LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSlow your role jabroni. I didnt say either of those things.Originally Posted by The Benjamin
Slow your role jabroni. I didnt say either of those things.
I did not say YOU said they should Ban guns, OR that the police should be there to protect them
Bah, it was Loki who said them.... your name just popped in cause it was the last post I read
Last edited by The Benjamin; 07-21-2012 at 03:40 PM.
Except, you know.... the "good guys" 1) don't shoot AT the cops when they arrive, and 2) unless under direct fire are USUALLY trying to identify themselves to the cops.
Besides, unless your talking about an actual firefight, all the shooting is usually over by the time the cops show up when a law abiding CCW is involved. "Firefights' rarely last more than a few seconds (thanks to Hollywood for making it seem otherwise), and any well trained veteran, or CCW holder, isn't going to let a little body armor stop them. Anyone with a CCW is more than willing to one in the noggin if a center-mass double tap fails.
And law abiding citizens protect themselves all the time.
.
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe
"Possibly, but it's not to early to start loading ammo!" - Loki
Semantics: There is no such thing as an "illegal" item. It maybe "illegal" to own a specific item itself is not illegal.
Response: Stricter gun laws won't do anything either. Funny how you think stricter gun LAWS would affect criminals. How's that work? If they want a gun, they are gonna get one. All you do by making it harder for anyone to get one is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get one. You don't make it harder for a criminal to get one... all you do is raise the street price.
.
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe
"Possibly, but it's not to early to start loading ammo!" - Loki
And "raising the street price" would make it harder for criminals to get them.
In any case, im sick and tired of this untouchable 3rd rail that is gun laws. NRA and supporters seem to think that its all or nothing...that people want a flat out ban on all guns, or that gun laws are too restrictive. Neither side is right.
Unfortunately, gun culture and violence is ingrained in our American Culture, which is why banning them will never happen. However, that doesnt mean we cant look at our gun laws and come up with more sensible ones that limit the ability for criminals to obtain them, while also allowing qualified citizens to get them if they so choose.
For starters:
-Assault Rifles. There is ZERO reason why any citizen needs an AR-15. Citizens concerned with protection and hunting only need handguns, shotguns and high powere hunting rifles. Anything else should be strictly limited to the military or police departments.
-close Gun Show Loopholes. Far too many "illegal" guns are easily purchased here, and the laws are not as strict when it comes to gun shows
-ban internet sales of firearms or ammo. Its a new technological age, and just like anything else, people can take advantage of the anonymous nature of the internet, making it difficult to correctly verify "responsible gun owners."
There is no reason why we cant come up with better, more responsible legislation for gun laws. Unfortunately, ANY attempt at doing so is seen as an "attack" on our rights, which is ridiculous. We cant change the culture, so we need to change the laws. We have more guns then we do citizens, and some of the most lax gun laws in the world, and yet we usually rank right near the top in gun violence. If the answer is MORE guns, then you would think we would be safe already, but that clearly isnt the case.
It's not the "guns" as in hand guns or hunting gear that needs to be taken out of circulation. It's the human "killing machines" like assault rifles.
What part of the Bill of Rights mentions that it's OK to bear that kind of arm. Should we say OK to tanks, hand grenades and a battery of missiles set up around the perimeter of our homes too?
I'll never be opposed to any individuals right to own a firearm for hunting of protection but I am opposed to making it legal to sell and for individuals to possess military grade hardware. Unless we decide to do away with the military completely or we experience some sort of third world military coup I don't see the need.
Will some loonies still be able to get them? Yeah, but we need to start somewhere. This shithead bought that assault rifle "legally" as I assume he did the 100 round clip and the thousands of rounds of ammo. You think somebody might have asked the question of what the purpose for all of that was and maybe reported it under the heading of extremely suspicious behavior?
Law abiding citizens don't need assault rifles even if the other guy has one. Once somebody starts shooting back at these bastards at least it might slow them down. I think it's time we put some limits on what the average Joe can have and what he needs to do to show he's competent to own and use it. JMHO
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap.
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
Problem there Soul is that you can't fault the innovation that rifles have undergone over the past 100 years. The people who founded this country fully supported every citizen being armed. Whether you want to be armed with a pistol or an AR-15, doesn't matter. Assault rifles are a lot of fun for some. The one common denominator I find in all the 'massacres' that I can remember is that they keep happening in states where there is no Open Carry. Hmmm why is that? Why don't you see these kind of shooting sprees in states where you could find up to 75% people packing anywhere you go depending where you go???
All that aside, this shoooter in CO did his homework and was incredibly prepared. Even if you are packing, unless you are an LEO, your first reaction should be to run for cover or get out of that theater when shots are fired. You're not going to take out a shooter in a chaotic environment like that where you can't see anything. And this shooter picked a perfect state and location where police response was not going to be immediate. Man those poor people were sitting ducks because of that state's shitty gun carrying laws.
Now if bonafide cowboy terrorists are taking notes, they'll just plan shooting spress in states like CO, NJ, etc.
You mean like Arizona? Gabrielle Giffords shooting, AZ has open carry, AND there were CCWs in the crowd and yet they didnt prevent it from happening nor stop him.
Nov 09: Ft Hood, Texas: a Military Base AND its Texas...still didnt help.
March, 09: Michael Mclendon killed 10 in a shooting spree, in ....Alabama. Open Carry state.
April, 07: VT massacre, and surprise...VA is another Open Carry state.
October, 1991: George Hennard shoots and kills 23 in Killeen, TX
Now im not sure what you remember, but its quite clear that many mass shootings occur in states that are gun-friendly and are open-carry states.
Well, i know one psychotic gun owner currently in custody of the Colorado police department who agrees with you.
But since you brought it up...that gave me an idea. Ban Assault rifles and fully auto guns, like i suggested, but have police departments have "Assault Rifle Fun Days" where qualified gun owners can pay to shoot the police department ARs for "fun." Its a win-win: gun nuts can have their "fun" and police departments can get some much needed revenue since city and state budgets are strained already.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
