First  Prev  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
14243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/21/13 , edited 9/21/13

spacebatI own a Mossberg 590 for home protection, that's all anyone needs. Should mention double-aught buck.


I suppose you know as much as Joe Biden does at the subject given you share the same opinion about what people should and should have.

I guess we should just "buy a shotgun"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30WEOGB73cA
http://youtu.be/30WEOGB73cA
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 9/21/13

GambitVII wrote:


spacebat
Insulting and attempting to belittle me isn't going to make you right. Life isn't a video game. If five guys break into your home with the attempt to kill you. you're dead. If a man has a gun pulled out on you, you won't have time to pull your weapon, you're gonna get shot and probably killed. Please don't preach to me about military, I am military.

My answer to the problem is ridiculous because the entire argument is ridiculous. The fact is, if someone has a gun pointed at you, you run and hide. You aren't going to have enough time to pull your weapon. This isn't the movies, you're going to get shot and possibly killed.

Oh, that picture of you doesn't really lend any credence to your argument. You aren't even holding it right...

If we want less gun violence we need stricter gun laws. If Americans want to continue owning weapons they have absolutely no reason owning, and gun laws that are extremely lenient then there will continue to be gun violence on the scale we have seen recently. I could careless on the issue, it's up to the civilians what type of country they want to live in. I own a Mossberg 590 for home protection, that's all anyone needs.




If your first statement was doctrine, then I wouldn't have been able to hang out with my buddy yesterday. It should be obvious LEO & Military aren't all gun guys, and you are what you say you are, that should make more sense to you than it does to me.

And if you are military, then it should be obvious that the one who draws the gun first doesn't have the immediate and absolute advantage. Many "thugs" just swing it around for show, and just because they can shoot doesn't mean they can fight back under stress. And just because your in the military doesn't mean you really know how to use your gun. If you have at least Carbine Course, even a family man who runs a restaurant & has trained diligently can keep up and surpass people with years of experience.

I doubt your ability properly critique someone's ability to do something, especially if your judgement of someones picture is meant to hold any weight. And even more so your opinion when it comes to what people should and shouldn't be allowed to have.

If you think a Mossberg 590 is all anyone needs, then life must be a video game to you. Since shotguns do so well CQB and all in call of duty


It isn't the artillery it's the ammunition. Anyway, i'm done arguing with a kid that romanticizes guns. This is silly.

14243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/21/13

spacebat This is silly.


Your responses have been nothing but "silly" since you started posting and not a single person has learned a thing from anything you've said.
It's not my fault you decided to jump into something with cop-out responses. And what makes matters worse is that you actually tried to prove a point and failed so hard that not even the people who share your views could quote you for anything useful.

Yes, by all means keep your opinion and walk way. You tried to start an argument with and brought your artillery without any ammunition. All you buddy.
6211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 9/22/13

Wynd_Stryker wrote:

All guns no. Some types of guns, Hell yes. I mean what the hell does your average joe need an assult rifle for.


People don't seem to understand that AR DOES NOT STAND FOR ASSAULT RIFLE it stands for ArmaLite a manufacturer of among other things SEMI AUTOMATIC MSRs.

An assault rifle is defined as:

as·sault ri·fle
noun
noun: assault rifle; plural noun: assault rifles 1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

The rifles in question ARE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES. They are semi-automatic rifles. One trigger pull one shot.

Please try to learn about the rifles before listening to the media. The media are either outright ignorant or they are fulfilling an agenda.

The issue has never been about automatic weapons which have been highly regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
2194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS
Online
Posted 9/22/13
i own one ar15 4 shotguns 2 pistols 1 rifle
i use em for hunting giving the fact that im from south texas
2 pistols are for self defense and messing around at the ranch with the buddies making crazy 100 to 500 dollar bets on who can hit a watermelon at 200 yards etc etc gets crazy
14243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/22/13 , edited 9/22/13


People don't seem to understand that AR DOES NOT STAND FOR ASSAULT RIFLE it stands for ArmaLite a manufacturer of among other things SEMI AUTOMATIC MSRs.

Please try to learn about the rifles before listening to the media. The media are either outright ignorant or they are fulfilling an agenda.

The issue has never been about automatic weapons which have been highly regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934.


+ Quoted for Truth
I know a lot of you proclaim to hate ignorance, so if you want some truth here it is. By all means people do your own unbiased research if you don't believe us. Or is it that most of you intended to fight dirty all along?
5146 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Ga
Offline
Posted 9/22/13
Yes. OF course we should. The issue is who should be allowed to own guns.

As of right now, a 6 year old cant own a good. no one argues with that. its a bad idea.

But people want to let a 30 year old with the mental capacity of a 6 year old to own a gun. Mention background checks, and the right hand side cries foul.
14243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/22/13

lewfkrad wrote:

Yes. OF course we should. The issue is who should be allowed to own guns.

As of right now, a 6 year old cant own a good. no one argues with that. its a bad idea.

But people want to let a 30 year old with the mental capacity of a 6 year old to own a gun. Mention background checks, and the right hand side cries foul.


Not only is that the minority of the minority, but those people don't pass background checks. Even if they did, there's a black market going around and many of them have acquired resources from within the USA and outside the USA. (yes, and many of the sellers that have frequented my area have got their supplies from Mexico where guns are out-right banned)

And before anyone trys to point fingers, I my my stuff legally
5146 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Ga
Offline
Posted 9/22/13
So youre saying doing background checks and mental evaluations is useless?
14243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/22/13 , edited 9/22/13

lewfkrad wrote:

So youre saying doing background checks and mental evaluations is useless?




Mostly yes but go try and buy a gun right now legally. You WILL get a background check. And even if you don't, im sure youll find other effective means if terrorizing if you ever plan to fo so in the future.
5146 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Ga
Offline
Posted 9/22/13
Are you kidding my? my 16 year old brother bought one at a gun show without showing ID.

On top of that, people will still abuse drugs EVEN though its illegal. are those laws pointless, and we should just let people swallow smoke and inject anything they want?
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 9/22/13 , edited 9/22/13

lewfkrad wrote:

So youre saying doing background checks and mental evaluations is useless?


He's a kid with a gun fetish. It's useless to have a meaningful debate with people like him. Just, let it go.

For christ sakes he can't even hold a gun correctly.
14243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/22/13

lewfkrad wrote:

Are you kidding my? my 16 year old brother bought one at a gun show without showing ID.

On top of that, people will still abuse drugs EVEN though its illegal. are those laws pointless, and we should just let people swallow smoke and inject anything they want?


Yes and he can do that in the neighboor hood market. And btw, I went through a background check earlier this week for a PART of a gun (ar15 sttipped lower reciever), but iy matters not. You are ignorant in the details conaidering your surprise that your brother got a gun. Good for him btw

And yes drugs shouldnt be regulated in the fashion they are now. And im saying this commibg from a background of no smoking and drinking.Though, that is another topic.
14243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/22/13

spacebat wrote:


lewfkrad wrote:

So youre saying doing background checks and mental evaluations is useless?


He's a kid with a gun fetish. It's useless to have a meaningful debate with people like him. Just, let it go.

For christ sakes he can't even hold a gun correctly.


You pretended to have cards in the table and i called your bluff.

Though I find your interest in my picture amusing. Whay do you want, a picture of me doing the modern isosceles wih my autograph? Its certainly worth more than your two cents
14243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/22/13 , edited 9/22/13
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Heres something from Harvard to you all.

"
CONCLUSION: (taken straight from the article above)
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least
the general objection that the persuasiveness of
social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach
the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.

Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents
of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns
equal less death mantra, especially since they argue
public policy ought to be based on that mantra.


To bear that burden would at the very least require
showing that a large number of nations
with more
guns have more death and that nations that
have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved
substantial reductions in criminal violence
(or suicide). But those correlations are not
observed
when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

"

Seriously, you guys have age old arguments. Many of which I can argue FAR better than you guys can on your behalf. I've been strongly anti-gun for 18 years but as you can see, it just holds no practical value to live by such views.
First  Prev  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.