RE: Guns

RE: Guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Guns

There is too much regulation already.

10% (28)

There should be far more stringent background checks.

15% (39)

Reinstate the ban on assault guns.

11% (29)

Make conceal and carry the law in all 50 states.

10% (28)

Make gun classes mandatory.

16% (42)

The only guns availible to the public should be hunting rifles.

4% (12)

The 2nd amendment includes individuals owning firearms.

21% (54)

The 2nd amendment does not include individuals, it's been distorted.

3% (8)

I wish my country had gun laws similar to the US

0% (1)

I don't want my country to have gun laws like the US

6% (16)

Total Votes : 257

(last vote on : 2/2/2013 9:53:19 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 12:46:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Do you get much out of the acre and a half if there's hogs in the area? Considering the previous owner put up chain link fence around the perimeter of the property, yes. My biggest problem is the occasional deer that jumps the fence to eat the corn stalks. This winter I am in the process of putting up an 8 foot game fence around the garden plot, which is going up in about two weeks, I have arranged for about 4 truckloads of soil from a local feed lot to be delivered and I am going to borrow my neighbor's small tractor to turn that into the soil which is about 50% red clay. If you want a good business opportunity, fencing contractors are making a small fortune around here. Reinforced chain link fences around homes and garden plots around here are big business. Unfortunately it is not cost effective to fence pasture and hay fields that way. Of course if the drought dont break soon it is not going to matter, a lot of ranchers and farmers are going to go under. The only ones still making a decent profit are using well water for irrigation and watering animals. I use well water to water the garden and yard, and plan to put up a water filter to use it in the house this spring after tax season.

Moonhead -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 12:53:56 PM)
With wild pigs and deer about, you'd have to be pretty stupid not to manage to make a living out of fencing, I'd hope. Hope the drought breaks soon for you, anyway.

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 12:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead With wild pigs and deer about, you'd have to be pretty stupid not to manage to make a living out of fencing, I'd hope. Hope the drought breaks soon for you, anyway. Thanks, unfortunately, it is the common opinion that what we need is a tropical storm or Hurricane to come ashore between Corpus Christi and Matagorda bay, and come straight north and stall over this part of the state. That would at least fill the lakes and stock ponds, which would be a help. To really do the job, we need about a month of slow soaking rain, followed by about 12 months of weekly rains over the area. Of course there are states on the great plains that are in just as bad if not worse shape.

Level -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 1:11:44 PM)
We finally got out of drought, but I'm on the coast, it was a bit easier.

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 1:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level We finally got out of drought, but I'm on the coast, it was a bit easier. Makes mental note to hijack the rain in Leval's area for the next 10 or 15 years.

Focus50 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 1:26:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I really hate going here because I don't want to turn the thread into something else. We can't stop people from illegally crossing the border and those are just folks determined to get themselves across. We can't do it with immigrants, we can't do it with drugs, and we can't do it about guns. It's been rather pitiful on all three counts. "Something else"? You mean like smoked hog and a new political administration? lol As everyone but the CM admins understand, discussions are inclined to diverge a few days in and frankly, as long as it remains civil, I don't see the biggie.... It's easy to pour scorn on those trying to do a near impossible job but you likely know as well as I do, the US will NOT be a better place if you just throw your borders open and channel the saved funding into other areas. Welfare, for starters, judging from the spike in unemployment along your southern border and the human tsunami that'd replace the relative trickle.... About 12 months ago, a bureaucratic think tank (oxymoron if ever there was one) from our own State government proposed legalising drugs because the "war" against was virtually lost. (law enforcement being a State responsibility) Pretty much what we've come to expect from public servants getting 6 figures to shuffle paper in ivory towers.... Well you can imagine the furore from Joe Public. Anarchy is not an answer to anything, but the malaise you get when good people who are able do nothing. You fight the good fight. Being bureaucrats, they're only thinking from a budgetry angle - which brought the irony of 6 figured bureaucrats sitting around "thinking". Never mind your borders. Thirty thousand annual gun deaths (or 40 times the western world's average) is a already a case of good who are able, doing nothing - for waaaay too long.... Sure as hell someone there "representing the people" orta be ashamed - many someones.... Focus.

Winterapple -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 3:13:25 PM)
FR Protecting yourself and your domesticated animals against wildlife predators is a legit reason to own a shotgun in certain rural and remote areas. Mountain lions, bears, wild hogs, coyotes, 8 foot ground rattlers, etc. On my families land we've been deviled by wild hogs. Dangerous animals, aggressive animals. Rather large with enormous tusks that could kill a man. A great many people feed themselves and their families with hunting and fishing. Hard to kill a duck or a pheasant with a bow. In some remote areas the nearest police could be hours away. If Dick and Perry show up a shotgun might not be the worst thing to have on hand. Country life is different than city life or suburbia. But there's no need for an assault rifle in any of these places. Self defense and hunting don't require them. The argument that because gun ownership is a right the question of why a certain weapon is needed can't be brought into the conversation is to me silly. Americans have the right to free speech but there are restrictions on it nonetheless. You can't legally threaten the president or call in a bomb threat. There are slander and libel laws. Americans have the right to vote but you have to be an adult and the right to vote can be taken away from you if you are a convicted felon. Assault weapons exist for one purpose to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They should only be in the hands of the military. If you believe you need assault weapons to protect yourself from the US military, that you must have them on hand to kill American soldiers please remove the I support the troops bumper sticker from your vehicle or better yet find another country to move to.

Level -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 3:20:35 PM)
Lol at "Dick and Perry" [:D]

Faltron -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 3:33:56 PM)
Do you mean that same military that Pres. Obama is now asking members of... "Will you shoot American Civilians if I ask you to?" The reason for the second admendment is... “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”~ George Washington

Level -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 3:41:36 PM)
I'm having trouble placing where the president said that...

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 3:45:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faltron Do you mean that same military that Pres. Obama is now asking members of... "Will you shoot American Civilians if I ask you to?" The reason for the second admendment is... “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”~ George Washington While the quote is indeed George Washington's, the question attributed to President Obama is a bald faced pile of lies and bullshit, which of course gives an adequate estimation of the IQ of anyone that says it is the truth.

tazzygirl -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 3:46:50 PM)
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-to-top-brass-will-you-fire-on-american-citizens/ LOL... watch the video.... you will know why they need tinfoil hats.

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 3:52:09 PM)
You can make money putting that shit out for public consumption? Really? Man have I got an Idea for a business, I can make Fox news look truthful, and when a Republican is in office, I can do the same thing about them. Now I just need to buy a small cable network....

deathtothepixies -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 3:58:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Cant we just get an online petition to remove all elected officials in Washington, including President Obama and put BamaD, Karata, and Tazzy in charge? jesus, I am not sure which is scarier, your love of guns or the idea that Kirata should be in charge of anything other than the TV remote

Politesub53 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 4:18:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Well this does raise an interesting point about frame of reference... the actual occurence of hunting in the US although an anachronism, does remain part of a direct lineage going back to the colonist/monarchist split. In England, all wildlife belonged to the Crown (the charge for poaching was 'Taking the king's deer', and was a no-no for peasants, barring the occasional bunny-bop. The elite were allowed all sorts of sports and gluttonous feasting on the results of the carnage, but the average person was already getting their animal food from knackers and fishermen at the time Daniel Boone was splitting bullets and kilting 'Bars'. The image of the lone woodsman in the US remained one of providing food for one's own table. Even though it has morphed into today's alcohol fueled spree shooting where countless deer, corn feeders, floodlights, and the occasional enemy hunter die annually, the mythical image remains. It is a twin of the Gary Cooper lone hero with a six-shooter making entire communities safe against hirsute and unkempt gangs. The closest the Brits have to that iconic image is something called I believe 'Morris Dancing'... Your "vast" knowledge of English history is "astounding" to put it mildly. [8\|]

PeonForHer -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 4:39:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Well this does raise an interesting point about frame of reference... the actual occurence of hunting in the US although an anachronism, does remain part of a direct lineage going back to the colonist/monarchist split. In England, all wildlife belonged to the Crown (the charge for poaching was 'Taking the king's deer', and was a no-no for peasants, barring the occasional bunny-bop. The elite were allowed all sorts of sports and gluttonous feasting on the results of the carnage, but the average person was already getting their animal food from knackers and fishermen at the time Daniel Boone was splitting bullets and kilting 'Bars'. The image of the lone woodsman in the US remained one of providing food for one's own table. Even though it has morphed into today's alcohol fueled spree shooting where countless deer, corn feeders, floodlights, and the occasional enemy hunter die annually, the mythical image remains. It is a twin of the Gary Cooper lone hero with a six-shooter making entire communities safe against hirsute and unkempt gangs. The closest the Brits have to that iconic image is something called I believe 'Morris Dancing'... Your "vast" knowledge of English history is "astounding" to put it mildly. [8\|] To be fair, my image of the standard gun-toting hunting fan in the USA is of a dangerously obese, sweating lump of an overworked businessman shoe-horning himself out of a four-by-four in order to risk a coronary waddling across rough terrain at a brisk pace for over thirty minutes, farting profusely, while shooting at animals whose meat - given the time and expense involved - he could have bought for far less in the supermarket. Having blown the brains out of a tiny, half crippled baby deer, he'll pick up his booty and drive to the nearest bar where, in order to celebrate his hunting prowess, he'll shovel obscene quantities of steak, fries, and gassy weak beer into his belly before driving home to his wife, who's spent the night watching erotic films and nostalgically reminiscing about the days, decades ago, when her husband could last get it up and give her a seeing-to. However, I'm sure that this is just as silly a stereotype about American hunters as was that of Powergamz, with his picture of British Morris Dancers. [:)]

Focus50 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 5:33:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple FR Protecting yourself and your domesticated animals against wildlife predators is a legit reason to own a shotgun in certain rural and remote areas. Mountain lions, bears, wild hogs, coyotes, 8 foot ground rattlers, etc. On my families land we've been deviled by wild hogs. Dangerous animals, aggressive animals. Rather large with enormous tusks that could kill a man. A great many people feed themselves and their families with hunting and fishing. Hard to kill a duck or a pheasant with a bow. In some remote areas the nearest police could be hours away. If Dick and Perry show up a shotgun might not be the worst thing to have on hand. Country life is different than city life or suburbia. But there's no need for an assault rifle in any of these places. Self defense and hunting don't require them. The argument that because gun ownership is a right the question of why a certain weapon is needed can't be brought into the conversation is to me silly. Americans have the right to free speech but there are restrictions on it nonetheless. You can't legally threaten the president or call in a bomb threat. There are slander and libel laws. Americans have the right to vote but you have to be an adult and the right to vote can be taken away from you if you are a convicted felon. Assault weapons exist for one purpose to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They should only be in the hands of the military. If you believe you need assault weapons to protect yourself from the US military, that you must have them on hand to kill American soldiers please remove the I support the troops bumper sticker from your vehicle or better yet find another country to move to. Right here is where you could frame reasonable (sorry 'bout that DesideriScuri), workable gun controls that have minimal affect on honest Jo Average sporting shooter. In this age, a right to bear arms orta include a valid reason. Vermin control is a reason outside suburbia.... Even "home security" is fine by me, IF a particular individual can demonstate (Police report, for eg) that their home had indeed had its security breached with violent intent. A blanket ban on assault rifles - and frankly, any firearm designed predominantly for military application, including civilian imitations. A blanket ban on any full auto - considering there are those here inclined to catagorically state that "no-one" (apparently) goes hunting with a full auto.... A limit on guns any individual can own without requiring a dealer's licence - which would include specific secure storage requirements. There's three - anyone? Australia's gun laws have a strong element of knee-jerk over-reaction, any fair-minded Aussie without an agenda knows that. In comparison, the US doesn't have any controls at all. In between is an ocean of wriggle room. And still not one pro-gunner here will concede a micron beyond passive controls, no matter what the appalling body count. How 'bout you, jlf1961? Five assault rifles, five??? And now you "need" an M14 ta boot? Beyond that, how would the above truly impact your gun lifestyle? And your 15 guns was "only" 13 a few weeks ago in the other gun control thread. Do you even know how many guns *you really have* laying about? I'm makin' room for my sister to move in for a few weeks and I've been somewhat stunned (and pleasantly surprised) at stuff (non weapons) I didn't know I still had. Focus.

Kirata -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 5:44:11 PM)
Noting that "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness," a task force comprised of members representing the Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods, Epidemiology Program Office; the Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC; New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University; the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice; and the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, summarized its findings to the CDC as follows: During 2000-2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. CDC: Firearms Laws K.

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 5:54:30 PM)
K, just accept the obvious, the brits, and by extension of common heritage, the Aussies still feel like they can dictate law and domestic policy inside the US... I think some of them have actually forgotten who won the Revolutionary War.

InsaneSerenity -> RE: Guns (1/28/2013 6:03:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Right here is where you could frame reasonable (sorry 'bout that DesideriScuri), workable gun controls that have minimal affect on honest Jo Average sporting shooter. In this age, a right to bear arms orta include a valid reason. Vermin control is a reason outside suburbia.... Even "home security" is fine by me, IF a particular individual can demonstate (Police report, for eg) that their home had indeed had its security breached with violent intent. A blanket ban on assault rifles - and frankly, any firearm designed predominantly for military application, including civilian imitations. A blanket ban on any full auto - considering there are those here inclined to catagorically state that "no-one" (apparently) goes hunting with a full auto.... A limit on guns any individual can own without requiring a dealer's licence - which would include specific secure storage requirements. There's three - anyone? Australia's gun laws have a strong element of knee-jerk over-reaction, any fair-minded Aussie without an agenda knows that. In comparison, the US doesn't have any controls at all. In between is an ocean of wriggle room. And still not one pro-gunner here will concede a micron beyond passive controls, no matter what the appalling body count. How 'bout you, jlf1961? Five assault rifles, five??? And now you "need" an M14 ta boot? Beyond that, how would the above truly impact your gun lifestyle? And your 15 guns was "only" 13 a few weeks ago in the other gun control thread. Do you even know how many guns *you really have* laying about? I'm makin' room for my sister to move in for a few weeks and I've been somewhat stunned (and pleasantly surprised) at stuff (non weapons) I didn't know I still had. Focus. so i take it you don't think making sure your government does not enslave you is not a valid reason? Do we need to go through the list of homicidal maniacs whose first order of business was to make sure civilians couldn't defend themselves? You need to do your research, it is illegal for a citizen of the USA to buy a fully automatic weapon, except for special cases that involve guns with historical value, and even these guns are extremely limited, and extremely expensive to buy. To get one a person needs to register with the ATF, let the ATF do a full background check, which from what i understand takes a year, and pay a few grand or so once the ATF decides they can buy the historical weapon. You can't get a new fully automatic weapon, and that law went into effect sometime in the mid 70's. Please look at the terms you are using. An ' assault weapon' as you are using the term is a gun that happens to look scary to certain people, but just like every other gun on the market, it fires only 1 round per trigger pull. That is it. Oh, another fun fact, assault weapons are almost never used for crime. Less than 1% of crimes are committed with so called assault weapons. Handguns are used for crime. And large magazines don't mean anything, the Virginia Tech killer had 17 magazines in his bag filled and ready to use. Do you think a limit on number of rounds in a magazine would have mattered to him? Oh, and let's take a look at violent crime in the US compared to say, the UK, since they have a supposed ban on guns. It isn't doing them any good, violent crimes with guns is on the rise in the UK, while it is at an all time low in the US. Also, violent crimes as a whole are more prevalent per capita in the UK, and if you compare urban areas, there is no difference in gun crimes. Nothing I have said isn't hard to find on the web. A gun ban in the US has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with enslaving the citizens of the US, just like these people's idols, aka Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, etc, etc,etc, did.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Spam Policy

6.298828E-02