Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
18
... LastLast
  1. #141
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    SNIP.

    Speak for yourself. I hunt and fish all the time. In fact it is deer season where I live.

  2. #142
    I own a handgun for personal home protection. Once I quit being lazy I'll apply for my concealed carry permit, though I don't see myself carrying concealed too often.

    I strongly believe those who are qualified to own handguns for personal and home protection, should absolutely be able to. In my view, handgun ownership requirements should be similar to getting a security clearance. No felonies or other violent crimes, no mental health issues, no drug/alcohol issues, no severe financial issues, no affiliation or support for violent/terrorist groups, and for gun ownership, certification of proper firearm safety training.

    Of course that would require a much more extensive investigation than a simple background check, including extra costs, which should be paid for in part by the prospective owner, with contribution from the NRA and the state, maybe the feds too. We need more responsible owners, and less irresponsible owners.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Holofernes View Post
    I personally think having at least one year military service and a 1a reputation ( no drug abuse, no alcohole addiction and so on) should be a requirements for possessing a gun.
    I think forcing military service on people who just want to hunt is extreme.

    I do agree that everyone who wants to possess a weapon should be required to train regularly with it.

  4. #144
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by hakujinbakasama View Post
    Hello, I'm an American Gun owner.
    The first step is always to admit that you got a problem, theres hope my young padawan.

  5. #145
    Mechagnome Syenite's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Scandinavia
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    Or he could have locked it in a safe, like what most EU countries require. Anyone that does not secure their firearms when not in use is irresponsible.
    Said accident hapened 31 years ago, in Europe. Gun control back wasnt as good as it is now - nor were safety precautions. Their father is fully to blame for leaving the safe unlocked, not going to argue about that. What i dont like is having weapon around, which obviously are aimed to kill. They dont make mé feel safer...

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommo View Post
    Wrong again boyo UK had 14 ranked 29th US had 9,369 Ranked 1st. Survey from a few years ago.

    I'm not talking about comparative studies. I'm talking about objective isolated facts.

    What are the odds of getting murdered by a gun in America? They're pretty low.

    You can figure it out.

    11,000/310,000,000 = ?


    and if you want to do comparitive studies the violent crime is higher in the uk and multiple victim shootings are about the same per capita in Europe. Germany had the worst child school shootings of the past decade

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by MushroomBomb View Post
    How rigorous is the process for being allowed to purchase and own firearms? If this is a state-by-state thing, just mention how it is wherever you live. Are there any personality tests, any medical checks required, inquiries into mental health, any of these things? It always strikes me that these accidents happen because people who should not be allowed to own weapons do, not simply because 'everybody' has a weapon.
    In my home state of Pennsylvania ownership of a firearm is contingent upon a background check. This allows a person to purchase a firearm. In order to carry a firearm for personal protection "concealed". There is an application process, non refundable fee (fee is forfeit regardless of completion of application even if denied). There is then an education course required where the applicant sits with a state sherif or constable where the state agent decides if you are mentally and emotionally stable.

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommo View Post



    Anndddddd also wrong, ding ding we have a winner.

    I have no routine hatred, I dislike many laws you have and when they appear in discussion boards I discuss (FCKHOLYSHITNOWAY).

    I dont insult people and when I do the mods are usually quick to notice, so you'll be aware of it, im very blunt and honest with people though, I can tell your not used to that so you can start learning right now. Cut the shit and stop making wild accusations in your posts. You cant insult (developed) countries on these forums you can only criticise and disagree, which is what im doing.

    Also, I remember you in a thread a couple days ago mocking the US specifically. You dont attack the principles you attack the people. You can see your own post history. I dont have to look it up for you

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by slozon View Post
    You expect me to chase that deer around and stab it with a knife?


    This is 2012 people still hunt for food.
    Make a spear and hunt like a real man!
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  10. #150
    Scarab Lord Zoranon's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Czech Republic, Euro-Atlantic civilisation
    Posts
    4,071
    Quote Originally Posted by tombstoner139 View Post
    Amendment II

    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.

    source "http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html"

    The state militias created by the constitution where later incorporated into the national guard. "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/10503"
    and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903"
    Its my understanding the national guard is a federally controlled part of the us military. The state and federal military where supposed to remain separate. but due to the Federal governments need to rapidly expand its military. the national guard was formed. basically the federal government adsorbed all the states military. this i beleave is an example of how a constitutional amendment can be circumvented. placing almost all military power in the hands of the federal government.
    yes you can have a state defense force composed of people in the community but they are vastly out gunned. Technology has shifted the balance of military power from the states to the federal government. also within the constitution the federal government can't grant money for the creation of a military for a period of no more then 2 years: so they do it every year. circumventing the Constitution with a legal technicality. thus we get a massive federal military i think the founding fathers would be aghast at its size.
    a) As one of the previous posters has already said, go read the federalist papers before spouting things like this

    b) Once you finish reading them, read the 2 links I provided in the post you quoted

    c) Profit and finally realise that in the US there is an individual right to bear arms, PERIOD
    Quote Originally Posted by b2121945 View Post
    Don't see what's wrong with fighting alongside Nazi Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by JfmC View Post
    someone who disagrees with me is simply wrong.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceshigh View Post
    Simply put, the US has a gun culture that I (and many other people around the world) will never understand. I don't understand how people can sit there and defend it. I'm sure there are responsible gun owners, but it's the gun culture that I will never be able to wrap my head around.
    I don't understand a lot of people from other countries that are fine with police forces and military having weapons but can't be armed themselves.

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    most civilized countries abolished it long ago. Being Austrian, one of the very few first-world countries with conscription, I spent my year in the military and used it to become a medic. Others weren't so lucky and basically wasted a year getting yelled at by people calling themselves soldiers. Soldiers, who's only battle they've ever been in was keeping their gut from hiding their balls. And many didn't make it
    I spent my "conscript period" in medic training too. I'm Finnish though. :3

    I don't know, just holding gun doesn't make me want to shoot someone. Really, if someone want's to get rid of somebody then he can do it without a gun as well. Shooting at a target-thingy(?!) and scoring bulls-eyes was actually fun.

  13. #153
    Deleted
    I own a Corsair K90 keyboard.




    What.....you don't think that counts as a weapon?

    I would use it to beat internet trolls.
    Last edited by mmoc13485c3c3f; 2012-11-28 at 12:16 AM.

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoranon View Post
    a) As one of the previous posters has already said, go read the federalist papers before spouting things like this

    b) Once you finish reading them, read the 2 links I provided in the post you quoted

    c) Profit and finally realise that in the US there is an individual right to bear arms, PERIOD
    I have read the federalist papers. i got it free on my kindal from amazon.

    i cant find your links... i gave it a good look .... it may be in a different thread please relink.

    yes there is a individual right to bear arms. i consider that self evident and not in question, but you asked for an instance where an amendment of the constitution can be outdated without the use of another amendment: with citations. i simply complied.

    if you disagree that the formation of the national guard didn't effectively strip the states of any viable means of a modern defense, please state why. also consider the various weapon bans put in place that also violate the second amendment and the national guard is part of the federal government. yes each state can have its own militia in the traditional sense. formed from the population of each state and armed with the best/most modern weapons available. not happening... so yea i consider the second amendment violated: with citation
    Last edited by tombstoner139; 2012-11-28 at 12:23 AM.

  15. #155
    Wasn't there a city in the States where EVERY house is required to have a gun by law, and the crime rate in the city was 0 or something similar?

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by slozon View Post
    Speak for yourself. I hunt and fish all the time. In fact it is deer season where I live.
    If you did read my post, I did clearly said that I considerd hunting to be a legitimate reason for gun ownership. While I dont hunt, I dont agree with killing animals for sport, I dont judge those who do hunt legaly.

    Rather my point was that I dont see any reason why you would go hunting with an Assault Rifle, Submachine gun, Semi automatics, Automatic pistols.

  17. #157
    Legendary! Collegeguy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by dantian View Post
    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but should push come to shove the military would crush any rebellion effortlessly. Tanks and drones beat well-armed civilians.
    Please, no army in the world would stand a chance against the largest gun ownership militia the world has every seen.

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommo View Post
    Were discussing gun crime, im not about to waste my time proving you wrong on several different subjects so quit going offtopic, if you care so much fucking google it.



    Mocking? Is English your first language, I didnt mock anyone, I addressed certain topics and referenced extreme views.

    And im done with your rubbish, stop making up shit because you have no argument to fall on, its a waste of my time replying back to these posts. If you want the definition of "attacking people" then read the posts your aiming at me, false arguments backed up by repetition.
    I remember your previous posts. You even said something along the lines of "Wow another gun crime in the US What else is new!"

    Hey look its the weekly gun crime story, "still not allowed to generalize!"

    'Rolls eyes into back of head'
    you try to push your agenda in a snarky manner

    And no English isnt my first language

    you also didnt address my points.

    11,000 gun murders in a country of 310 million is really low no matter which way you cut it. It's not as big a problem as you would like it to be

    ignore it all you want its the objective truth
    Last edited by Raidenx; 2012-11-28 at 12:29 AM.

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Moadar View Post
    I don't understand a lot of people from other countries that are fine with police forces and military having weapons but can't be armed themselves.
    If you think your arms will be able to protect you from your military arms, well gg LOL. I usually don't respond with that kind of stuff, but in this case I kinda felt I had to.

    I don't fear that I will have to protect myself from the police or military and even if I did, a handgun won't do shit against a tank. You can tell me all you want you feel safer with a gun in case you need to kill the US military someday, I'll just give you a high five and a good luck.
    Last edited by Aceshigh; 2012-11-28 at 12:31 AM.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by klaps_05 View Post
    Wasn't there a city in the States where EVERY house is required to have a gun by law, and the crime rate in the city was 0 or something similar?
    Here in New England almost everyone has a gun and the crime rate is the lowest in the country

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 12:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Tommo View Post
    I think that post was 2 months ago, and it was heavy sarcasm laced with the truth. Im brutally honest with my opinion of things I find unjust, so your most likely not understanding me right, coupled with the fact its near impossible to convey emotions ect over text on the internet.

    I dont make personal attacks on people and I certainly dont despise 300 million people because of 1% or less of them.
    good well maybe cut out the ad hominem attacks. Not everyone who likes guns is a "redneck" or "gun nut"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •