RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms.

RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms.

30 days

5% (1)

1 year

0% (0)

2-5 years

5% (1)

6-10 years

0% (0)

more than ten years

88% (16)

Total Votes : 18

(last vote on : 10/31/2016 2:01:17 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 3:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Curmudgeonly1 It's a bit naive to compare 'America's situation with any country. Conditions in Argentina are quite different to those in Mexico or Honduras f'rinstance. It seem silly to lump them all together. [8D] Of course it is, but why should that stop them. We generally only lump OECD countries together when comparing with the US. Because most are of similar stance economically etc. And because all the other OECD countries have strong gun controls and enjoy relative peace compared to the US, it's a fair comparison. We don't usually lump in the likes of Argentina, Mexico or Honduras or similar.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 3:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Curmudgeonly1 It's a bit naive to compare 'America's situation with any country. Conditions in Argentina are quite different to those in Mexico or Honduras f'rinstance. It seem silly to lump them all together. [8D] Of course it is, but why should that stop them. We generally only lump OECD countries together when comparing with the US. Because most are of similar stance economically etc. And because all the other OECD countries have strong gun controls and enjoy relative peace compared to the US, it's a fair comparison. We don't usually lump in the likes of Argentina, Mexico or Honduras or similar. And you fail to see any societal difference that doesn't fit your world view .

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:10:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you fail to see any societal difference that doesn't fit your world view . The only societal difference I see is some gun nuts not wanting to learn anything from the other countries. The original purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid; either from a slavery or a protection from government PoV. Yet gun nuts don't want to acknowledge that simple fact.

tamaka -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:20:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you fail to see any societal difference that doesn't fit your world view . The only societal difference I see is some gun nuts not wanting to learn anything from the other countries. The original purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid; either from a slavery or a protection from government PoV. Yet gun nuts don't want to acknowledge that simple fact. The original purpose is no longer valid? Omg... well i know i'm not the brightest lightbulb in the factory on these issues but that is perhaps the most stupid thing even i have ever read.

thompsonx -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:28:32 PM)
ORIGINAL: tamaka The original purpose is no longer valid? Omg... well i know i'm not the brightest lightbulb in the factory on these issues but that is perhaps the most stupid thing even i have ever read. Perhaps you are correct about your relationship to the rest of the lightbulbs http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:28:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you fail to see any societal difference that doesn't fit your world view . The only societal difference I see is some gun nuts not wanting to learn anything from the other countries. The original purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid; either from a slavery or a protection from government PoV. Yet gun nuts don't want to acknowledge that simple fact. Get back to the purpose of the thread, if we dump the 2nd, and do everything you want how long are the honest citizens going to be at the mercy of criminals who still have guns. And no we have learned from other countries, not every country will tight gun control have dictatorships but every country country with a dictator has tight gun control. Gun control is not about guns, it is about control. You seem to think we should hand over anything the government wants and be glad to do it. The only difference between your view and that of a dictator is he thinks he should be able to take it whether you like it or not.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you fail to see any societal difference that doesn't fit your world view . The only societal difference I see is some gun nuts not wanting to learn anything from the other countries. The original purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid; either from a slavery or a protection from government PoV. Yet gun nuts don't want to acknowledge that simple fact. The original purpose is no longer valid? Omg... well i know i'm not the brightest lightbulb in the factory on these issues but that is perhaps the most stupid thing even i have ever read. Perhaps you ought to think about why the 2nd was written in the first place. Some think it was for the protection from the slaves. Most think it was for protection from an overreaching government. Whichever camp you're in, it is no longer relevant or fit for purpose. So why cling to it??

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you fail to see any societal difference that doesn't fit your world view . The only societal difference I see is some gun nuts not wanting to learn anything from the other countries. The original purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid; either from a slavery or a protection from government PoV. Yet gun nuts don't want to acknowledge that simple fact. The original purpose is no longer valid? Omg... well i know i'm not the brightest lightbulb in the factory on these issues but that is perhaps the most stupid thing even i have ever read. He is also too ignorant to know that the purpose of the 2nd was to allow people to protect themselves from thugs, or as they were know at the time brigands and highwaymen.

tamaka -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:37:21 PM)
The People have the right to protect themselves... period. Also, the principle still remains that before we the people become we the slaves of the government... or an invading force... or some crazy dictator... etc... we at least have some shred of a chance to do something.

thompsonx -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:40:54 PM)
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Most think it was for protection from an overreaching government. You can think the earth is flat but you would be wrong. Just beccause you think it does not make it so. Think about this, When in the history of amerika has the private possession of guns done anything to preventg the overeach of government?

thompsonx -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:43:13 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD He is also too ignorant to know that the purpose of the 2nd was to allow people to protect themselves from thugs, or as they were know at the time brigands and highwaymen. Isn't it interesting that the 2nd does not mention that at all. Stop making shit up.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:46:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you fail to see any societal difference that doesn't fit your world view . The only societal difference I see is some gun nuts not wanting to learn anything from the other countries. The original purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid; either from a slavery or a protection from government PoV. Yet gun nuts don't want to acknowledge that simple fact. The original purpose is no longer valid? Omg... well i know i'm not the brightest lightbulb in the factory on these issues but that is perhaps the most stupid thing even i have ever read. Perhaps you ought to think about why the 2nd was written in the first place. Some think it was for the protection from the slaves. Most think it was for protection from an overreaching government. Whichever camp you're in, it is no longer relevant or fit for purpose. So why cling to it?? Nobody who knows what they are taking about thinks it was about slavery, you seem to forget it was supported by free states. You also forget that it was to also to allow people to protect themselves from criminals, and that with average response time the cops will get there in time to maybe catch your killer as he leaves, assuming they hang around that long. As for the ablity to remove a leader I have 3 words Lee Harvey Oswald.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:47:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Most think it was for protection from an overreaching government. Think about this, When in the history of amerika has the private possession of guns done anything to preventg the overeach of government? It hasn't and it wouldn't in today's world. And that's my point. It's an outdated law that is no longer fit for purpose. Laws are supposed to evolve with the times to benefit the people. This one law seems to be held back by the people and demonstrates that the people are wrong in trying to defend it. The stats across all OECD countries are proving that every year.

thompsonx -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 4:55:53 PM)
ORIGINAL: tamaka The People have the right to protect themselves... period. since no one has denied that...why do you bring it up? Also, the principle still remains that before we the people become we the slaves of the government... We still have elections don't we? Or are you claiming like trump that if he does not get appointed to the presidency the election was rigged? or an invading force... Isn't that the job of the military? Hasn't it always been the job of the military? or some crazy dictator... etc... You seem to be grasping at straws here. we at least have some shred of a chance to do something. Consider the amerikan revolution. Without france and just this one fact that she supplied 90% of the powder used to fight the revolution it would have been a bunch of guys with rocks and sticks against british regulars. What sort of a chance would they have had. by the same token what sort of chance would you have? A company (approximately 120 men) in a ten minute firefight will expend more than ten thousand rounds. That is one roound every six seconds per man. How much ammo you got? Do the math and stop thinking like bamma who does not think at all.

thompsonx -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 5:01:20 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Nobody who knows what they are taking about thinks it was about slavery, you seem to forget it was supported by free states. They obviously do not teach amerikan history at the university of dumbass.The deal was that the anti-federalist would sign on if they could have a bill of rights. If the federalist had voted against the bill of rights then there would be no united states. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. You also forget that it was to also to allow people to protect themselves from criminals, That is not mentioned in the 2nde ammendment now is it? As for the ablity to remove a leader I have 3 words Lee Harvey Oswald. There is a line of suiccession dumbass.

AtUrCervix -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 5:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD We keep hearing that if we keep honest people from having guns it will dry up the source for criminals. Nobody has ever said how long the expect a disarmed public will have to deal with armed criminals. As long as there exist 3D printers......guns will be available to all.

Chaska -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 5:07:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Chaska quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Chaska British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. Got a cite for that?? Gotta cite to disprove it? You made the challenge, it's on you to back it up with some facts. You conveniently overlooked this: Is your gubbint tellin the truth or... Then made a challenge so, either you can disprove it or not. Another tidbit to think about. Over the last century, the British crime rate was largely unchanged. In the late nineteenth century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000. 29 In the late twentieth century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homicide rate is around 1.4. 30 This implies that the homicide rate did not vary with either the level of gun control or gun availability.

tamaka -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 5:09:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: tamaka The People have the right to protect themselves... period. since no one has denied that...why do you bring it up? Also, the principle still remains that before we the people become we the slaves of the government... We still have elections don't we? Or are you claiming like trump that if he does not get appointed to the presidency the election was rigged? or an invading force... Isn't that the job of the military? Hasn't it always been the job of the military? or some crazy dictator... etc... You seem to be grasping at straws here. we at least have some shred of a chance to do something. Consider the amerikan revolution. Without france and just this one fact that she supplied 90% of the powder used to fight the revolution it would have been a bunch of guys with rocks and sticks against british regulars. What sort of a chance would they have had. by the same token what sort of chance would you have? A company (approximately 120 men) in a ten minute firefight will expend more than ten thousand rounds. That is one roound every six seconds per man. How much ammo you got? Do the math and stop thinking like bamma who does not think at all. There is such a thing as the spirit of the law... much of the point of the 2nd ammendment, i think, is the spirit of the law. The spirit being that ultimately, the right of the people to protect their free nation... a nation that was purposely formed of the people, for the people (not for the corporations, the 1%, or the likes, and by the people. The 2nd Ammendment was put there to solidify that spirit. It is very much an integral part of the culture which the founding fathers weaved into the very fabric of our country. Perhaps we wouldn't have enough ammo... but we wouldn't go down without a fight. That is the spirit that some of us old enough to remember our grandparents and great grandparents taught us. Those were the days when we pledged allegiance to the flag and sang patriotic songs. We were not pledging loyalty to the crown... we were pledging loyalty to ourselves and each other.

thompsonx -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 5:12:39 PM)
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 ORIGINAL: thompsonx Most think it was for protection from an overreaching government. Think about this, When in the history of amerika has the private possession of guns done anything to preventg the overeach of government? It hasn't and it wouldn't in today's world. And that's my point. It's an outdated law that is no longer fit for purpose. Whether it is fit for it's original purpose is irrelevant. It is part of our constitution and trhe process for changing it is quite specific. Laws are supposed to evolve with the times to benefit the people. That it's original purpose is no longer valid is irrelivant. there is a process that must be followed otherwise the rule of law means nothing. This one law seems to be held back by the people and demonstrates that the people are wrong in trying to defend it. Since the original purpose is moot the "gunslingers" feel compelled to find another bolster for their position. Only when it becomes untenable as in the 17th ammendment will it change. That is not likely to happen so we are left with my original premis about attitude. That is changable and relatively easy. the other is not.

thompsonx -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/23/2016 5:17:39 PM)
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix As long as there exist 3D printers......guns will be available to all. As long as there are color copiers there will be counterfit money...what is your point?

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875