider_r]

I'm waiting for the hawk to swoop in to take the mouse away to some hungry chicks. Or for a truck to run it over as it crosses the street.

You know what they say about guys who talk tough on the internet....

[gaijinsamurai]

Yeah, Taco is a 14-year old pimply-faced geek who's never had a girlfriend, and posts on this site when he isn't playing "World of Warcraft" or hanging out at comic book stores, arguing with other kids whether or not Spiderman is better than Batman and the old Startrek vs. The Next Generation.

[Durandal]

its funny whenever you mention something as simple as say, having a better background check so spazzies and potential terrorists cant buy guns then everyone goes on the defensive- "Your not taking my guns away!"

Its funny how anytime someone mentions making a better background check they seem to not realize that there already IS a background check.

Not too sure why you keep saying "potential" terrorist.


If thats not irrational fear i dont know what is.

Irrational is justifying the repeal of freedoms, period, and what MAY sound rational too you is irrational to anyone that understands why its easier to give up freedoms (regardless of what they are and for what ever reason) to get them back.


If its unreasonable not to want crazies and jihadists to get gun permits then im not sure there is any hope for seeing an end to more massacres in the near future in America.

Ironically that is the same argument used by other people I argue with a lot, like jobu, who feel that its ok to lock people up just because some obscure source that would not hold up in court claims they are bad.

I suppose you support that also...we can strike about 4 Amendments down then.

The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th could just be tossed out the window.

Good job man!

This is the way it works you give a little and people take a mile.

As cold as it sounds, using simple logic and statistics, what happened at VT, while horrible, is simply a pin prick on our society, where 50 years form now it is far more important to retain freedoms be they gun rights or the right to not get stuck in a deep dark hole for years, without charges, without a trial and never seeing counsel or a judge.

[lider_r]

Its funny how anytime someone mentions making a better background check they seem to not realize that there already IS a background check.

And its obviously WOEFULLY inadequate if a mentalist like Cho can get a gun.


Not too sure why you keep saying "potential" terrorist.

Because of the recent planned attack on troops within the US's own borders, plus the unknown amount of muslim citizens in the US which share those same views and can also legally buy guns


Irrational is justifying the repeal of freedoms, period, and what MAY sound rational too you is irrational to anyone that understands why its easier to give up freedoms (regardless of what they are and for what ever reason) to get them back.

Why should those freedoms extend to nutcases and people who hold questionable, potentially lethal religous beliefs which threaten public safety?



The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th could just be tossed out the window.

Good job man!

This is the way it works you give a little and people take a mile.


I think this is total drama-queen material. To suggest that recommending a decent background check means every other right will be peeled back is irrational. The other rights are clear cut and can hardly be considered arbitrary regardless of what age society is living in, the 2nd amendment is a different story. When weapons become even more powerful and sophisticated, which they will, then what? Are people going to argue that it is their right to own a handheld laser which could disintegrate another person?


As cold as it sounds, using simple logic and statistics, what happened at VT, while horrible, is simply a pin prick on our society

This is the problem. If something like VT can be regarded as a 'pin prick' then it speaks volumes about how cheaply life is regarded. If they were my friends or relations mowed down at the uni and you referred to their murder as a pin prick on society id be outraged beyond belief. They might be mere statistics to you, but to others they were friends and family members.

[Laworkerbee]

You know what they say about guys who talk tough on the internet....

Just to be clear, my money would be on Taco if we were to lock the two of you in a cage with only one allowed to leave Thunderdome style.

[Hollis]

Just to be clear, my money would be on Taco if we were to lock the two of you in a cage with only one allowed to leave Thunderdome style.


I think the odds would be pretty good too.

Internet big boyz are a dime a thousand.

[Geezah]

Because of the recent planned attack on troops within the US's own borders,

By ethinic Albanians that were in the market for military grade weapons, not the run of the mill firearms that are available to the law abiding.
Why is it you choose to keep on ignoring that little fact?!



plus the unknown amount of muslim citizens in the US which share those same views and can also legally buy guns

So we should now open up modern day internment camps because there my be other Muslims that share the same views as radical Muslims???

And just to touch on it again, the Ethinic Albanians were looking to buy Military Grade weapons!

[lider_r]

Just to be clear, my money would be on Taco if we were to lock the two of you in a cage with only one allowed to leave Thunderdome style.

"i bet he could beat you in a fight any day"

wtf is this? 5th grade?


By ethinic Albanians that were in the market for military grade weapons, not the run of the mill firearms that are available to the law abiding.Why is it you choose to keep on ignoring that little fact?!

When did i ignore it? If i remember correctly i said they were islamic terrorists, which they are.


So we should now open up modern day internment camps because there my be other Muslims that share the same views as radical Muslims???

If they are suspected of involvment with these sort of activities or at least sympathetic to those sort of ideas they should, at the very least, be put on a watch list. And by no means allowed to buy guns.


And just to touch on it again, the Ethinic Albanians were looking to buy Military Grade weapons!

What does it matter what country they were from? they were fundamentalist muslims, some of which were legal migrants wouldnt this mean he would be able to buy guns legally?

The video (the only thing which bought them to the attention of the FBI) showed 10 young men firing assault weapons they had already obtained, how were they able to get them? Where did those guns come from? If an AK-47 is not a military grade weapons im not sure what is.

[TacoDelRio]

Yeah, Taco is a 14-year old pimply-faced geek who's never had a girlfriend, and posts on this site when he isn't playing "World of Warcraft" or hanging out at comic book stores, arguing with other kids whether or not Spiderman is better than Batman and the old Startrek vs. The Next Generation.

Damn, ya got me, Sensei! p-)

Thanks LAWB + Hollis. p-)

[Laworkerbee]

One man enter, one man leave :)
http://www.madmaxmovies.com/archives/PressMaterial/MadMax3/Photos/BlackAndWhite/images/ThunderdomeThugs.jpg

[TacoDelRio]

Looks like pre-1900's Mexico...

[Durandal]

One man enter, one man leave :)
http://www.madmaxmovies.com/archives/PressMaterial/MadMax3/Photos/BlackAndWhite/images/ThunderdomeThugs.jpg

Hell yeah brother...who runs Barter Town!?

[akd]

And its obviously WOEFULLY inadequate if a mentalist like Cho can get a gun.

What the hell are you talking about now?


men·tal·ism http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fmentalism) (měn'tl-ĭz'əm) ****unciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/****key.html)
n.

Parapsychological activities, such as telepathy and mind reading.
The belief that some mental phenomena cannot be explained by physical laws.men'tal·ist n., men'tal·is'tic adj.

[Mastermind]

I wonder how long before we really do fall into that kind of existance...that of the fictional Barter Town? Barter Town may actually look like paradise compared to what we may eventually devolve into.

I have to wonder what rural Italy was like after the last fall of the Roman's to the barbarains. The confusion and uncertainty must have been amazing...especially for the priveleged classes (Isn't it funny, today the priveleged are the ones most touting "Gun Control" and yet are the ones most protected by men carrying guns --- Rosie Odonnel, for one example, Sean Penn for another). I suppose it must have been something like the East Poland German experience as the Russians began their final onslaught in winter 1944-and spring '45. Devastating...terrible....unimaginable.

Personally, I like the post-apocalyptic solution offered by Dr. Strangelove rather than all those offered by actual history of great and fallen civilizations.

I'll keep my weapons until I am too old to lift them...I'll keep plenty of ammo and maintain friendships with other armed and ready Americans. My family, my friends will be the most prepared in event these fluffy politicians and their air headed supporters eventually screw things to a degree of utter, irreversible calamity. I want to survive just long enough to watch the faces of those who are leading the charge right into oblivion. I would love to tell them..."I told you so...and you bastards deserve everything you have coming." But, it will do no good by then. One thing is certain...to rebuild it all...it will take good men with good arms and good courage. As it has every single time after every single fall of a once great, powerful, wealthy and ultimately self absorbed, idle-minded civilization like ours.

[gaijinsamurai]

.....I'll probably end up seeking refuge at the Old Man Hollis Homestead.

[Hollis]

.....I'll probably end up seeking refuge at the Old Man Hollis Homestead.


That would be good, I would opnly have to stay up half the night then.

Old Man? why you young whipper snapper. :bash:

[gaijinsamurai]

Oops! i meant "Wise Elder Hollis".
And I'll promise to throw the ball for Jake for as long as he wants......

[Hollis]

Oops! i meant "Wise Elder Hollis".
And I'll promise to throw the ball for Jake for as long as he wants......


You don't know how lucky you are, that Jake can not read.

[gaijinsamurai]

I don't doubt that, even for a second. I'm sure he'd hold me to it!

[Durandal]

Once you get to Hollis place you can start prepping for the migration East to the promised land. :)

[Geezah]

What does it matter what country they were from? they were fundamentalist muslims, some of which were legal migrants wouldnt this mean he would be able to buy guns legally?

They were trying to buy military grade weapons, not firearms that are available to thelaw abiding.

How many times do I have to write it before it finally sinks in???!



The video (the only thing which bought them to the attention of the FBI) showed 10 young men firing assault weapons they had already obtained, how were they able to get them? Where did those guns come from? If an AK-47 is not a military grade weapons im not sure what is.

Were these select fire/full auto or semi automatic?????

That's the difference...................

[lider_r]

i dont see what your issue is here- they were caught with assault rifles, and planned to buy even more- where did those rifles come from?

"The alleged plot included conducting surveillance of the Army base and purchasing multiple firearms, including assault weapons, hand guns, shotguns and semi-automatic weapons, according to a federal complaint (http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/Duka%20complaint.pdf).

The men had videotaped their practice sessions in Pennsylvania, according to the complaint. That videotape, in which they fired assault weapons and railed against America, led to their arrests."

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/05/6_arrested_in_plot_to_kill_sol.html

wouldnt of mattered even if they had a whole heap of handguns, they still could of carried out some carnage.

[Durandal]

lider_r...

Where in those documents (a N.J. News Article and Federal PDF) is their anything having to do with our conversation?

I have read the charges (complaints) in the Federal form and several other news articles in addition to the one you have linked.

No where does it say these mean "legally" purchased firearms.

In fact, one of the quotes from the perps goes like this:


...we need to gather weapons...of course...I can get the the weapons, machine gun hand gun I can get...from the street...as you cannot get a machine gun from a store


..explained that all could not own firearms because the did not have their green cards

Edit: Never got to finish my comments...

In the end, there were four firearms that I have seen listed in their possession.

A 9mm pistol
A C-4 Storm (Ironic considering I just claimed on another thread that the chances of it getting used were slim to none...I might go back and look at that)
A Yugo Semi-Auto AK
A Mosberg 500 12 ga

If we have to shut down America because a couple wacked bad guys that wanted to be terrorists had, in their possession, four firearms then we might as well shut down a whole lot more in the U.S., like freedom of travel (they scoped out the base, several bases actually), the freedom of speech (they could gleam info off of forums like these so we MUST shut them down), the right of property and protection from search and seizure (because those silly laws simply prevented us from rounding up these folks the moment we realized they were muslim.

Better yet, using YOUR logic, we COULD simply say, if you are Muslim we cannot trust you and therefor you (regardless of whether you are a U.S. citizen or not) do not receive the same freedoms as the rest of us...

...on another note, three or four of these guys were in the U.S. COMPLETELY illegally. Weird since one or twoof them also went to High School here.

But that is an immigration topic, not a firearm one.

[Geezah]

Thanks Dur, I doubt he will get it seeing as this is page 10 and we don't seem to have gone anywhere. I still think he's rb132, he's just claiming to be a Kiwi to throw people off the scent......

[lider_r]

lider_r...

Where in those documents (a N.J. News Article and Federal PDF) is their anything having to do with our conversation?

I have read the charges (complaints) in the Federal form and several other news articles in addition to the one you have linked.

No where does it say these mean "legally" purchased firearms.


It doesnt. But somewhere along the lines those guns were legal, so how did they fall into the hands of lunatics? The fact that they were searching for, and could of ultimatly aquired even more guns should raise alarm bells.


If we have to shut down America because a couple wacked bad guys that wanted to be terrorists had, in their possession, four firearms then we might as well shut down a whole lot more in the U.S., like freedom of travel (they scoped out the base, several bases actually), the freedom of speech (they could gleam info off of forums like these so we MUST shut them down), the right of property and protection from search and seizure (because those silly laws simply prevented us from rounding up these folks the moment we realized they were muslim.

Its not a matter of 'shutting everything down' its a matter of making sure the wrong kind of people can't get guns. Its quite obvious whatever system is in place is inadequate.


Better yet, using YOUR logic, we COULD simply say, if you are Muslim we cannot trust you and therefor you (regardless of whether you are a U.S. citizen or not) do not receive the same freedoms as the rest of us...

Sure why not? I wouldn't trust anybody who thought that the best book in the universe was one which spoke passionatly about martydom and jihad full stop, let alone allowing them to buy a gun. If someone can hold those sort of beliefs and still be allowed to get a gun then there is going to be trouble, take that recent BBC article for instance showing that the intelligence services were watching something like 4,000 muslim suspects. Imagine if they were all American citizens and allowed to buy guns. But of course, these sort of checks get in the way too much for people who lobby on behalf of weapons manufacturers who just want to make the sale- no matter who the buyer is.


Thanks Dur, I doubt he will get it seeing as this is page 10 and we don't seem to have gone anywhere. I still think he's rb132, he's just claiming to be a Kiwi to throw people off the scent......

Whatever fella. Your under no obligation to believe where i say my homeland is, nor do i care.

[Durandal]

Thanks Dur, I doubt he will get it seeing as this is page 10 and we don't seem to have gone anywhere. I still think he's rb132...

Yeah, you are probably right.

I'm done. The guy is a lunatic.

[Mastermind]

We could go back to just about any (if not all) the mass shooters and find their fire arms were legal at one time. Look at the North Hollywood shoot out...both those guys were carrying fully automatic weapons. They made their own conversion kits. In fact, before they were bank robbers, they were trying to become legitiamte gun brokers. When they were first arrested (before their bank robbery spree) they were picked up with several legal weapons in their car...arreseted and ultametely, a judge ruled the police had to return their weapons to them!

I can't recall the Dallas tower shooter's name. But, all his weapons were legally owned. He did most of his killing with a bolt action hunting rifle.

Regardless of your stance on gun ownership, it really comes down to the fact that if a loony tune idiot decides to do something really idiotic, he will and there is damn little anyone is going to do about it to stop him or her. I think the answer is still good police work, steady guidance from political supervisors (chiefs, directors, etc) and strong public support for the cops doing a damn thankless job.

[Geezah]

I can't recall the Dallas tower shooter's name. But, all his weapons were legally owned. He did most of his killing with a bolt action hunting rifle.

Charles Whitman

Just wanted to add to this that there were armed civilians that also engaged Whitman the day he went nuts.


Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to asssist police. Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman's threat, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman)

This has happend numerous times, even happened when the CHL holder engaged that nut case at the courthouse a couple of years ago that went on a spree. The hero lost his life while no doubt saving others.......

[Geezah]

Whatever fella. Your under no obligation to believe where i say my homeland is, nor do i care.

I can tell you now, if you keep up with the the borderline religionist views your future will be cut extremely short here!


To be honest though, I think you're an idiot, the laws are that much more friendly in New Zealand towards firearm ownership.......yet you see nothing wrong there????

[StukaJr]

Its not a matter of 'shutting everything down' its a matter of making sure the wrong kind of people can't get guns. Its quite obvious whatever system is in place is inadequate.


There is no working example of a government achieving that - only multiple examples of citizens being unable to legally obtain weapons while criminals having ample access to firearms.

Take Japan, for instance. Extremely restrictive gun control. It's an island - so you can't claim that criminals easily get guns from the neighbors with lax gun control. Yearly fees to own one hunting rifle - with valid hunting license. No civilian ownership of any semi-automatic firearms. Yet "wrong kind of people" cannot have guns.




Sure why not? I wouldn't trust anybody who thought that the best book in the universe was one which spoke passionatly about martydom and jihad full stop, let alone allowing them to buy a gun. If someone can hold those sort of beliefs and still be allowed to get a gun then there is going to be trouble, take that recent BBC article for instance showing that the intelligence services were watching something like 4,000 muslim suspects. Imagine if they were all American citizens and allowed to buy guns. But of course, these sort of checks get in the way too much for people who lobby on behalf of weapons manufacturers who just want to make the sale- no matter who the buyer is.


Sounds like you are for abolishing more freedoms than just one... Your selective behavioral based freedoms won't fly in the United States - sorry, find a dictatorship that furnishes your ideals and shower them with praise.

So you don't like Muslims and don't want them to own guns... There was another group in the beginning of the century that didn't want one group of individuals to own guns either - it was called the KKK... The origins of gun control is linked to the burden of lynching a n*gger or a queer because they could effectively defend themselves from a mob!

But you know who the "wrong" people are. If the government watches them, then they must have done something wrong! Because, god forbids, government would never harm its citizens, infringe on their freedoms or illegally detain them because they are the wrong flavor of the year. God forbid someone "hought that the best book in the universe was one which spoke passionatly about martydom and jihad full stop" ( <-- your quote, btw ) Hey, I used to believe or subscribe to mindset a lot more genocidal and extreme than Koran - want to take away my rights?

You won't be happy unless you are living in "1984" styled environment, so I suggest you make a list of who you think the "wrong" people are... And shove it!

[TacoDelRio]

*High-fives Ivan*

[Laworkerbee]

*High-fives Ivan*

X2 I love when he lets loose

[StukaJr]

Perfect example of Government Agency with strict guidelines over physical and mental conditions, failing to prevent an individual from using a weapon that required training and proof of proficiency to operate... to kill 10 and wound 63 individuals. In this case, the weapon is a car in what later became known as Santa Monica Farmer's Market Massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller

And yes, there was public outcry about age restrictions for drivers to turning in their friends and loved ones to DMV when they begin to show "signs"... Might as well, institute operation "Logan's Run" and send all the folks older than 30 to the "Island" p-)

[StukaJr]

X2 I love when he lets loose

I got the cast off my arm - no longer have to type one handed p-)

*takes a bow*

[Laworkerbee]

stitches out as well?

[StukaJr]

stitches out as well?

Monday... 1 month for complete recovery - aka "before I can hammer" p-)

[Laworkerbee]

Monday... 1 month for complete recovery - aka "before I can hammer" p-)

Wow thats a good recovery...congrats.

Now get to making me some .303's woot

[joe mama]

Perfect example of Government Agency with strict guidelines over physical and mental conditions, failing to prevent an individual from using a weapon that required training and proof of proficiency to operate... to kill 10 and wound 63 individuals. In this case, the weapon is a car in what later became known as Santa Monica Farmer's Market Massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller

And yes, there was public outcry about age restrictions for drivers to turning in their friends and loved ones to DMV when they begin to show "signs"... Might as well, institute operation "Logan's Run" and send all the folks older than 30 to the "Island" p-)

If Scarlett Johannnnnsennnn is on this "island", sign me up. Reports that I'll be bringing my evil black rifle to sanction you chumps so Scarlett is all mine are nothing more than hurtful rumors and vicious lies.

[lider_r]

To be honest though, I think you're an idiot, the laws are that much more friendly in New Zealand towards firearm ownership.......yet you see nothing wrong there????

If there were school massacres in NZ like the US then id agree with you, but there aren't, so i dont.



Sounds like you are for abolishing more freedoms than just one... Your selective behavioral based freedoms won't fly in the United States - sorry, find a dictatorship that furnishes your ideals and shower them with praise.


You mean you think its important that people have the right to hold beliefs which lead to pathological behaviour? If thats the case then civilised society is going to have a problem with that.


So you don't like Muslims and don't want them to own guns... There was another group in the beginning of the century that didn't want one group of individuals to own guns either - it was called the KKK... The origins of gun control is linked to the burden of lynching a n*gger or a queer because they could effectively defend themselves from a mob!

Its not a matter of not likeing muslims, i just dont a lot of what the Koran has to say. Or the Bible. Or any other book which incites violence and persecution of people who dare to think differently.


But you know who the "wrong" people are. If the government watches them, then they must have done something wrong! Because, god forbids, government would never harm its citizens, infringe on their freedoms or illegally detain them because they are the wrong flavor of the year.

The US government has displayed its ineptitude towards protecting its own citizens. There is nothing wrong with surveillance, if the person has done nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about. Or should we just let the next terrorist attack happen in order to respect people's beliefs- no matter how dangerous they are?


God forbid someone "hought that the best book in the universe was one which spoke passionatly about martydom and jihad full stop" ( <-- your quote, btw ) Hey, I used to believe or subscribe to mindset a lot more genocidal and extreme than Koran - want to take away my rights?

If thats the case then i can't see who in their right mind would think you would be responsible enough to own a gun, unless you can prove that your of sound mind.

Ive no problem with responsible people exercising their right to own guns, but if you want to extend that right to people with mental health problems and religious nut bags then dont complain when there are more shootings.

[Durandal]

Ive no problem with responsible people exercising their right to own guns, but if you want to extend that right to people with mental health problems and religious nut bags then dont complain when there are more shootings.

Simple answer: Yes.

Any person that could not handle that cost (we have yet to see terrorists use firearms sold to them legally) does not deserve the freedom the so enjoy.

I think that is what it comes down to, freedom costs. Not just in the lives of soldiers and defenders of that freedom, but society pays for it, just like a society pays for tyranny.

The benefits far outweigh the costs.

[gaijinsamurai]

Well said, Durandal and Stuka!!! I wish you guys were running for President....

[joe mama]

...
You mean you think its important that people have the right to hold beliefs which lead to pathological behaviour? If thats the case then civilised society is going to have a problem with that.
...

So society should not tolerate people being free to believe what they want. Brilliant, thanks for giving us another window into how you think. You'd make a good US liberal - you're very tolerant...of people who agree with you.

[Hollis]

Joe you bring of a good point, the real scary thing about this type of liberal, they act and talk like they are tolerant and progressive, until you disagree, then they go all totalitarianism on you, highly intolerant and very repressive.

[joe mama]

Joe you bring of a good point, the real scary thing about this type of liberal, they act and talk like they are tolerant and progressive, until you disagree, then they go all totalitarianism on you, highly intolerant and very repressive.

See it all the time. According to liberals, conservatives are wrong for trying to force their views on you. But those same liberals are right in trying to force their views on you.

[StukaJr]

You mean you think its important that people have the right to hold beliefs which lead to pathological behaviour? If thats the case then civilised society is going to have a problem with that.


Yes - as long as they are not hurting others or themselves, that's fine. Classic Car collection, yachts, legal gambling, state funded lottery, lawn darts, golf, lawnmowers, Lionel trains, Legos, insect collection - all of these things technically cause pathological behaviors... What civilized society would have a problem with that?




Its not a matter of not likeing muslims, i just dont a lot of what the Koran has to say. Or the Bible. Or any other book which incites violence and persecution of people who dare to think differently.


... so you want to see the two groups subscribing to the aforementioned religions to be stripped of their rights? "Yes" or "No" answer please - no more dancing around the issue.

If "yes", then you just are for abolishing personal freedoms (most notably the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution) - the real reason for the US in the first place... Freedom of Religion and Speech? Rings a bell?

If "No", then be advised that freedom of Religion is also protected by the US Constitution - if you don't like it, then you are very lucky to be residing in New Zealand (or so you say).



The US government has displayed its ineptitude towards protecting its own citizens. There is nothing wrong with surveillance, if the person has done nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about. Or should we just let the next terrorist attack happen in order to respect people's beliefs- no matter how dangerous they are?


The line in bold is complete and utter BS. If I've done nothing wrong - I should be left well the f#%k alone! That's how it goes in the US! I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to worry about except for some unknown individual having access to my private affairs!

And if the next terrorist attack never comes - 1, 2, 5, 10 years down the line... Do the people get their freedom back and the government lets the guard down until there is suddenly an attack that nobody expected? That kinds of defeats the logic IF there is a timeframe when "unknown danger" becomes "not so dangerous"... If the danger is always immenent, then using that logic, US should still be on high alert and FBI reading personal mail of US Citizens since the Pancho Villa's Army crossing into US... Because, last time I checked - there are still Mexicans on the border and some of them don't like America.






If thats the case then i can't see who in their right mind would think you would be responsible enough to own a gun, unless you can prove that your of sound mind.


So you think just because I've read literary works that document mass genocide - I can't own a firearm? Ha! What do I choose - love for history or my WWII rifle collection? Hmmmmm... Because this is what I've originally said:

"Hey, I used to believe or subscribe to mindset a lot more genocidal and extreme than Koran - want to take away my rights? " - I know I've set up you on that one, but hey... I thought Crusaders were the coolest thing in the world when I was 12 - does it mean I can't own a firearm in my 30's?

I imagine the newly re-designed FFL form right now:

"Have you read works of Edgar Allan Poe. If yes, did you enjoy it? If you enjoyed it, how much?" No gun for you!




Ive no problem with responsible people exercising their right to own guns, but if you want to extend that right to people with mental health problems and religious nut bags then dont complain when there are more shootings.

What you are advocating is constant surveillance of people and seizures of their property in case they begin to show signs of degrading mental health. For example, local PD showing up at my door with a seizure warrant because I'm taking a break up with my girlfriend a little too harsh or in my latest e-mail I've admitted to having an "itchy trigger finger" before my range date...

I can't yell word "fire" in a crowded theater, I can't mention a word "bomb" while boarding the plane or write word "gun", "genocide" or "Genghis Khan" in my personal e-mail - other than that, I have nothing to worry about!

Look, The Constitution of the United States and its Amendments are written in the way that the given rights cannot be taken away nor can they be surrendered! Every now and then, a body of government comes around that thinks he can become the next emperor, fuhrer or a czar - under the guise of security, prosperity, one scourge or another... These come and go but personal freedoms stand! Sometimes they fail and overly eager officials screw over a small minority over here and there. What you are trying to suggest is nothing new, but still is bullsh1t and un-American.