Re: Gun Laws

by **Ptolemy** Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:06 am

Aardvark wrote:If guns become harder to get then even blackmarket supplies die down, and while those MacGuyver guns may work for a shot or two, they don't do automatic and don't have easily reloaded clips.

do not need multiple shots to kill someone Ard. one bullet will do it.

by **Aardvark** Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:38 pm

Yeah, most people don't have that much accuracy with a gun. Hell most people have a hard time hitting a target with a full revolver.

by Nihil Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:53 pm

Honesty, besides the danger even a normal honest gun bearing citizen presents, if you feel insecure enough that you have to pack heat when you leave your house, then you really have a problem...

by **Dray The Fingerless** Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:22 pm

You mean the place you live has a problem.

by **Thing** Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:33 pm

Dray The Fingerless wrote:You mean the place you live has a problem.

That or you're paranoid.

by **Ptolemy** Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:49 am

well i would carry to have the ability to protect myself and my family. I read to much about idiots shooting places up and doing the damage because there is no one there with the ability to stop them. If i can distract the guy so my family can get away then so be it. If in that process i can take them down i would do that as well.

you do not have to be paranoid or live in a bad part of town to feel like you have to carry It is my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and what i have or what i use them for is not your business unless i break the law with them.

by **Champion** Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:37 am

I'll put it this way.

Even if it were illegal to have a gun, I would have one. And the first person who comes and tries to take it from me will find out why I have one in the first place.

by Nihil Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:53 am

Ptolemy wrote:well i would carry to have the ability to protect myself and my family. I read to much about idiots shooting places up and doing the damage because there is no one there with the ability to stop them. If i can distract the guy so my family can get away then so be it. If in that process i can take them down i would do that as well.

you do not have to be paranoid or live in a bad part of town to feel like you have to carry It is my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and what i have or what i use them for is not your business unless i break the law with them.

It is my right to bear nuclear armaments, as long as a don't break the law with them, so that I can protect my family from the "evil muslims" then?

Au contraire!

And yes, you do have to be paranoid to take arms with you when you walk your dog, seriously, and even if you did have a gun, what are you going to do when someone pulls a gun on YOU? Shoot them??? LOL, they already have a bullet in you by the time you pull out your gun!

Ptolemy, if someone could have stopped those "idiots" don't you think someone might have been killed in the cross fire? AND the fact that these "idiots" can even procure guns in such an easy manner is a problem.

You're stuck in your vision and ideal of the pre-industrialized version of America, where guns didn't even have that much a chance of firing successfully and they required constant management on the field to continue firing, where Indians roamed against invaders of their land and where there was no established police force. THAT america is gone forever. The definition of Freedom to an American changed around this time too, the government did not provide freedom through laissez-faire dealings, it provided freedom through protections and an activist state that sought to address social issues.

by **Ptolemy** Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:13 am

Nihil wrote:
Ptolemy wrote:well i would carry to have the ability to protect myself and my family. I read to much about idiots shooting places up and doing the damage because there is no one there with the ability to stop them. If i can distract the guy so my family can get away then so be it. If in that process i can take them down i would do that as well.

you do not have to be paranoid or live in a bad part of town to feel like you have to carry It is my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and what i have or what i use them for is not your business unless i break the law with them.

It is my right to bear nuclear armaments, as long as a don't break the law with them, so that I can protect my family from the "evil muslims" then?

Au contraire!

And yes, you do have to be paranoid to take arms with you when you walk your dog, seriously, and even if you did have a gun, what are you going to do when someone pulls a gun on YOU? Shoot them??? LOL, they already have a bullet in you by the time you pull out your gun!

Ptolemy, if someone could have stopped those "idiots" don't you think someone might have been killed in the cross fire? AND the fact that these "idiots" can even procure guns in such an easy manner is a problem.

You're stuck in your vision and ideal of the pre-industrialized version of America, where guns didn't even have that much a chance of firing successfully and they required constant management on the field to continue firing, where Indians roamed against invaders of their land and where there was no established police force. THAT america is gone forever. The definition of Freedom to an American changed around this time too, the government did not provide freedom through laissez-faire dealings, it provided freedom through protections and an activist state that sought to address social issues.

Your mistake is going to extremes. A nuclear weapon is not a firearm is it? a 'gun'? there are several cases where a 'rampage' was stopped at 1 or 2 victims. that's a lot better than 30 is it not? i will look them up and get back to you. could i stop someone lie that? i dunno but like i said, if i can provide a distraction and allow others to escape i would do it. I will not be the one shot in the back, i will not lay down and let someone roll over me. You like to debate and refuse to see another point of view. I like to be prepared to protect my family. someone with a gun will shoot you as fast as they will me. I have a good chance of being missed because i will be shooting back.

the constitution didn't change Nihil. there are still certain things that the government cannot do. these things are outlined in the Constitution. our freedom hasn't changed. It is your definition or freedom that has changed.

by Nihil Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:42 am

Ptolemy wrote:
Nihil wrote:
Ptolemy wrote:well i would carry to have the ability to protect myself and my family. I read to much about idiots shooting places up and doing the damage because there is no one there with the ability to stop them. If i can distract the guy so my family can get away then so be it. If in that process i can take them down i would do that as well.

you do not have to be paranoid or live in a bad part of town to feel like you have to carry It is my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and what i have or what i use them for is not your business unless i break the law with them.

It is my right to bear nuclear armaments, as long as a don't break the law with them, so that I can protect my family from the "evil muslims" then?

Au contraire!

And yes, you do have to be paranoid to take arms with you when you walk your dog, seriously, and even if you did have a gun, what are you going to do when someone pulls a gun on YOU? Shoot them??? LOL, they already have a bullet in you by the time you pull out your gun!

Ptolemy, if someone could have stopped those "idiots" don't you think someone might have been killed in the cross fire? AND the fact that these "idiots" can even procure guns in such an easy manner is a problem.

You're stuck in your vision and ideal of the pre-industrialized version of America, where guns didn't even have that much a chance of firing successfully and they required constant management on the field to continue firing, where Indians roamed against invaders of their land and where there was no established police force. THAT america is gone forever. The definition of Freedom to an American changed around this time too, the government did not provide freedom through laissez-faire dealings, it provided freedom through protections and an activist state that sought to address social issues.

Your mistake is going to extremes. A nuclear weapon is not a firearm is it? a 'gun'? there are several cases where a 'rampage' was stopped at 1 or 2 victims. that's a lot better than 30 is it not? i will look them up and get back to you. could i stop someone lie that? i dunno but like i said, if i can provide a distraction and allow others to escape i would do it. I will not be the one shot in the back, i will not lay down and let someone roll over me. You like to debate and refuse to see another point of view. I like to be prepared to protect my family. someone with a gun will shoot you as fast as they will me. I have a good chance of being missed because i will be shooting back.

the constitution didn't change Nihil. there are still certain things that the government cannot do. these things are outlined in the Constitution. our freedom hasn't changed. It is your definition or freedom that has changed.

OMG ptolemy, really? the right to BEAR ARMS, not FIREARMS >.>

Also, you've got a gun pointed at you, tell me, do you draw your weapon and hope the assaulter misses when he sees that? Seriously, you would be shot Ptolemy, there is no chance of you living if you have a gun pointed at you, unless by some miracle, the assaulter misses, and then you fire back.

Ptolemy, pick up your goddamn history book and read it, I'm fucking looking at it right now and unless Eric Foner is a "goddamn liberal" hellbent on brainwashing the youth of america with his "bias" in the liberal corrupt public school system, this is pretty damn well the truth.

The definition of freedom to an american does change, look at the progressive era, LOOK AT ABOLITION, look at temperance and prohibition, these may seem like restrictions on freedom, but our modern sense of freedom has changed, many reformers saw alcohol as a restriction to liberty.

Here you can't see my book, so here is the second best thing:

http://college.usc.edu/news/stories/419/the-meaning-of-freedom/

WITH ERIC FONER

by **Ptolemy** Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:03 am

well i tell you what, when you can have a civil discussion, i will discuss.

you seem frustrated so you go calm down and let me know when you are ready to be civil.

by **Beaner** Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:21 am

Nihil, you're just going off dude.. The whole point is. If you outlaw guns in the U.S, criminals who want to harm people will ALWAYS.. ALWAYS, find ways to get them. No matter what. Now, who would you rather be..

Scenario 1: You are at a convenience store, an armed assailant barges in and points a gun at you.. you immediate duck around aisles, you have no weapon, your only hope is that a police officer comes along and stops the criminal.. Cops do not show up soon enough, and criminal finally catches you and shoots you in the back while you attempt to flee.

Scenario 2: You are at a convenience store, an armed assailant barges in and points a gun at you.. you immediate duck into an aisle, pull out your handgun --which you have a right to carry with a CWP.. -- Cops don't show up in time.. Criminal shoots at you, you shoot back.. (You aren't just trying to flee, you are strategically moving to be able to fire as well)..

Scenario 2 has two possible outcomes.. You get lucky and kill the dude/dudette (let's not be sexist here), and you survive.. YAY!

or

Criminal gets lucky and kills you.. well.... at least you tried right?

Your chances of survival went up dramatically when you had a gun in your hand.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:29 am

Ptolemy wrote:well i tell you what, when you can have a civil discussion, i will discuss.

you seem frustrated so you go calm down and let me know when you are ready to be civil.

i never am civil in a debate. i find i would crush my opponents too easily if i make less mistakes. best to go in with whats in my mind and let them find the mistakes for me. also, irony that the subject of guns has led to civil and unmutable reason. and beaner is right. in a sense. i do not believe any person should get a gun, and i do believe periodic checks on people shoul dbe made. make them have the guns, but have constant reminders and checks on them.

by **Beaner** Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:32 am

well no.. in order to buy a gun there is --i believe/was told-- there is a waiting period while they do background checks and the like.. Now if you have a CWP (concealed weapon permit), no wait.. but you have to get a psych check and some other tests and have to be renewing it as well.. Or so I was told by a guy who has one..

by **Ptolemy** Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:55 am

For the concealed carry; there is mandatory training , you have to have a clean record, no record of mental illness and there is a fee.

To buy a handgun, there is a back ground check and you cannot have a history of mental illness and the hand gun has to be registered.

I believe there is a background check to buy a long gun (rifle) as well. shotguns i am not sure they care about.

This will vary from state to state.

by Nihil Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:12 pm

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

by Sponsored content