The Nissan Club banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
About god damn time.
 

·
Thought Police Officer
Joined
·
564 Posts
Yeah, so? Here's a ****ing newsflash for you "can't we all just get along" types. Criminals (a.k.a. evil-doers, people who don't mind robbing/raping/killing to get what they want) already have access to these weapons. Why shouldn't we? Which neighborhood is the burglar more likely to stalk? The one where residents can't be well-armed, or the one where residents can?

"But the police are there to protect us, if everyone gets weapons there'll be shoot-outs every night, waaah!"

Police? The same police who respond to a call, AFTER the crime has already been committed? Lots of good that does the murder victim. Spend some time in Utah or Florida, tell me how many bullets you had to dodge while you were there. None, you say? How about howitzer fire? Those are legal in Utah, you know...

Don't you think it's about time your government began to trust you? Citizens should have the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and not depend on a REactionary police force to come to the rescue.

Ry, this isn't aimed at you in particular, unless you're one those types I mentioned before.
 

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
GcDiaz said:
Yeah, so? Here's a ****ing newsflash for you "can't we all just get along" types. Criminals (a.k.a. evil-doers, people who don't mind robbing/raping/killing to get what they want) already have access to these weapons. Why shouldn't we? Which neighborhood is the burglar more likely to stalk? The one where residents can't be well-armed, or the one where residents can?

"But the police are there to protect us, if everyone gets weapons there'll be shoot-outs every night, waaah!"

Police? The same police who respond to a call, AFTER the crime has already been committed? Lots of good that does the murder victim. Spend some time in Utah or Florida, tell me how many bullets you had to dodge while you were there. None, you say? How about howitzer fire? Those are legal in Utah, you know...

Don't you think it's about time your government began to trust you? Citizens should have the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and not depend on a REactionary police force to come to the rescue.

Ry, this isn't aimed at you in particular, unless you're one those types I mentioned before.

Easy there, sport... Watch your blood pressure. Ry posted links, not his opinion on the matter. For all you know, he could be rejoicing like Griff.

Take it easy man....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,959 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
GcDiaz said:
Ry, this isn't aimed at you in particular, unless you're one those types I mentioned before.
uhh.. I guess you don't know that I'm the news guy around here. hahaha
 

·
I don't care
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
Everybody knows that criminals rarely use assault weapons so it doesn't make much sense to put them in the hands of citizens. They would more easily make there way into the hands of criminals. Sure citizens can have guns, but there isn't any practical need for these weapons.

I guess we'll all see what the real effect of lifting this ban will be (I'm serious too, it might make no difference or lead to some deadly shootouts).
 
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
No practical need??? You want the government pushing you around that is fine but as long as I have an arsenal they can come but they wont get far.
 

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Al Bundy's Friend Griff said:
No practical need??? You want the government pushing you around that is fine but as long as I have an arsenal they can come but they wont get far.

They would get as far as they wanted to.



:D
 
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
but at least i get to die with my gun in my hand.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,733 Posts
Griff is a pussy and scared of everything/everyone.

Guns make him feel more like a man. :)

Just like all of the other gun owners who want this ban lifted. They are all missing something in life and are weak minded and need a big ass gun in their hands to earn some respect from people.

Talking about guns, waving guns around, having a gun in their car, shooting cans in the yard, showing pics of their guns off on-line etc etc is a testosterone replacement for most of these people.

These are the same people who become security guards, get a uniform and push people around becasue under that uniform and behind that gun is nothing but a weak person that doesn't know how to stand up for himself.

What I want to know is when is that last time a burgular entered a house with an AK-47? When is that last time a 7-11 was held up with sub machine guns? Who are you people protecting yourselves from? The government? lol

So clearly, like stated before, criminals are not using these weapons, they are using handguns..you know the legal kind.

The people that want to own these guns are the ones that want to claim "mine is bigger than yours"

Oh yeah, you are right...it is our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! My bad.

read this



Second Amendment

When this was written, plans were being made to always be prepared in case they had to defend the concept of this new nation against Mother England or any other country that may have ideas to take over. They did not want any government to restrict the use of a common citizen to have a firearm in the event they had to defend their land from an approaching enemy.

The common citizens with arms were known as the militia. They needed to be prepared at a moment's notice in case of attack. Weapons within reach, they could fight to secure their free state. It was a necessity to have a militia back then.

Today the militia still exists and it is commonly referred to as the National Guards. We also have the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. All are organized on a more professional level of military service than the original militia groups and run by our government, very much regulated.

To every country, a military is always necessary to maintain in the event of a hostile enemy. It would make no sense to assemble a quick, untrained troop if the country were being attacked suddenly. It needs trained people willing and ready and trained to do battle to minimize casualties among the civilian population.

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was set up in the context to keep a well regulated militia. Therefore those who would participate in the militia should keep and bear arms in order to secure the free state.

Guns. It is not an intangible freedom like freedoms of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, right to vote, right to due process... Guns are tangible objects. Had they been invented in the times of George Washington, would we also have the right to drive cars without restriction?

The fact is, unless you are bearing arms in order to maintain a militia, you do not have a Constitutional right to own a gun. Besides that is another key word, "regulated" militia. In other words, there would be regulations to the militia and the gun ownership.

Guns in use today are not used for the same purpose for which the Second Amendment was formed. It is a big business. Too many people have a special interest in keeping guns available. They squawk at the mention to limit access (or regulate) to arms.

http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/arms.html


 

·
Thought Police Officer
Joined
·
564 Posts
WILLDOGS said:
Guns make him feel more like a man. :)

Just like all of the other gun owners who want this ban lifted. They are all missing something in life and are weak minded and need a big ass gun in their hands to earn some respect from people.

Talking about guns, waving guns around, having a gun in their car, shooting cans in the yard, showing pics of their guns off on-line etc etc is a testosterone replacement for most of these people.
[/i]
No, dummy. I couldn't give a **** less about anyone who thinks I'm not "man enough". I like to think I've evolved a few steps beyond that point. I certainly don't need to show off a gun/car/whatever to impress my peers. I let my actions do that. My argument is that laws like this one are passed by paranoid, crowd-pleasing officials in order to "protect us from ourselves".

When it comes to guns, this government seems to operate on the presumption of guilt. "You can't have so-and-so weapon because you WILL be more likely to kill someone. It doesn't matter if you've got a clean record, it doesn't matter if you're got the training, we just don't TRUST you to handle this weapon properly".

It's about individual rights, man. You know when you get pulled over in FL, troopers expect you to have a weapon in your car, and they treat you as if you do. Not because they think you're a criminal automatically, but because it is your RIGHT to be so armed, and it's a standard precaution. To me that is perfectly reasonable; a government that trusts its own citizens to be law-abiding, and expects them to uphold the standard. Naturally, those who do commit criminal acts with guns should get the worst kind of punishment. Firing squads seem appropiate.

I was in FL in Oct of '02, right around the time that the DC "sniper" was prowling...Some friends and I spent the entire weekend at the range, shooting off all kinds of ammo. My friend just happened to have a white van, which is what the suspects were allegedly spotted driving. Those trips were fun. We happened to have a 10-yr old boy with us, my friend's grandchild. This kid got first-hand instruction from mil veterans in proper usage of the weapons (uzi's, .45 pistols, CAR-15's, M1 Garands, etc.), and especially the consequences of shooting at someone (a gallon of water is a very useful visual aid, folks). Do you think that this kid will EVER pick up a gun just to play around? Hell no. And yet people back in MA were appalled that we'd expose a child to such "horrible things"! It's that kind of reactionary, self-victimizing attitude that gives government such undue power.

So, you don't think of waiting periods and licensing requirements as regulation? This is a cheap shot, but would you prefer that guns had GPS chips implanted so the government could track them at will? Unless you assigned a cop to follow each dot on the map 24/7, it still wouldn't stop a crime from happening. I find it interesting that it takes more effort to interpret the 2nd Ammendment in support of gun laws, than in opposition.

HEY RY: Err, didn't you read the last line of my post? It specifically says that I'm not attacking you, but if the shoe fits...

Forgive the long post, but I'm a bit passionate about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I'm only adding one thing to this post and I'm done with it. I hate this argument.

A crime has NEVER been committed by the registered owner of a Class 3 weapon. (fully auto).

The only crimes that have been committed with Class 3 weapons are with stolen or illegally modified guns.

Who taught those stupid gang-bangers what peice to file and which spring to replace anyway???
 

·
Erect Member
Joined
·
18,126 Posts
oh no, wait till chia gets ahold of this one.
myself and many other gun owners dont have guns to prove "what men we are". thats plain and utter bullshit. i have a gun because i prefer to have the upper hand on someone that would like to hurt me or my family. i have a gun because i can and have the right to own one. no government should be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot own. obviously some things, like bombs or something similar should not be allowed, but guns, regardless of if they are handguns or assault rifles (which are basically rifles with nicer frames and higher capacity mags) should be our right and our business solely. how we protect ourselves is unimportant. i pity the fool that walks into my house with his screwdriver or knife with the desire to cause harm, against me with my guns. he will have a very bad night indeed. but i guess i own my guns to make me feel like a man. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
WILLDOGS said:
Griff is a pussy and scared of everything/everyone.

Guns make him feel more like a man. :)

Just like all of the other gun owners who want this ban lifted. They are all missing something in life and are weak minded and need a big ass gun in their hands to earn some respect from people.

Talking about guns, waving guns around, having a gun in their car, shooting cans in the yard, showing pics of their guns off on-line etc etc is a testosterone replacement for most of these people.

These are the same people who become security guards, get a uniform and push people around becasue under that uniform and behind that gun is nothing but a weak person that doesn't know how to stand up for himself.

What I want to know is when is that last time a burgular entered a house with an AK-47? When is that last time a 7-11 was held up with sub machine guns? Who are you people protecting yourselves from? The government? lol

So clearly, like stated before, criminals are not using these weapons, they are using handguns..you know the legal kind.

The people that want to own these guns are the ones that want to claim "mine is bigger than yours"

Oh yeah, you are right...it is our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! My bad.

read this



Second Amendment



:lol: I like firing weapons because for me it is 2 fold. First is that it is skill to be mastered. Accuracy teaches patience and steadiness. It is hard as shit to hit a target at 600 yards. for every quarter inch of moving the barrel you miss the target by 3 feet at that distance. Some people build ships in a bottle or tune cars I target shoot. The second thing is that I believe in my heart that shit is going to hit the fan and the government is going to run amuck or a terrorist attack or natural disaster will destroy our way of life. I plan on fighting to get it back. I will not allow what was built to be destroyed by anyone but if it does then I will fight to get it back.

Handguns are the ones being used by criminals. Just because 1/2 of 1% of the population is a jerkoff does not mean that the other 99.5% should be deprived of them. They do not break the law so why punish them.

The second ammendment was established because the British tried to strip the colonists of their weapons when rebellion looked as if it was going to happen. The founding fathers established the second ammendment to make sure that it would never happen and to protect future generations from governmental abuses. Some have given up their rights in this matter I have not and I will not. You may disagree but that is your perogative however no one has the right to take away my rights because they disagree. I can not force you to own a gun yet you think that you can force me not to own one. If you get your way and all guns are banned who do you think that will be employed to take them away from the average citizen? That is right the military. That is the exact abuse that the founding fathers wanted to protect Americans from.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top