First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Obama wants you to take your guns before he implodes the economy.
64240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

micdeath wrote:


Tethler wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:


I congratulate you on your nation's low firearms-related murder rate. Honestly, I do. However, I must kindly invite you to keep your statistics away from my rights. Rights, I might add, that I spent 8 years in uniform protecting, including the right of my fellow citizens to disagree with me. . .


So you're saying that you're fine with the occasional massacre as long as you keep the right to own a small piece of metal that launches out smaller pieces of metal.


Loaded question much there?

Also, simply having a gun doesn't lead to massacres. They would have happened anyway. Gun or No gun.


Like the guy that recently went into a school in China and stabbed 20 kids? Oh yeah, none of them died. And sure, it was a loaded question. However, he said "keep your statistics away from my rights" implying that despite evidence of gun control working in other parts of the world he still wants no change.
Lexxuk 
61231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

mhibicke wrote:

Got the swords and little skirts covered, although I personally think biker leathers would be safer (without sacrificing sexy). Zombies should have a hard time chewing through tanned leather. Ammo would certainly be an issue, and I'd want to save rifle ammo and shotgun shells for hunting game, but you can't say that a crate of RPGs wouldn't come in handy against a zombie horde.
I have a plan for a zombie assault vehicle (shown below), on which I intend to mount a holster for my cricket bat.


That's an interesting point, leathers vs zombies, wouldn't textiles with built in kevlar be a better option though? All that leather you're going to end up sweating quite a lot which would reduce the sex appeal a bit, nothing says sexy like the scent of sweat permeating through the putrid smell of zombie brains "ahh, it's not me, it's the zombies!!". With textiles you may lose a bit of durability, and cleanability, them things are a nightmare to clean, but, you should be able to slot in some nice offensive zombie killing parts into the armour holders, or stick with spikey metal bits so when a zombie bites your arm (s)he gets impaled by a sharp spike.

Meh, this is where scientists come in handy, where is the survival guide for zombies that measures the survival rate of leather vs textiles?
66301 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / somewhere over th...
Offline
Posted 12/22/12
Far too often in this country we seem to blame everything but the guilty party.
60157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 12/22/12

Dfresh0s wrote:

i believe many of you fail to see the true point of the 2nd amendment , it is incase the government decides to rise against the people , or ignore the people the people must have a means to rise back, that is the true purpose of the second amendment , not as much for hunters ect. thats liberty and pursuit of happiness


I'd been waiting for someone to say this.
6612 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 12/22/12
I think that most everyone agrees that banning gun ownership would only keep us people that want to hunt and protect our loved ones from doing so while bad people (the kind of people we dont want to have guns) will still have guns, just illegaly. Anybody who disagrees with that is somewhat uneducated.

Personally i do believe the following should be in order.

Much better background checks should be made.
Alot of people like to own ''assault weapons" for which is not wrong but classes to own them should be taken and licences should only be given to those deemed worthy by professionals.
hunting rifles dont pose much of a threat because even in the hands of a expert, average hunting firearms does not stack up to ar-15s or m16s.

Obama is messing with things he doesnt know anything about and thinking like a child. ''guns are hurting people so i will ban them'', what about cigarettes?
quick example....second hand smoke killed more than 3 times as many people as guns did last year. SECOND SECOND SECONDhandsmoke. The reason he wont ban cigarettes is because when people die from smoke its much more subtle. Doesnt make as big a commotion as shootings do.

People who do not have the temptation to buy guns, hunt, or collect them want immediate action from our president and he will try to meet their needs.

5261 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / ICQ / Skype (ask)
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

KiteCross wrote:


Sesshoumaru-sama wrote:

I vote for nukes in every house. More nukes mean more peace and freedom.


Yaaayyy!! Mutually assured destruction, if you blow me up I'll definitely blow you up.

What you mad bro? Come at me bro.



I'am at ease that you understood the greatness of this concept *looking trigger-happy*
38825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Lexxuk wrote:

Meh, this is where scientists come in handy, where is the survival guide for zombies that measures the survival rate of leather vs textiles?


Aha! I am a research scientist with a body armor fetish! No, I really am.
Lexxuk 
61231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 12/22/12 , edited 12/22/12

Jdaimond wrote:

I think that most everyone agrees that banning gun ownership would only keep us people that want to hunt and protect our loved ones from doing so while bad people (the kind of people we dont want to have guns) will still have guns, just illegaly. Anybody who disagrees with that is somewhat uneducated.



I'm highly educated and you're correct if guns were illegal only criminals would carry guns, although if bread were made illegal then only criminals would eat bread. You've created a circle of never-ending violence.

Innocent Person : Oh, I don't want a gun, they are bad!
Naughty Criminal : Let's go rob that Innocent Person's house, they may be armed, bring a gun!!
Innocent Person : Arghh, robbers! Nooo!
Naughty Criminal : Shoot, err, shoot him!
Gun : BANG
Innocent Person : Tell my mother.. I..... *dies*
News Reader : There has been a shooting, and someone died, in other news, I bought shares in Gunz R Uz!
Another Innocent Person : Oh no, gun crime, I feel unsafe, I should buy a gun to protect myself!
Naughty Criminal : Let's go rob that Another Innocent Person's house, they may be armed, bring a gun!!
Another Innocent Person : EEPP, a robber *shoots the robber*
Naughty Criminal : ARGHH... tell my mother... I... *dies*
Even More Naughty Criminal : Shoot, Naughty Criminal got shot, I need to buy bigger guys.....

The threat of violence against someone doesn't remove the threat of violence, it escalates the threat of violence, if people carry guns for protection, then criminals will carry guns so they can invoke violence against people who carry guns, the only way of removing that threat of violence is to remove guns. You also remove guns from criminals by making the laws for carrying guns harsh.

Robbing a store with a banana : 5 years prison
Robbing a store with a gun : 15 years prison

Gun laws work because they add a sentence on top of a normal sentence, if you're going to be locked up for 15 years if you carry a gun or not then there is no disincentive to not carry a gun. If you fired a gun in Japan for instance you would be breaking 3 laws, and gun crime in Japan is so rare that not even the Yakuza carry guns, think about that, the Yakuza, criminals, really pretty vicious criminals, not carrying guns.

/edit @ above - omg, you are? That makes you my perfect woman, other than the zombie fetish part that is
4980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Lexxuk wrote:


Jdaimond wrote:

I think that most everyone agrees that banning gun ownership would only keep us people that want to hunt and protect our loved ones from doing so while bad people (the kind of people we dont want to have guns) will still have guns, just illegaly. Anybody who disagrees with that is somewhat uneducated.



I'm highly educated and you're correct if guns were illegal only criminals would carry guns, although if bread were made illegal then only criminals would eat bread. You've created a circle of never-ending violence.

Innocent Person : Oh, I don't want a gun, they are bad!
Naughty Criminal : Let's go rob that Innocent Person's house, they may be armed, bring a gun!!
Innocent Person : Arghh, robbers! Nooo!
Naughty Criminal : Shoot, err, shoot him!
Gun : BANG
Innocent Person : Tell my mother.. I..... *dies*
News Reader : There has been a shooting, and someone died, in other news, I bought shares in Gunz R Uz!
Another Innocent Person : Oh no, gun crime, I feel unsafe, I should buy a gun to protect myself!
Naughty Criminal : Let's go rob that Another Innocent Person's house, they may be armed, bring a gun!!
Another Innocent Person : EEPP, a robber *shoots the robber*
Naughty Criminal : ARGHH... tell my mother... I... *dies*
Even More Naughty Criminal : Shoot, Naughty Criminal got shot, I need to buy bigger guys.....

The threat of violence against someone doesn't remove the threat of violence, it escalates the threat of violence, if people carry guns for protection, then criminals will carry guns so they can invoke violence against people who carry guns, the only way of removing that threat of violence is to remove guns. You also remove guns from criminals by making the laws for carrying guns harsh.

Robbing a store with a banana : 5 years prison
Robbing a store with a gun : 15 years prison

Gun laws work because they add a sentence on top of a normal sentence, if you're going to be locked up for 15 years if you carry a gun or not then there is no disincentive to not carry a gun. If you fired a gun in Japan for instance you would be breaking 3 laws, and gun crime in Japan is so rare that not even the Yakuza carry guns, think about that, the Yakuza, criminals, really pretty vicious criminals, not carrying guns.

/edit @ above - omg, you are? That makes you my perfect woman, other than the zombie fetish part that is :P


Criminals and burglars also have the element of surprise on their side. When being burgled it's the home-owner whose caught off-guard since the thief (who will certainly arm themselves) will have considered the chance that the owner will probably hear them.

6612 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Lexxuk wrote:


Jdaimond wrote:

I think that most everyone agrees that banning gun ownership would only keep us people that want to hunt and protect our loved ones from doing so while bad people (the kind of people we dont want to have guns) will still have guns, just illegaly. Anybody who disagrees with that is somewhat uneducated.



I'm highly educated and you're correct if guns were illegal only criminals would carry guns, although if bread were made illegal then only criminals would eat bread. You've created a circle of never-ending violence.

Innocent Person : Oh, I don't want a gun, they are bad!
Naughty Criminal : Let's go rob that Innocent Person's house, they may be armed, bring a gun!!
Innocent Person : Arghh, robbers! Nooo!
Naughty Criminal : Shoot, err, shoot him!
Gun : BANG
Innocent Person : Tell my mother.. I..... *dies*
News Reader : There has been a shooting, and someone died, in other news, I bought shares in Gunz R Uz!
Another Innocent Person : Oh no, gun crime, I feel unsafe, I should buy a gun to protect myself!
Naughty Criminal : Let's go rob that Another Innocent Person's house, they may be armed, bring a gun!!
Another Innocent Person : EEPP, a robber *shoots the robber*
Naughty Criminal : ARGHH... tell my mother... I... *dies*
Even More Naughty Criminal : Shoot, Naughty Criminal got shot, I need to buy bigger guys.....

The threat of violence against someone doesn't remove the threat of violence, it escalates the threat of violence, if people carry guns for protection, then criminals will carry guns so they can invoke violence against people who carry guns, the only way of removing that threat of violence is to remove guns. You also remove guns from criminals by making the laws for carrying guns harsh.

Robbing a store with a banana : 5 years prison
Robbing a store with a gun : 15 years prison

Gun laws work because they add a sentence on top of a normal sentence, if you're going to be locked up for 15 years if you carry a gun or not then there is no disincentive to not carry a gun. If you fired a gun in Japan for instance you would be breaking 3 laws, and gun crime in Japan is so rare that not even the Yakuza carry guns, think about that, the Yakuza, criminals, really pretty vicious criminals, not carrying guns.

/edit @ above - omg, you are? That makes you my perfect woman, other than the zombie fetish part that is :P


first of all, I want to go ahead and clearup that i do believe you are intelligent, i wanted to sprinkle a little drama into my post


point 1: Still, there are a couple flaws in your theory. The law system is very fragile and raising punishment for breaking laws(of such topic) would only put more people in jail for longer periods. this would cost a significant amount of money for which the jail system does not have. I could explain why but lets stay on topic. using more money would just be higher taxes, using money america doesnt have.

Point 2: I grew up in the south. People take holiday pictures with their children holding guns. There is no way the governments can take peoples guns. The safe people i know keep there guns in average around 8K. Thats just the box they keep there guns in, amagine how much monies worth of guns are packed in that safe. Are they going to be paid for their guns? no, not in this economy.

Point 3: RIOTS, you saw how much rioting was done by gay people and most gays are considered soft( not being judge mental just callin it as i see it). amagine people who are the opposite of soft, How bad will them riots be. What is the justice system going to do, stink bombs, night sticks, rubber bullets. The people i grew up with would laugh at such but what the wouldnt laugh at is.......guns. If it got bad enough, You better believe they would use them. Either way, wouldnt any of those things cause the very thing we didnt want, violence?

Point 4: your story didnt make much since( assuming you meant guns not guys at the end) becuase a burglar who can upgrade from a weapon such as a pistol( around 300$) to an assualt rifle(around 1000$ - 2000$) doesnt need to be robbing houses because it will take three hits to pay off the guns.

Point 5: I just realized something, obama isnt really going to ban guns. He says he will try everything and try to get other political divisions to agree but hes just saying that to get people to calm down about the shootings. He doesnt want people to believe that nothing is being done.

Point 6: To your thing about japan, that is correct. last year only 9 peoplewere killed by guns which is crazy but it doesnt mean less were killed. Humanity has always found a way to kill our fellow human. The first was cain who used nothing but a peice of wood. Then there was spears, then there was pointed rocks, then there was knives, bows, catapults, even our fist and the list just goes on. I know its overused but didnt someone just use a knife to stab alot of people in asia? Id like to see obama take our knives. we will be cutting steaks with spoons. that last part was a joke.

The point is that the day obama can take guns away is the day pigs will start flying planes. (catch my joke there?)





796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Bronx
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

sarrukin wrote:


Eddy120876 wrote:

Can we stop this "Obama is taking my right away" crap. I mean seriously can you point to me any rights that were taken away? Can't find one then no need to spew crap. Only right wing nut jobs believe that the President wants to take your rights yet can't prove a damn thing. Ps if you love your guns good for you since you know most have been buying more guns since President Obama became the Potus.


Will Obama try to take our guns? chances are no, but I've seen plenty of liberal and foreign commentators between now and last Friday stating that is exactly what they would want to happen. are these people apt to get what they want? probably not...would I be naive not to be on my guard against those types of people, absolutely yes.

also as far as rights being taken away...
NDAA (goodbye due process and habeous corpus)
patriot act (bye 4th amendment)
drone stikes killing American Citizens (due process again)
TSA groping me every time i go to the air port (4th amendment)
death tax (right to property)
"progressive" income tax (right to keep what I earn)
people have been detained for what they write on the internet (there goes 1st amendment)
federal government threatening the state of Texas with a blockade in the event Texes passes a law to restrict the TSA (bye 10 amendment)

i can go on and on and on...if you really think you arent losing rights on daily basis, you are naive...or are you one of those people who only complain about rights and war when a republican is in office. (by the way im not a republican)


NDAA-Section 1022 declares that “No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States . . . to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.” This section, which exists already in current law, prevents the closure of Guantanamo by preventing the Defense Department from replacing it with any state-side facility.

See that has to get Veto by the president and created by congress so you see (no created by the President) ps when ever the president demanded that those accuse of terrorism to be tried in America Fox started calling the president and asking him not to do so because those so call terrorist will get away with a lot of rights.
Patriot Act created by congress and approved by exPresident Bush,resign because the Republicans demanded a compromise and right wing on Fox demanded because we need to protect America from terrorism.


Drones killing American.....Any evidence about that?
Progressive tax ask the Republican that keep stalling about that
Umm the guy that go arrested for the internet post is a lie he was demoted and when he was advice to stop making inflammatory post about the commander in chief. FYI once you sign the dotted line your 1st amendment go out of the door.
796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Bronx
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

miserykitsune wrote:


Lexxuk wrote:


Jdaimond wrote:

I think that most everyone agrees that banning gun ownership would only keep us people that want to hunt and protect our loved ones from doing so while bad people (the kind of people we dont want to have guns) will still have guns, just illegaly. Anybody who disagrees with that is somewhat uneducated.



I'm highly educated and you're correct if guns were illegal only criminals would carry guns, although if bread were made illegal then only criminals would eat bread. You've created a circle of never-ending violence.

Innocent Person : Oh, I don't want a gun, they are bad!
Naughty Criminal : Let's go rob that Innocent Person's house, they may be armed, bring a gun!!
Innocent Person : Arghh, robbers! Nooo!
Naughty Criminal : Shoot, err, shoot him!
Gun : BANG
Innocent Person : Tell my mother.. I..... *dies*
News Reader : There has been a shooting, and someone died, in other news, I bought shares in Gunz R Uz!
Another Innocent Person : Oh no, gun crime, I feel unsafe, I should buy a gun to protect myself!
Naughty Criminal : Let's go rob that Another Innocent Person's house, they may be armed, bring a gun!!
Another Innocent Person : EEPP, a robber *shoots the robber*
Naughty Criminal : ARGHH... tell my mother... I... *dies*
Even More Naughty Criminal : Shoot, Naughty Criminal got shot, I need to buy bigger guys.....

The threat of violence against someone doesn't remove the threat of violence, it escalates the threat of violence, if people carry guns for protection, then criminals will carry guns so they can invoke violence against people who carry guns, the only way of removing that threat of violence is to remove guns. You also remove guns from criminals by making the laws for carrying guns harsh.

Robbing a store with a banana : 5 years prison
Robbing a store with a gun : 15 years prison

Gun laws work because they add a sentence on top of a normal sentence, if you're going to be locked up for 15 years if you carry a gun or not then there is no disincentive to not carry a gun. If you fired a gun in Japan for instance you would be breaking 3 laws, and gun crime in Japan is so rare that not even the Yakuza carry guns, think about that, the Yakuza, criminals, really pretty vicious criminals, not carrying guns.

/edit @ above - omg, you are? That makes you my perfect woman, other than the zombie fetish part that is :P


Criminals and burglars also have the element of surprise on their side. When being burgled it's the home-owner whose caught off-guard since the thief (who will certainly arm themselves) will have considered the chance that the owner will probably hear them.




So true and most home burglers do this during night time when most home owners are a sleep. Also theres a bigger chance you kill a family member by mistake then a robber.
25221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Eddy120876 wrote:


sarrukin wrote:


Eddy120876 wrote:

Can we stop this "Obama is taking my right away" crap. I mean seriously can you point to me any rights that were taken away? Can't find one then no need to spew crap. Only right wing nut jobs believe that the President wants to take your rights yet can't prove a damn thing. Ps if you love your guns good for you since you know most have been buying more guns since President Obama became the Potus.


Will Obama try to take our guns? chances are no, but I've seen plenty of liberal and foreign commentators between now and last Friday stating that is exactly what they would want to happen. are these people apt to get what they want? probably not...would I be naive not to be on my guard against those types of people, absolutely yes.

also as far as rights being taken away...
NDAA (goodbye due process and habeous corpus)
patriot act (bye 4th amendment)
drone stikes killing American Citizens (due process again)
TSA groping me every time i go to the air port (4th amendment)
death tax (right to property)
"progressive" income tax (right to keep what I earn)
people have been detained for what they write on the internet (there goes 1st amendment)
federal government threatening the state of Texas with a blockade in the event Texes passes a law to restrict the TSA (bye 10 amendment)

i can go on and on and on...if you really think you arent losing rights on daily basis, you are naive...or are you one of those people who only complain about rights and war when a republican is in office. (by the way im not a republican)


NDAA-Section 1022 declares that “No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States . . . to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.” This section, which exists already in current law, prevents the closure of Guantanamo by preventing the Defense Department from replacing it with any state-side facility.

See that has to get Veto by the president and created by congress so you see (no created by the President) ps when ever the president demanded that those accuse of terrorism to be tried in America Fox started calling the president and asking him not to do so because those so call terrorist will get away with a lot of rights.
Patriot Act created by congress and approved by exPresident Bush,resign because the Republicans demanded a compromise and right wing on Fox demanded because we need to protect America from terrorism.


Drones killing American.....Any evidence about that?
Progressive tax ask the Republican that keep stalling about that
Umm the guy that go arrested for the internet post is a lie he was demoted and when he was advice to stop making inflammatory post about the commander in chief. FYI once you sign the dotted line your 1st amendment go out of the door.


http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-30/politics/politics_targeting-us-citizens_1_al-awlaki-yemeni-embassy-drone-missile?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://rt.com/usa/news/marine-arrest-facebook-us-204/

I'm not a republican, so saying "but the republicans do this and that and Fox said blah blah blah" doesn't work on me, i was fighting these rights violations when bush was in office too.

It doesn't frankly matter who the hell is responsible for taking rights away from people, the end result is the same, the people lose freedom either way.
2064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 12/22/12
Are gun law restrictions even possible in this country (USA)?
64240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Jdaimond wrote:

I think that most everyone agrees that banning gun ownership would only keep us people that want to hunt and protect our loved ones from doing so while bad people (the kind of people we dont want to have guns) will still have guns, just illegaly. Anybody who disagrees with that is somewhat uneducated.


Sure, some criminals will still have guns. However, the vast majority of criminals aren't professional criminals. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity committed by individuals that are not career criminals. How many of these people that commit gun related crimes do you think would know how to go about finding a gun on the black market? If I wanted to go rob a bank and wanted a gun to do so I personally do not know anyone that would sell me a gun. What makes you think every criminal does?


Jdaimond wrote:

Personally i do believe the following should be in order.

Much better background checks should be made.
Alot of people like to own ''assault weapons" for which is not wrong but classes to own them should be taken and licences should only be given to those deemed worthy by professionals.
hunting rifles dont pose much of a threat because even in the hands of a expert, average hunting firearms does not stack up to ar-15s or m16s.


I agree with you 100% on this point. Though i think these steps should be the bare minimum. Personally I wouldn't be bothered if there was a full ban on all guns. Do I think this will ever happen in the US? Not a snowballs chance in hell. The current conversations about an assault weapons ban and a ban on extended ammunition clips are a good start though.


Jdaimond wrote:
Obama is messing with things he doesnt know anything about and thinking like a child. ''guns are hurting people so i will ban them'', what about cigarettes?
quick example....second hand smoke killed more than 3 times as many people as guns did last year. SECOND SECOND SECONDhandsmoke. The reason he wont ban cigarettes is because when people die from smoke its much more subtle. Doesnt make as big a commotion as shootings do.


First off, Obama has done literally nothing during his term as president to restrict guns. In fact, he has passed 2 bills that expand gun rights. You can look here for a timeline of his gun control track record. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/obama-gun-control-timeline_n_2338860.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FPolitics+%28Politics+on+The+Huffington+Post%29

Second, the cigarette example is bad because you are harming yourself with cigarettes. With guns you are inflicting harm on others.

For someone that calls others "uneducated" for disagreeing with your clearly uninformed opinion, you could do with a bit of education yourself.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.