Topic: America and gun laws...
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk started this discussion 15 years ago #10,511
Let me get this straight...
Everyone has the right to have a gun. And to carry it around, right?
And it's mostly because it was a "right" that was established when the country was formed, right?
And for some reason American people are totally against changing any of these original rights, because it seems unpatriotic or something, right?
It's still illegal to actually shoot someone, right?
I just find this insane. America has horrific gun crime statistics, they're the only country that protects this "right", and yet they don't even consider doing something about it?
Everyone has the right to have a gun. And to carry it around, right?
And it's mostly because it was a "right" that was established when the country was formed, right?
And for some reason American people are totally against changing any of these original rights, because it seems unpatriotic or something, right?
It's still illegal to actually shoot someone, right?
I just find this insane. America has horrific gun crime statistics, they're the only country that protects this "right", and yet they don't even consider doing something about it?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #187,259
> Everyone has the right to have a gun.
Not everyone, strictly
> And to carry it around, right?
Not really
> And it's mostly because it was a "right" that was established when the country was formed, right?
Pretty much
> And for some reason American people are totally against changing any of these original rights, because it seems unpatriotic or something, right?
It's more complex than that.
> It's still illegal to actually shoot someone, right?
Mostly, yes. Depends on where you are and what the other person is doing at the time.
Not everyone, strictly
> And to carry it around, right?
Not really
> And it's mostly because it was a "right" that was established when the country was formed, right?
Pretty much
> And for some reason American people are totally against changing any of these original rights, because it seems unpatriotic or something, right?
It's more complex than that.
> It's still illegal to actually shoot someone, right?
Mostly, yes. Depends on where you are and what the other person is doing at the time.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,263
No ones taking our guns.
> Everyone has the right to have a gun. And to carry it around, right?
Yes, though in a few places it is prohibited.
> And it's mostly because it was a "right" that was established when the country was formed, right?
The bill of rights is not a toy bud.
> And for some reason American people are totally against changing any of these original rights, because it seems unpatriotic or something, right?
Taking away rights is a slippery slope.
> It's still illegal to actually shoot someone, right?
In a few situations yes. Defending yourself with firearms is completely legal, there are other situations where its legals as well. In Texas for example (I believe) it is legal to kill your spouse if caught in the act of infidelity, however shooting someone in the back in any situation is a crime. There are other states where you can kill a pedophile if you catch them in the act.
> I just find this insane. America has horrific gun crime statistics, they're the only country that protects this "right", and yet they don't even consider doing something about it?
Guns don't kill people.
> Everyone has the right to have a gun. And to carry it around, right?
Yes, though in a few places it is prohibited.
> And it's mostly because it was a "right" that was established when the country was formed, right?
The bill of rights is not a toy bud.
> And for some reason American people are totally against changing any of these original rights, because it seems unpatriotic or something, right?
Taking away rights is a slippery slope.
> It's still illegal to actually shoot someone, right?
In a few situations yes. Defending yourself with firearms is completely legal, there are other situations where its legals as well. In Texas for example (I believe) it is legal to kill your spouse if caught in the act of infidelity, however shooting someone in the back in any situation is a crime. There are other states where you can kill a pedophile if you catch them in the act.
> I just find this insane. America has horrific gun crime statistics, they're the only country that protects this "right", and yet they don't even consider doing something about it?
Guns don't kill people.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,267
@OP
The gun crimes aren't that bad. They usually go hand in hand with drug related stuff or white trash. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.
The gun crimes aren't that bad. They usually go hand in hand with drug related stuff or white trash. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,268
It's a silly right which, as an outsider, I think should be revoked. Firearms should only be allowed to trustworthy individuals with firearms licenses and they should be kept locked away. Also, there must be a valid reason (sports etc) for possession of a firearm.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,269
Welcome to the land of black-and-white conversation about issues. Anything that fails to express ideas in soundbites is the tool of the devil.
It’s currently just a political pawn that is used to rile up the people who hate fags, commies, and commiefags.
It’s currently just a political pawn that is used to rile up the people who hate fags, commies, and commiefags.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,272
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ double-posted this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,273
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,274
@187,267 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
> The gun crimes aren't that bad. They usually go hand in hand with drug related stuff or white trash. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.
Isn't it reasonable to say that if gun rights weren't as liberal as they are, America wouldn't have such horrible gun crime statistics?
I'm probably shooting myself in the foot here (ba dum dum tissss), but it strikes me as insane that Americans are happy to throw someone in jail for possessing a digital photo depicting child sex abuse, but liberally defend and sanction someone possessing a deadly weapon.
> The gun crimes aren't that bad. They usually go hand in hand with drug related stuff or white trash. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.
Isn't it reasonable to say that if gun rights weren't as liberal as they are, America wouldn't have such horrible gun crime statistics?
I'm probably shooting myself in the foot here (ba dum dum tissss), but it strikes me as insane that Americans are happy to throw someone in jail for possessing a digital photo depicting child sex abuse, but liberally defend and sanction someone possessing a deadly weapon.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,276
@187,259 (B)
@187,269 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I must admit I'm a very black and white thinker...
I find it hard it hard to accept that any complex idea can't be simplified and communicated...
Why is it so complex?
@187,269 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I must admit I'm a very black and white thinker...
I find it hard it hard to accept that any complex idea can't be simplified and communicated...
Why is it so complex?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,277
@187,274 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
I think the problem is that they are so available without closer scrutiny of the buyer.
I think the problem is that they are so available without closer scrutiny of the buyer.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,279
@187,274 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
there are no shortage of areas in the US where the possibility of everyone having a gun is the only thing keeping bad people in check.
there are no shortage of areas in the US where the possibility of everyone having a gun is the only thing keeping bad people in check.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,280
Many people don't need guns for protection but feel the need to tote them around for no reason. It's retarded. I can understand keeping one at home for like, food hunting, hobby, or even protection if you live in a dangerous area, but they have no other purpose and america is too trigger happy.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,283
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,285
@187,279 (G)
Because that's the culture in those places.
But why don't most people in other countries feel the need to have guns?
Because that's the culture in those places.
But why don't most people in other countries feel the need to have guns?
Wade Wilson !IOdbnXsKDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,292
I don't have the right to own a gun anymore :(
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,295
@187,285 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
because, quite simply, no other country is as overrun with niggers as the US
because, quite simply, no other country is as overrun with niggers as the US
!ocurburUbk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,305
guns dont kill people, people kill people.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,307
!ocurburUbk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,311
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
less stabbing would stab if less kitchen knives were available. ;_;
less stabbing would stab if less kitchen knives were available. ;_;
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,313
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,316
@187,311 (!ocurburUbk)
Just make knives with blunt, rubber-coated points. You can still slit someone's throat, but you couldn't stab anyone.
Just make knives with blunt, rubber-coated points. You can still slit someone's throat, but you couldn't stab anyone.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,317
@187,276 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Simply enough, the deeply ingrained Judeo-Christianity beliefs leave many Americans afraid of pain, punishment, and retribution. The lies of “Democrats want to take away your weapons and plan to do so in 20XX†have been around for MANY years and people always lap them up.
You should look up some of the bullshit here (it’s nothing but lies to keep voters inline)…
http://www.politifact.com/
http://snopes.com/politics/politics.asp
Simply enough, the deeply ingrained Judeo-Christianity beliefs leave many Americans afraid of pain, punishment, and retribution. The lies of “Democrats want to take away your weapons and plan to do so in 20XX†have been around for MANY years and people always lap them up.
You should look up some of the bullshit here (it’s nothing but lies to keep voters inline)…
http://www.politifact.com/
http://snopes.com/politics/politics.asp
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,319
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,320
@187,311 (!ocurburUbk)
This is true, but knives actually serve a useful purpose for most people :P
Guns are ONLY used for killing.
@187,317 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Ahhh, that's a cool insight. Thanks.
This is true, but knives actually serve a useful purpose for most people :P
Guns are ONLY used for killing.
@187,317 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Ahhh, that's a cool insight. Thanks.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,321
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,323
@187,320 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> Guns are ONLY used for killing.
I'm guessing Americans are generally so obese they can't learn any practical self-defence, so they choose the lazy method to protect themselves: firearms.
Or something like that. :3
> Guns are ONLY used for killing.
I'm guessing Americans are generally so obese they can't learn any practical self-defence, so they choose the lazy method to protect themselves: firearms.
Or something like that. :3
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,325
Smegma !J5VkSmegmA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,327
People refuse to accept that some of the old laws simply shouldn't be applied to our culture today.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's the full amendment. We no longer have any need for a militia considering that we developed an army.
Gun laws SHOULD follow common sense, but nope. That's unAmerican.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's the full amendment. We no longer have any need for a militia considering that we developed an army.
Gun laws SHOULD follow common sense, but nope. That's unAmerican.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,328
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,329
@187,327 (Smegma !J5VkSmegmA)
This, too. Without hyperbole, I wholly agree that the US Consitution is a living document, should remain so, and it’s unpatriotic to try to lock it in place for some hyper-romanced view of the past.
This, too. Without hyperbole, I wholly agree that the US Consitution is a living document, should remain so, and it’s unpatriotic to try to lock it in place for some hyper-romanced view of the past.
Smegma !J5VkSmegmA replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,332
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,333
@187,320 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
There were many rumors spread around during the last presidential election about Obama hating whites, christians, and others. There were even accusations that he would make people come through on the promise of reparations. People actually took this seriously. People even still believe he’s a Muslim.
That we can’t even get past the most simple facts speaks volume about our dysfunction.
There were many rumors spread around during the last presidential election about Obama hating whites, christians, and others. There were even accusations that he would make people come through on the promise of reparations. People actually took this seriously. People even still believe he’s a Muslim.
That we can’t even get past the most simple facts speaks volume about our dysfunction.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,335
WALLY O. TEXT replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #187,336
@187,276 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
One of the things that complicates gun laws is a difference between urban and rural areas. Owning and carrying a gun in rural Oklahoma is not the same as owning and carrying gun in Los Angeles or NYC. Yet you have laws made on a nationwide or statewide level applying to both urban and rural areas.
Another problem is that you have different levels of government that apply. While gun ownership may be guaranteed (except for convicted felons) at a federal level, states decide individually on laws about carrying (either concealed or open) a firearm, what hoops you have to jump through to get or carry said firearm, some of the taxes you may pay to obtain it, and what to convict you of if you should use that firearm against a person or their property.
Deciding a lot of things at a state level is a solution that has worked pretty well for us so far. In less populous states (e.g. Montana, Alaska, etc.) lax gun laws may not be a problem as people are generally carrying a firearm out in rural areas. In states like California or New York, it's more complex because those states contain both a large amount of rural territory and populous urban centers.
Yet another consideration, which Ks mentioned, is the history behind it all. Taking rights away from people, especially if it involves rights listed in Bill of Rights, isn't easy and sets a dangerous precedent. It is a right we have traditionally held, and for most of people who don't live in closely packed cities, it works pretty well. At least, well enough to not want it changed.
Add on top of this a populace who wants to be armed at least as well as the criminals that may assault them and the usual fears of only arming the police and the military, and you have a population of people of who really want to keep that feeling of control that they feel owning a gun (or at least the ability to own a gun) gives them.
If we decided to start a "war on guns" tomorrow, I don't think anyone believes for a moment that it would work out any better than our "war" on... anything else. You would have otherwise honest citizens hoarding and hiding guns and ammunition overnight, a new black market trade would spring up, etc. So "just getting rid of the guns" isn't really on the table as a solution right now.
There a lot more that plays into it depending on which region of the country you look at. Issues in the South are different from issues in Arizona or California or New York. A policy like "LOL just get rid of guns" isn't realistic for a number of reasons.
One of the things that complicates gun laws is a difference between urban and rural areas. Owning and carrying a gun in rural Oklahoma is not the same as owning and carrying gun in Los Angeles or NYC. Yet you have laws made on a nationwide or statewide level applying to both urban and rural areas.
Another problem is that you have different levels of government that apply. While gun ownership may be guaranteed (except for convicted felons) at a federal level, states decide individually on laws about carrying (either concealed or open) a firearm, what hoops you have to jump through to get or carry said firearm, some of the taxes you may pay to obtain it, and what to convict you of if you should use that firearm against a person or their property.
Deciding a lot of things at a state level is a solution that has worked pretty well for us so far. In less populous states (e.g. Montana, Alaska, etc.) lax gun laws may not be a problem as people are generally carrying a firearm out in rural areas. In states like California or New York, it's more complex because those states contain both a large amount of rural territory and populous urban centers.
Yet another consideration, which Ks mentioned, is the history behind it all. Taking rights away from people, especially if it involves rights listed in Bill of Rights, isn't easy and sets a dangerous precedent. It is a right we have traditionally held, and for most of people who don't live in closely packed cities, it works pretty well. At least, well enough to not want it changed.
Add on top of this a populace who wants to be armed at least as well as the criminals that may assault them and the usual fears of only arming the police and the military, and you have a population of people of who really want to keep that feeling of control that they feel owning a gun (or at least the ability to own a gun) gives them.
If we decided to start a "war on guns" tomorrow, I don't think anyone believes for a moment that it would work out any better than our "war" on... anything else. You would have otherwise honest citizens hoarding and hiding guns and ammunition overnight, a new black market trade would spring up, etc. So "just getting rid of the guns" isn't really on the table as a solution right now.
There a lot more that plays into it depending on which region of the country you look at. Issues in the South are different from issues in Arizona or California or New York. A policy like "LOL just get rid of guns" isn't realistic for a number of reasons.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #187,344
@previous (WALLY O. TEXT)
This is why the US Constitution is alive. The farm-to-urbanization process could not have been adequately understood by The Founders, and it’s clear that localized gun control has important benefits that cannot adequately be addressed by a one-size-fits-all approach. I’m not sure what the exact solution should be, but it’s clear that we could improve.
This is why the US Constitution is alive. The farm-to-urbanization process could not have been adequately understood by The Founders, and it’s clear that localized gun control has important benefits that cannot adequately be addressed by a one-size-fits-all approach. I’m not sure what the exact solution should be, but it’s clear that we could improve.
hamfist !!RbP0X6i+G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #187,355
@OP
Let me counter with a lyric from the Clash
> when they kick at your front door
> how you gonna come?
> with your hand on your head or the trigger of your gun?
Let me counter with a lyric from the Clash
> when they kick at your front door
> how you gonna come?
> with your hand on your head or the trigger of your gun?
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #187,366
@OP
> Let me get this straight...
>
> Everyone has the right to have a gun. And to carry it around, right?
No. Most states have a "Shall-Issue" concealed carry law, which is usually issued by the attorney general. A handful of states allow "Open carry" with or without a permit, except local ordinances that prohibit such carrying.
> And it's mostly because it was a "right" that was established when the country was formed, right?
The second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms, This was established in part due to the battles of Lexington and Concord, when the British attempted to confiscate american muskets.
> And for some reason American people are totally against changing any of these original rights, because it seems unpatriotic or something, right?
No, it's not unpatriotic, its impossible. An amendment not only must pass both houses of congress with a 3/4 vote majority, but must also be ratified by 38 states, or 3/4 of the states.
> It's still illegal to actually shoot someone, right?
In some cases, yes. We aren't backwards like Europe and Canada however. In most states, you can shoot someone in self-defense, with immunity from both criminal and civil liability.
> I just find this insane. America has horrific gun crime statistics, they're the only country that protects this "right", and yet they don't even consider doing something about it?
Guns are not just a tool of crime, they are a weapon against tyranny and oppression. When Hitler gained his power, one of the first laws he enacted was the disarmament of the jews, followed by the rest of Germany's citizens. When a state disarms its citizens, in an effect it sets on the path of a police state, if not one already. Crime is always going to be committed; whether you put a gun in the criminals hands or a knife, or a shaving razor, or a screwdriver, or A set of keys, or a hammer, or a rock, or a shoe, or a broken bottle, or anything else that you could consider a weapon, It's STILL going to happen. When you disarm the citizens of their firearms, you are only depriving the law abiding citizens of their firearms, the people committing the crimes can still get them, but usually with a drastically higher mark up.
You cannot get rid of the guns, simply because of the outrageously high demand from militaries, police states, and law enforcement. Yet the authorities who purchase these firearms do not wish for their citizens to have one because it presents them with a clear and dangerous threat to their authority.
HEY I HAVE AN IDEA! Why don't we just lock everyone up in a cell so they cant hurt each other? That would work, Right?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
> Let me get this straight...
>
> Everyone has the right to have a gun. And to carry it around, right?
No. Most states have a "Shall-Issue" concealed carry law, which is usually issued by the attorney general. A handful of states allow "Open carry" with or without a permit, except local ordinances that prohibit such carrying.
> And it's mostly because it was a "right" that was established when the country was formed, right?
The second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms, This was established in part due to the battles of Lexington and Concord, when the British attempted to confiscate american muskets.
> And for some reason American people are totally against changing any of these original rights, because it seems unpatriotic or something, right?
No, it's not unpatriotic, its impossible. An amendment not only must pass both houses of congress with a 3/4 vote majority, but must also be ratified by 38 states, or 3/4 of the states.
> It's still illegal to actually shoot someone, right?
In some cases, yes. We aren't backwards like Europe and Canada however. In most states, you can shoot someone in self-defense, with immunity from both criminal and civil liability.
> I just find this insane. America has horrific gun crime statistics, they're the only country that protects this "right", and yet they don't even consider doing something about it?
Guns are not just a tool of crime, they are a weapon against tyranny and oppression. When Hitler gained his power, one of the first laws he enacted was the disarmament of the jews, followed by the rest of Germany's citizens. When a state disarms its citizens, in an effect it sets on the path of a police state, if not one already. Crime is always going to be committed; whether you put a gun in the criminals hands or a knife, or a shaving razor, or a screwdriver, or A set of keys, or a hammer, or a rock, or a shoe, or a broken bottle, or anything else that you could consider a weapon, It's STILL going to happen. When you disarm the citizens of their firearms, you are only depriving the law abiding citizens of their firearms, the people committing the crimes can still get them, but usually with a drastically higher mark up.
You cannot get rid of the guns, simply because of the outrageously high demand from militaries, police states, and law enforcement. Yet the authorities who purchase these firearms do not wish for their citizens to have one because it presents them with a clear and dangerous threat to their authority.
HEY I HAVE AN IDEA! Why don't we just lock everyone up in a cell so they cant hurt each other? That would work, Right?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #187,368
@187,344 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Yep. Yet another barrier to more local control is that our system often isn't drawn up for it. Deciding laws on a county by county basis would pose a problem for a lot of population hubs, as the metropolitan areas that generally surrounds cities can span a number of counties. While redistricting everything to more accurately reflect the demographics in each area would probably be a good thing in the long run, it would probably be impossible to implement without a major political shitstorm.
Yep. Yet another barrier to more local control is that our system often isn't drawn up for it. Deciding laws on a county by county basis would pose a problem for a lot of population hubs, as the metropolitan areas that generally surrounds cities can span a number of counties. While redistricting everything to more accurately reflect the demographics in each area would probably be a good thing in the long run, it would probably be impossible to implement without a major political shitstorm.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
hamfist !!RbP0X6i+G replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #187,373
@187,366 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)Wow what a completely well-written response I agree with it enti-
> Nexus
fuck
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #187,375
TrollBuster3000 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,649
I really have trouble telling if people are trolling or are just dumb...
jump? joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 40 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,657
@187,274 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Yes, it is fair to say. In my city there is a huge gun violence problem because they are everywhere (everywhere meaning in the pants of every black male age 12-50).
Yes, it is fair to say. In my city there is a huge gun violence problem because they are everywhere (everywhere meaning in the pants of every black male age 12-50).
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,739
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,741
Lynx !MzaGkAocns joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 40 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,760
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
or making their own like the chechnyans (i am not implying the chechens are criminals)
or making their own like the chechnyans (i am not implying the chechens are criminals)
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,762
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
This is a ridiculous argument. Limiting your ability to purchase large amounts of firearms, will mean you can still own a gun. There will be less guns in circulation, though.
This is a ridiculous argument. Limiting your ability to purchase large amounts of firearms, will mean you can still own a gun. There will be less guns in circulation, though.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,765
Guns help prevent rioting and TNB.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,770
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
They’re also fully necessary to secure and protect your basement from roving packs of niggers.
They’re also fully necessary to secure and protect your basement from roving packs of niggers.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,778
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Not everyone here has the luck of living in the Whitest big city in America.
Not everyone here has the luck of living in the Whitest big city in America.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,780
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,785
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Yea... I live in Philly. There's a huge gun violence problem. Huge. There are guns everywhere. They are super easy to get. Straw purchases have been a problem for years.
Yea... I live in Philly. There's a huge gun violence problem. Huge. There are guns everywhere. They are super easy to get. Straw purchases have been a problem for years.
jump? double-posted this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,790
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Cops take guns off streets. We limit the amount of guns able to get on the streets. Less guns on streets.
Also, countries with strict gun laws, have much fewer gun deaths. Much. Look at Japan. I mean, it's pretty obvious.
Cops take guns off streets. We limit the amount of guns able to get on the streets. Less guns on streets.
Also, countries with strict gun laws, have much fewer gun deaths. Much. Look at Japan. I mean, it's pretty obvious.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,792
People are going to buy guns even if they are illegal. People are still going to manufacture and sell illegal narcotics. People are going to drive cars even if they don't have a driver's license or automobile insurance. People are going to commit crimes even when there are deterrents in place.
Speaking of Japan's homicide rates, you should look at their suicide rates.
Speaking of Japan's homicide rates, you should look at their suicide rates.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,796
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
@187,790 (jump?)
One (path toward a) solution I’ve heard is an implementation like the “time and place†restrictions on the freedom of speech. It’s still constitutional, and it’s a (mostly) clear and simple method.
Possession of legal guns with appropriate paperwork is still wholly okay, but possessing them (and, particularly, using them) in particular areas or at particular times would be a violation of some sort. This isn’t “hurr durr outlawing guns†or a slippery slope, as it’s clearly been agreed upon by many that “time and place†restrictions are valid. It seems to clearly be one of the more simple and appropriate middle grounds that satisfies the major arguments of all sides.
@187,790 (jump?)
One (path toward a) solution I’ve heard is an implementation like the “time and place†restrictions on the freedom of speech. It’s still constitutional, and it’s a (mostly) clear and simple method.
Possession of legal guns with appropriate paperwork is still wholly okay, but possessing them (and, particularly, using them) in particular areas or at particular times would be a violation of some sort. This isn’t “hurr durr outlawing guns†or a slippery slope, as it’s clearly been agreed upon by many that “time and place†restrictions are valid. It seems to clearly be one of the more simple and appropriate middle grounds that satisfies the major arguments of all sides.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,797
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> hidden guns are hidden
Yeah, exactly. That’s the caveat to this all, but there aren’t any appropriate ways around it. Illegal possession or actions aren’t changed, but only after some event (crime or reasonable suspicion) happens, the state then has authority to exercise its powers.
> hidden guns are hidden
Yeah, exactly. That’s the caveat to this all, but there aren’t any appropriate ways around it. Illegal possession or actions aren’t changed, but only after some event (crime or reasonable suspicion) happens, the state then has authority to exercise its powers.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #187,992
America and gun laws
America and gun lawns
America and gunlogs
Because the gun lawn
America and gun lawns
America and gunlogs
Because the gun lawn
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,254
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
That's one part of the program. What argument are you making against gun control here? You don't seem to understand how to debate something. You need to come up with an argument for your side. You can't just state something that's true and say "ah-HA! Got you!"
@187,792 (T)
> People are going to buy guns even if they are illegal. People are still going to manufacture and sell illegal narcotics. People are going to drive cars even if they don't have a driver's license or automobile insurance. People are going to commit crimes even when there are deterrents in place.
>
Ok. I agree. What's your point? You are saying things that have no relevance. Whatsoever. If you outlaw guns completely, if a criminal gets there hands on one they can still use it. No shit.
What you want to achieve is less guns on the streets. This requires two things. 1. Get guns off of criminals and 2. Limit the flow of guns to the streets.
Do you know what straw purchases are? It's when someone buys guns for someone for a price, then the other person resells on the street (or keeps).
Limiting handgun sales (except collector pieces) to 1 a month isn't going to harm anyone. Limiting to 2 a year isnt going to harm anyone. It will help aid in keeping guns off the streets. I don't own a gun. I would like to buy a pistol one day. I like going to the shooting range. I'd also like a good rifle. I'm not anti-gun, but facts are facts. Places like Detroit and Philadelphia show the dangers of lax gun laws. It doesn't even matter what the laws in a particular state are. Its easy to smuggle guns from one state to another.
> Speaking of Japan's homicide rates, you should look at their suicide rates.
What does suicide have to do with this?
You haven't made one argument against gun control. Do you have nothing to say or are you so ignorant an naive you don't actually know how to discuss a subject?
That's one part of the program. What argument are you making against gun control here? You don't seem to understand how to debate something. You need to come up with an argument for your side. You can't just state something that's true and say "ah-HA! Got you!"
@187,792 (T)
> People are going to buy guns even if they are illegal. People are still going to manufacture and sell illegal narcotics. People are going to drive cars even if they don't have a driver's license or automobile insurance. People are going to commit crimes even when there are deterrents in place.
>
Ok. I agree. What's your point? You are saying things that have no relevance. Whatsoever. If you outlaw guns completely, if a criminal gets there hands on one they can still use it. No shit.
What you want to achieve is less guns on the streets. This requires two things. 1. Get guns off of criminals and 2. Limit the flow of guns to the streets.
Do you know what straw purchases are? It's when someone buys guns for someone for a price, then the other person resells on the street (or keeps).
Limiting handgun sales (except collector pieces) to 1 a month isn't going to harm anyone. Limiting to 2 a year isnt going to harm anyone. It will help aid in keeping guns off the streets. I don't own a gun. I would like to buy a pistol one day. I like going to the shooting range. I'd also like a good rifle. I'm not anti-gun, but facts are facts. Places like Detroit and Philadelphia show the dangers of lax gun laws. It doesn't even matter what the laws in a particular state are. Its easy to smuggle guns from one state to another.
> Speaking of Japan's homicide rates, you should look at their suicide rates.
What does suicide have to do with this?
You haven't made one argument against gun control. Do you have nothing to say or are you so ignorant an naive you don't actually know how to discuss a subject?
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,256
@previous (jump?)
> What does suicide have to do with this?
It doesn't. I just thought it was interesting.
> You haven't made one argument against gun control. Do you have nothing to say or are you so ignorant an naive you don't actually know how to discuss a subject?
Now you're just being rude.
> What does suicide have to do with this?
It doesn't. I just thought it was interesting.
> You haven't made one argument against gun control. Do you have nothing to say or are you so ignorant an naive you don't actually know how to discuss a subject?
Now you're just being rude.
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,259
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,260
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,262
@188,256 (T)
Do you know why Japan has such a high suicide rate? It's a cultural thing. It IS very interesting. It's starting to change though.
Do you know why Japan has such a high suicide rate? It's a cultural thing. It IS very interesting. It's starting to change though.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,274
@previous (jump?)
I know and that's what I was what I was trying to say. Nothing else. It is pretty interesting indeed.
I know and that's what I was what I was trying to say. Nothing else. It is pretty interesting indeed.
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,282
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
No, you arent making sense. I've already explained this. Maybe I was citing someoe else though.
There are two things that need to be done. 1. Is taking guns off the streets, which is being done. 2. Is limiting the flow of guns to the streets.
We need MORE gun control. All guns are legal at sometime. This idea that "if you make guns illegal only criminals will have guns" isn't even a good argument.
We know if you do ban guns, it's greatly reduces gun crime.
That means every gun you take off the streets is one less gun. If more guns are being taken off the street than are flowing to the streets you will lower gun crimes.
Also, no one is saying in here you shouldn't own guns (well, ideally I agree with that, but that wont happen in the UD anytime soon). Limit the amount of guns people can buy. People will still be able to own a gun to protect themselves.
No, you arent making sense. I've already explained this. Maybe I was citing someoe else though.
There are two things that need to be done. 1. Is taking guns off the streets, which is being done. 2. Is limiting the flow of guns to the streets.
We need MORE gun control. All guns are legal at sometime. This idea that "if you make guns illegal only criminals will have guns" isn't even a good argument.
We know if you do ban guns, it's greatly reduces gun crime.
That means every gun you take off the streets is one less gun. If more guns are being taken off the street than are flowing to the streets you will lower gun crimes.
Also, no one is saying in here you shouldn't own guns (well, ideally I agree with that, but that wont happen in the UD anytime soon). Limit the amount of guns people can buy. People will still be able to own a gun to protect themselves.
jump? double-posted this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,289
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
How high are you?
People commit crimes or are stopped by police and the guns are found. They take them. It's been said by you even. Are you not keeping track of anything? No one is going to go in anyone's home and steal their guns. The gun control argument in the US is limiting how guns are purchased and how often.
Ideally, a complete ban on guns would be best, but that isn't going to happen. There is way too much money in it.
How high are you?
People commit crimes or are stopped by police and the guns are found. They take them. It's been said by you even. Are you not keeping track of anything? No one is going to go in anyone's home and steal their guns. The gun control argument in the US is limiting how guns are purchased and how often.
Ideally, a complete ban on guns would be best, but that isn't going to happen. There is way too much money in it.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,297
@188,254 (jump?)
> What you want to achieve is less guns on the streets. This requires two things. 1. Get guns off of criminals and 2. Limit the flow of guns to the streets.
How do you propose the states do this? Refuse sale to legitimate handgun users?
> Do you know what straw purchases are? It's when someone buys guns for someone for a price, then the other person resells on the street (or keeps).
No, You don't understand what a straw purchase is. A firearm is legally purchased from an FFL dealer for a proxy and/or using a monetary currency that is not your own; I.E. Your friend wants a firearm, he gives you the money for the firearm, you buy said firearm and give him said firearm after purchase. It is also a felony to knowingly transfer a weapon for an individual who cannot legally own a firearm. whether that individual is underage, a felon, one who has a legitimate diagnosis of a mental disease, or a habitual user of drugs/alcohol; I.E. Your friend is a known alcoholic and you give him a firearm as a gift, that is a felony.
It is not a straw purchase if the firearm is kept or if the firearm is resold in good faith at any point after purchase whether it be sold to a FFL dealer, or to a private individual. A firearm does not have to be registered in some states if bought from a private seller, nor does the buyer require a permit for said firearm again, in some states. It is not illegal to buy a firearm for a friend or family as a gift, as long as that firearm was legally acquired, and the transfer conforms to the current weapons statutes of the state.
> What you want to achieve is less guns on the streets. This requires two things. 1. Get guns off of criminals and 2. Limit the flow of guns to the streets.
How do you propose the states do this? Refuse sale to legitimate handgun users?
> Do you know what straw purchases are? It's when someone buys guns for someone for a price, then the other person resells on the street (or keeps).
No, You don't understand what a straw purchase is. A firearm is legally purchased from an FFL dealer for a proxy and/or using a monetary currency that is not your own; I.E. Your friend wants a firearm, he gives you the money for the firearm, you buy said firearm and give him said firearm after purchase. It is also a felony to knowingly transfer a weapon for an individual who cannot legally own a firearm. whether that individual is underage, a felon, one who has a legitimate diagnosis of a mental disease, or a habitual user of drugs/alcohol; I.E. Your friend is a known alcoholic and you give him a firearm as a gift, that is a felony.
It is not a straw purchase if the firearm is kept or if the firearm is resold in good faith at any point after purchase whether it be sold to a FFL dealer, or to a private individual. A firearm does not have to be registered in some states if bought from a private seller, nor does the buyer require a permit for said firearm again, in some states. It is not illegal to buy a firearm for a friend or family as a gift, as long as that firearm was legally acquired, and the transfer conforms to the current weapons statutes of the state.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,322
@previous (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
Yes, refuse sale. You can buy x amount of handguns a year.
I know what a straw purchase is. I described it fine. Sometimes it's a friend or girlfriend and they aren't making money on it. Ok. Same problem. I was going for brevity for once.
There were radio and bus and billboard ads targetting straw purchasers in philly for a while. Warning of the concequences.
Yes, refuse sale. You can buy x amount of handguns a year.
I know what a straw purchase is. I described it fine. Sometimes it's a friend or girlfriend and they aren't making money on it. Ok. Same problem. I was going for brevity for once.
There were radio and bus and billboard ads targetting straw purchasers in philly for a while. Warning of the concequences.
jump? double-posted this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,330
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
My arguments still stand to a full ban. Also, I stated this in my first post citing you. Your argument is poor. If you ban guns it does limit criminals from getting them.
I pointed out countries with bans and how their gun violence is insignificant next to the US.
You don't understand what I'm talking about because you aren't capable. It isn't me buddy.
I'll make it very simple for you: bad guys get caught with guns. Gun gets taken. Bad guy no longer has gun. Right now, bad guy gets back on streets and can easily get another gun. Limiting or banning gun sales will severely limit the flow of guns to the streets.
If you empty a bucket faster than you fill it, eventually there won't be much in the bucket.
My arguments still stand to a full ban. Also, I stated this in my first post citing you. Your argument is poor. If you ban guns it does limit criminals from getting them.
I pointed out countries with bans and how their gun violence is insignificant next to the US.
You don't understand what I'm talking about because you aren't capable. It isn't me buddy.
I'll make it very simple for you: bad guys get caught with guns. Gun gets taken. Bad guy no longer has gun. Right now, bad guy gets back on streets and can easily get another gun. Limiting or banning gun sales will severely limit the flow of guns to the streets.
If you empty a bucket faster than you fill it, eventually there won't be much in the bucket.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,338
> Ban all guns
> Criminals don't follow laws; only criminals have guns / make people who aren't hurting anybody into criminals.
Protip made sense, I think (he didn't go into much detail). I fully support the right of private institutions to limit the possessions of firearms within their premises.
Do most people agree that regardless of public gun laws, the right to possess a gun within one's private property should not be abrogated?
> Criminals don't follow laws; only criminals have guns / make people who aren't hurting anybody into criminals.
Protip made sense, I think (he didn't go into much detail). I fully support the right of private institutions to limit the possessions of firearms within their premises.
Do most people agree that regardless of public gun laws, the right to possess a gun within one's private property should not be abrogated?
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,361
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
In their home, no if they live alone or no one in the house objects. It should e properly locked if children are in the home (otherwise, locks should be owned, but only put on th gun when necessary -- if you do need a gun, having a lock on it seems dangerous). In public, I don't think anyone should. People aren't rational.
In their home, no if they live alone or no one in the house objects. It should e properly locked if children are in the home (otherwise, locks should be owned, but only put on th gun when necessary -- if you do need a gun, having a lock on it seems dangerous). In public, I don't think anyone should. People aren't rational.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,380
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,382
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,385
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,387
I don't understand your argument at all, Rogers.
What if tomorrow, America developed the same sort of civil unrest that's been happening in London? If riots developed beyond the point that police could manage them?
The answer is, murder casualties will be 100 times more, because guns are 100 times more.
Am I wrong? Yes, police may take guns of people if they have them on the streets, but from my (distant) observations, a lot of people have guns at home they could easily obtain when necessary.
What if tomorrow, America developed the same sort of civil unrest that's been happening in London? If riots developed beyond the point that police could manage them?
The answer is, murder casualties will be 100 times more, because guns are 100 times more.
Am I wrong? Yes, police may take guns of people if they have them on the streets, but from my (distant) observations, a lot of people have guns at home they could easily obtain when necessary.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,399
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> What if tomorrow, America developed the same sort of civil unrest that's been happening in London? If riots developed beyond the point that police could manage them?
It's happened before.
> What if tomorrow, America developed the same sort of civil unrest that's been happening in London? If riots developed beyond the point that police could manage them?
It's happened before.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,400
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,401
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
You think the raging rioters in the UK wouldn't be shooting each other if they had easy access to guns? Maybe you have more faith in humanity than I do...
Also, why weigh into an argument if you're just going to say "I'm not going to argue my point". I haven't shown any examples of "not listening" in this thread...
You think the raging rioters in the UK wouldn't be shooting each other if they had easy access to guns? Maybe you have more faith in humanity than I do...
Also, why weigh into an argument if you're just going to say "I'm not going to argue my point". I haven't shown any examples of "not listening" in this thread...
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,402
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,403
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,404
@188,399 (B)
London Police couldn't handle the riots because they don't have guns. People don't loot shops when the owner is standing in the door with a gun.
London Police couldn't handle the riots because they don't have guns. People don't loot shops when the owner is standing in the door with a gun.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,409
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I'm listening... that's why I started this thread. To try and understand it.
So basically, rioters with guns won't go after shop keepers because they have guns too?
I dunno... when I see this kind of thing on TV, when you have anarchy, one person shoots and everyone starts shooting...
I'm listening... that's why I started this thread. To try and understand it.
So basically, rioters with guns won't go after shop keepers because they have guns too?
I dunno... when I see this kind of thing on TV, when you have anarchy, one person shoots and everyone starts shooting...
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,411
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,412
@188,403 (B)
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/AfricanAmericans/LA%20Riot%201992%20Deaths.htm
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/AfricanAmericans/LA%20Riot%201992%20Deaths.htm
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,414
@188,404 (TrollBuster3000)
US Police have plenty of guns and still couldn't handle the riots. Korean shop owners with guns were the people deterring looting.
US Police have plenty of guns and still couldn't handle the riots. Korean shop owners with guns were the people deterring looting.
RiverMutt !Mex505FZAw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,415
No one's taking away my fucking guns. There are people out there that are way crazier than I that have guns, so I like having guns for that reason. I already own 4 (2 9mms, a hunting rifle, and a shotgun), and I'm in the market for a big hand cannon (pic related) to take with me when I'm backpacking. Guns are rad :)TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,417
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,419
@188,412 (TrollBuster3000)
Is there a point here or you just citing statistics? The death toll is also in the wiki, BTW.
Is there a point here or you just citing statistics? The death toll is also in the wiki, BTW.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,421
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,424
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,428
I don't see anything wrong with allowing guns as long as background tests are used to ensure only law-abiding citizens can afford guns.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,430
@188,424 (TrollBuster3000)
> Just sharing some useful information.
Cool, that's all I popped in to do as well. :D
> Just sharing some useful information.
Cool, that's all I popped in to do as well. :D
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,447
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,455
Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,497
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Please learn what you're talking about before spitting some bullshit which isn't even remotely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licensing
Please learn what you're talking about before spitting some bullshit which isn't even remotely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licensing
Anonymous Z-1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,500
> Slippery slope being mentioned over and over again
FIRST THEY'LL TAKE OUR GUNS
THEN THEY'LL PUT US ALL IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
FIRST THEY'LL TAKE OUR GUNS
THEN THEY'LL PUT US ALL IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
jump? replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,526
Dachan-da replied with this 15 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,553
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,563
@previous (Dachan-da)
Don't lol 10/10 this on me bud. I've had peeps throwing this on you for a while now.
Don't lol 10/10 this on me bud. I've had peeps throwing this on you for a while now.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,587
Much of this discussion assumes the following statement:
> Gun violence is always bad.
I contest this. Murder is always bad, whether by shot or sword; defending one's property, one's life, and others' lives using guns is not.
> Gun violence is always bad.
I contest this. Murder is always bad, whether by shot or sword; defending one's property, one's life, and others' lives using guns is not.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,623
@188,500 (Z-1)
Isn't the slippery slope argument pretty much the only argument against loli/shota (which is illegal in the UK and confused in the US)?
Isn't the slippery slope argument pretty much the only argument against loli/shota (which is illegal in the UK and confused in the US)?
Anonymous Z-2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,624
Anonymous Z-3 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,669
its simple, BAN EVERYTHING
have fun with your nanny state, i remember when they tried to implement a stab proof kitchen knife in britain LOL
have fun with your nanny state, i remember when they tried to implement a stab proof kitchen knife in britain LOL
Anonymous Z-1 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,672
AH DON'T WHO DIES
AH JUS WANT MAH GUNS
AH JUS WANT MAH GUNS
Anonymous Z-3 replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,674
Anonymous Z-1 replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,678
IT IS MAH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN
AND THE CONSTITUTION IS ALWAYS RIGHT
AND THE CONSTITUTION IS ALWAYS RIGHT
Anonymous Z-1 double-posted this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,690
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
GUNS ARE FREEDOM
GUNS ARE FREEDOM
Anonymous Z-3 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,717
Anonymous Z-1 replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,722
@previous (Z-3)
i still not getting what your're trying to says. i said , the first 3 moths when no on know it it is legit. it can't now keep up with prizes claim so it's jut a scam. are you know english?
i still not getting what your're trying to says. i said , the first 3 moths when no on know it it is legit. it can't now keep up with prizes claim so it's jut a scam. are you know english?
Anonymous Z-3 replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,728
the fact remains that you will never get americans to give up their guns so refer to the following sentence belowDeal with it nerd.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #188,730
@previous (Z-3)
I’m not sure where you’re thinking this is a raeg thread full of lolololololololol, bud.
I’m not sure where you’re thinking this is a raeg thread full of lolololololololol, bud.