GUN CONTROL!

by **Dyakovo** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:45 am

Vazdania wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
Hand guns can be quite easy to concel and as you said, statistically hand guns kill more people.
There is no valid use for a fully automatic assault rifle.
Mid-range shot guns will well and are more sensible.

Yes, that is why their should be stricter laws for hand guns in large cities
Trading.
So? People hunt moose and bears you know.

Patchwork gun laws do not work. There needs to be one standard for the whole country.

by **Greed and Death** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:46 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Vazdania wrote:
Yes, that is why their should be stricter laws for hand guns in large cities
Trading.
So? People hunt moose and bears you know.

Patchwork gun laws do not work. There needs to be one standard for the whole country.

I agree, the gun laws of Texas should be nation wide.

by **Gauthier** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:48 am

greed and death wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Patchwork gun laws do not work. There needs to be one standard for the whole country.

I agree, the gun laws of Texas should be nation wide.

Gun ownership compulsory for citizenship? Sweet.

by **Dyakovo** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:51 am

greed and death wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Patchwork gun laws do not work. There needs to be one standard for the whole country.

I agree, the gun laws of Texas should be nation wide.

Fuck that. It's not the wild west anymore.
Edit: Hell, the wild west wasn't what people imagine it as.
NY State's gun laws prior to NYSAFE are a good standard.

by **Greed and Death** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:52 am

Gauthier wrote:
greed and death wrote:I agree, the gun laws of Texas should be nation wide.

Gun ownership compulsory for citizenship? Sweet.

No voting without proof of gun ownership.

by **Gauthier** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:54 am

greed and death wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Gun ownership compulsory for citizenship? Sweet.

No voting without proof of gun ownership.

Also makes challenging voter eligibility more exciting. *nod*

by **Greed and Death** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:54 am

Dyakovo wrote:
greed and death wrote:I agree, the gun laws of Texas should be nation wide.

Fuck that. It's not the wild west anymore.
NY State's gun laws prior to NYSAFE are a good standard.

When rights get a national standard it is the state the least infringes on those rights that becomes the standard.
I will enjoy NYS gun law being preempted. Finally get to take my gun on top of the Freedom tower.

by **Dyakovo** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:57 am

greed and death wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Fuck that. It's not the wild west anymore.
NY State's gun laws prior to NYSAFE are a good standard.

When rights get a national standard it is the state the least infringes on those rights that becomes the standard. .

Not necessarily.

by **Genesis Era** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:58 am

Lower prices of gun club membership to owners of only small arms; for people who want to shoot AK-47s and M16s recreationally, they can always play Call Of Duty. Sure video games increase violence¹, but no one has ever died from mass video gaming sessions at schools. ²

1- Not really, IMHO.
2- That I know of.

by **Lerodan Chinamerica** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:59 am

In effect it just makes it harder for normal people to defend themselves. Criminals won't stop buying guns just because writing on a sheet of paper told them to.

by **The Truth and Light** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:03 am

Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:In effect it just makes it harder for normal people to defend themselves. Criminals won't stop buying guns just because writing on a sheet of paper told them to.

I mean, yeah, murderers won't stop murdering just because it's illegal to murder, either. I feel like this stupid analogy should be dead already, though. Can I kill it?

by **Acsicurezza** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:03 am

Nervium wrote:
Die Neue Deutsche Volkskolonie wrote:If you support gun control, you support making the population helpless versus a massive gang (that is, a government). Just remember that. I support the right to own basic infantry firearms - including select-fire rifles. And before you start about machine guns - I would RATHER be shot at with a full-auto. They don't hit anything, and the ammo is gone in two seconds. Either way, free people have the right to have arms. If anything, arms are the SIGN of freedom.

I also believe the police should be an only semi-government authority and should otherwise be responsible for the maintenance of citizen's militias with access to all military weaponry and equipment whose duty is the defense of the National Charter.

-NDVK

Ha, you believe guns will protect you against tyranny, that's cute.

It's been done before.

by **The Truth and Light** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:04 am

Acsicurezza wrote:
Nervium wrote:
Ha, you believe guns will protect you against tyranny, that's cute.

It's been done before.

Any specific instances?

by **Gauthier** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:07 am

The Truth and Light wrote:
Acsicurezza wrote:
It's been done before.

Any specific instances?

Red Dawn, duh.

by **The Truth and Light** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:08 am

Gauthier wrote:
The Truth and Light wrote:Any specific instances?

Red Dawn, duh.

I had to look that up. Huh, interesting matrix for the "endangered citizenry" fantasy.

by **Acsicurezza** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:10 am

Gauthier wrote:
The Truth and Light wrote:Any specific instances?

Red Dawn, duh.

Let's make a joke out of our freedoms.

by **Winterjam** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:12 am

Remember guys, it's about freedom, not safety

by **Acsicurezza** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:14 am

Winterjam wrote:Remember guys, it's about freedom, not safety

Guns protect people.

by **The Truth and Light** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:14 am

Acsicurezza wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Red Dawn, duh.

Let's make a joke out of our freedoms.

The word "freedoms" is not going to have any weight or meaning anymore if you don't establish a clear, specific, and strict definition for it, and if you continue to use it as an emotional buzzword.

by **The Truth and Light** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:14 am

Acsicurezza wrote:
Winterjam wrote:Remember guys, it's about freedom, not safety

Guns protect people.

Nah.

by **Acsicurezza** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:16 am

The Truth and Light wrote:
Acsicurezza wrote:
Guns protect people.

Nah.

Oh that's right. I shouldn't be able to defend myself with a firearm against someone else using one against me. :palm:

by **The Truth and Light** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:18 am

Acsicurezza wrote:
The Truth and Light wrote:Nah.

Oh that's right. I shouldn't be able to defend myself with a firearm against someone else using one against me.

The idea of someone using a firearm to harm you logically opposes the idea of guns protecting people.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:19 am

The Truth and Light wrote:
Acsicurezza wrote:
Oh that's right. I shouldn't be able to defend myself with a firearm against someone else using one against me.

The idea of someone using a firearm to harm you logically opposes the idea of guns protecting people.

It's a force multiplier.

More people use it to defend themselves than others do to harm others.

by **The Truth and Light** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:21 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:
The Truth and Light wrote:The idea of someone using a firearm to harm you logically opposes the idea of guns protecting people.

It's a force multiplier.

More people use it to defend themselves than others do to harm others.

Defend themselves in what manner, and from whom?

by **Gauthier** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:28 am

The Truth and Light wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:It's a force multiplier.

More people use it to defend themselves than others do to harm others.

Defend themselves in what manner, and from whom?

Like how James Holmes defended himself against movie goers, or how Adam Lanza defended himself against elementary school students.

GUN CONTROL!

Who is online