The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys - GoFuckYourself.com

GrantMercury · 12-28-2012, 11:36 PM

Mass shootings in the US are on the rise?and ordinary citizens with guns don't stop them.

Quote:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," declared the NRA's Wayne LaPierre in a press conference a week after Newtown, the same day bells tolled at the National Cathedral and the devastated town mourned its 28 dead. (That day a gunman in Pennsylvania also murdered three people and wounded a state trooper shortly before LaPierre gave his remarks.) LaPierre explained that it was a travesty for a school principal to face evil unarmed, and he called for gun-wielding security officers to be deployed in every school in America.

As many commentators noted, it was particularly callous of the NRA to double down on its long-standing proposal to fight gun violence with more guns while parents in Newtown were burying their first graders. But more importantly, the NRA's argument is bereft of supporting evidence. A closer look reveals that their case for arming Americans against mass shooters is nothing more than a cynical ideological talking point?one dressed up in appeals to heroism and the defense of constitutional freedom, and wholly reliant on misdirection and half truths. If only Sandy Hook's principal had been packing heat, the argument goes, she could've stopped the mass killer. There's just one little problem with this: Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings we studied in our investigation has been stopped this way?even as the nation has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of recent laws has made it easier than ever for ordinary citizens to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...shootings-myth

Barry-xlovecam · 12-29-2012, 12:11 AM

Gun bans in the USA is a red herring argument.

There are somewhere between 250 million and 420 million registered and unregistered firearms in the USA.

OK, they pass a gun ban then what? Start a war on guns and start knocking on citizens' doors to take their legally registered firearms ... How may gun deaths do you think that will achieve?

10K 20K 30K 50K -- that would start a civil war here.

I am sorrowful of the mass killings of innocent schoolchildren by a nutcase with guns. The guy who lit the house on fire and laid in ambush for the firefighters was a shitstain ex-murderer that should have never been paroled -- as a convicted murderer he was banned from holding a firearm -- what good did it do? He had killed his grandmother with a hammer I read so he was a confirmed psycho-killer and is a best case argument for capital punishment.

We have a large number of returning soldiers from overseas -- why not station them on guard duty in schools? A friendly soldier patrolling with a machine gun for public protection is not such a bad thing in these circumstances notwithstanding posse comitatus concerns that would have to be addressed.

Arming teachers is a bad idea. When I think back to my schooldays I can't think of many teachers that I would have trusted carrying pistols ...

Mr Pheer · 12-29-2012, 12:34 AM

Why shoould I have to give up my rights? So I can just become a helpless victim?

I dont think so. Arm more citizens.

Rochard · 12-29-2012, 12:41 AM

There were armed guards in Columbine and that didn't change a damn thing.

I'm okay with the good guys having the firearms. We need to figure out way to prevent the mentally ill from getting them. That's the key.

GrantMercury · 12-29-2012, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

OK, they pass a gun ban then what? Start a war on guns and start knocking on citizens' doors to take their legally registered firearms ... How may gun deaths do you think that will achieve?

What is it with the hysterics? Who suggested that? Why does any discussion about gun regulation lead to huge leaps of assumption and silly scenarios?

NETbilling · 12-29-2012, 12:50 AM

Start by banning assault weapons except for military and peace officers

GrantMercury · 12-29-2012, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

A friendly soldier patrolling with a machine gun for public protection is not such a bad thing in these circumstances notwithstanding posse comitatus concerns that would have to be addressed.

Jesus Christ.

GrantMercury · 12-29-2012, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Why shoould I have to give up my rights? So I can just become a helpless victim?

I dont think so. Arm more citizens.

Fuck that.

BTW - Adam Lanza's mother had plenty of guns...and she was a victim.

We need to take the country back from the fucking gun nuts.

Mr Pheer · 12-29-2012, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

We need to take the country back from the fucking gun nuts.

I agree. Shoot them.

Mr Pheer · 12-29-2012, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NETbilling

Start by banning assault weapons except for military and peace officers

Why is everybody worried about assault weapons?

The percentage of crime committed with assault weapons is minimal compared to the amount committed with handguns.

Adam Lanza didnt even use an assault weapon, the media just jumped all over it, and the sheep believed it, because it was stated that he had a bushmaster AR15 in his car.

NEWSFLASH: He didnt shoot those kids in his car.

GrantMercury · 12-29-2012, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NETbilling

Start by banning assault weapons except for military and peace officers

QTF.

Only FREAKS want assault rifles and high-capacity clips. Not hunters. Not homeowners. Not single gals who want to carry for protection.

Paranoid, creepy FREAKS want these

A Barrett M82 50-Caliber Sniper Rifle - sold legally online.

Start by banning the sale of these weapons of war. It's FUCKING RIDICULOUS that any kook with vein throbbing in his head can get these things. There is NO PURPOSE for such a thing but to kill en masse.

Rochard · 12-29-2012, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

BTW - Adam Lanza's mother had plenty of guns...and she was a victim.

That's just it. You never see it coming. Ever. One moment life is wonderful, and the next moment your unconscious.

Doesn't matter if you have a firearm or not. It only matters who gets the first shot.

Mr Pheer · 12-29-2012, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

QTF.

Only FREAKS want assault rifles and high-capacity clips. Not hunters. Not homeowners. Not single gals who want to carry for protection.

Paranoid, creepy FREAKS want these

A Barrett M82 50-Caliber Sniper Rifle - sold legally online.

Ok, I can see your point. Semi-auto assault rifles are evil. Ban them all.

But this bolt-action rifle with just a 5-round magazine is ok?

buzzard · 12-29-2012, 01:55 AM

GFY is full of Supposed "Men" that have never even been in a fight.
I'm not surprised the pussification of America is Here.

The Ban should be on government, If you are associated in any way, shape or form with government, you are NOT allowed at any time to posess a firearm.

GFED · 12-29-2012, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzard

GFY is full of Supposed "Men" that have never even been in a fight.
I'm not surprised the pussification of America is Here.

The Ban should be on government, If you are associated in any way, shape or form with government, you are NOT allowed at any time to posess a firearm.

Pussification... I thought NutnFancy was the only person that used that word.

AdultPornMasta · 12-29-2012, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

There were armed guards in Columbine and that didn't change a damn thing.

I'm okay with the good guys having the firearms. We need to figure out way to prevent the mentally ill from getting them. That's the key.

BULLSHIT!

"Yes, Columbine Had Armed Guards?And They Saved Lives!"

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ves.htm?p=full

From the cited article:

"Yes, the critics respond, and there was an armed security guard at Columbine High School in 1999. Yet, 12 students and a teacher were killed by two armed intruders, as if that disqualified the solution of placing armed guards, possibly unemployed army veterans, at each of our nation's 100,000-plus schools.

Yes, there was, and it was the guard's presence and the resistance he and others offered that kept the carnage less than it might have been.

On April 20, 1999, Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years, was eating lunch when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at Columbine with their deadly arsenal and deadlier intentions.

Gardner said he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school's back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris, and the two exchanged gunfire. The exchange with Harris lasted for an extended period of time, during which Harris' gun jammed.

The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library."

Stop it with your liberal lies already!

martinsc · 12-29-2012, 05:51 AM

crockett · 12-29-2012, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Why shoould I have to give up my rights? So I can just become a helpless victim?

I dont think so. Arm more citizens.

How many times do you think an accidental shooting occurs by a gun carrier vs how many hero stories unfold? I will bet you anything accidental shooting are a far larger number..

Here I'll help.. The first sentence says that it's "slowly" declining, but still 680 deaths by accidental gun fire in the US during 2008. How many hero's saved he day with their gun in 2008?

The number of accidental shooting deaths in the United States has been slowly declining for many years, although there was a slight jump in the number of deaths in 2008, the last year for which we have statistics. In 2008 there were 680 accidental shooting deaths in the United States, with more than 15,500 shooting injuries. Most disturbing, perhaps, is the number of children involved in accidental shootings. Every day approximately five children are injured or killed on a nationwide basis as a result of handguns. The primary cause of youth-involved shooting rests with the fact that children find loaded handguns in the home – and natural curiosity leads them down the road to disaster

Each year approximately 100 people are injured or killed while cleaning a firearm and failing to exercise proper caution.

Hunting accidents account for approximately 160 accidental shootings each year, with an average of 50 fatalities.

source: http://www.thesurvivorsclub.org/extr...ental-shooting

Grapesoda · 12-29-2012, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

10K 20K 30K 50K -- that would start a civil war here.

The guy who lit the house on fire and laid in ambush for the firefighters was a shitstain ex-murderer that should have never been paroled -- as a convicted murderer he was banned from holding a firearm -- what good did it do? He had killed his grandmother with a hammer I read so he was a confirmed psycho-killer and is a best case argument for capital punishment.

I was reading some death row stats a few months ago, almost every person on death row had already been convicted of manslaughter, served time and was released. and that's a very interesting statistic that should really guide the legal system.

OneBallJohn · 12-29-2012, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NETbilling

Start by banning assault weapons except for military and peace officers

That was more or less done in 1934 then strengthened in 1986. In 1994 an "Assault Weapons Ban" was put in place to cover what you are mistakenly referring to as an "Assault Weapon" and that did nothing to stop crime. Maybe if you paid attention to history and current laws instead of the media you would know these things.

Educate yourself.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/media-...e#.UN42t-qQ1fo

crockett · 12-29-2012, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultPornMasta

BULLSHIT!

"Yes, Columbine Had Armed Guards—And They Saved Lives!"

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ves.htm?p=full

From the cited article:

"Yes, the critics respond, and there was an armed security guard at Columbine High School in 1999. Yet, 12 students and a teacher were killed by two armed intruders, as if that disqualified the solution of placing armed guards, possibly unemployed army veterans, at each of our nation's 100,000-plus schools.

Yes, there was, and it was the guard's presence and the resistance he and others offered that kept the carnage less than it might have been.

On April 20, 1999, Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years, was eating lunch when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at Columbine with their deadly arsenal and deadlier intentions.

Gardner said he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school's back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris, and the two exchanged gunfire. The exchange with Harris lasted for an extended period of time, during which Harris' gun jammed.

The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library."

Stop it with your liberal lies already!

I know you are responding to what Rochard said, but the point you guys always miss in these hero defender situations, is more times than not a successful defense by a gun carrier is usually at the hands of someone in law enforcement not some random guy carrying a gun hoping to be a hero.

I do support gun ownership, but honestly it does scare me at times that pretty much any idiot can get their hands on a gun in this country. I also have never been in a situation where I felt having a gun would help the situation.

The chances of ever needing to defend one's self with a gun for the average American is probably along the same lines of your chance of being in a plane crash. Of course your chances go up if you are in bad areas, but you always have the choice to remove yourself from that area.

I can tell you I've worked in some pretty bad areas before and never once did I feel my life was threatened just because I was there or that I needed a gun to protect myself.

Grapesoda · 12-29-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Here I'll help.. The first sentence says that it's "slowly" declining, but still 680 deaths by accidental gun fire in the US during 2008.

---- According to an annual report published by the National Safety Council, there were 39,800 deaths last year related to motor vehicles in 2008.

so what's you're point? people with cars are stupider than people with guns?

Grapesoda · 12-29-2012, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

There were armed guards in Columbine and that didn't change a damn thing.

I'm okay with the good guys having the firearms. We need to figure out way to prevent the mentally ill from getting them. That's the key.

the armed guards changed a lot of stuff, saved very many lives... and yes the mentally ill should not be allowed to have weapons...

how about this though. say when you're about 20 you get drunk and start a fight in bar, get arrested and spend the night in jail... no big deal happens all the time to kids, life goes on... never get in any more trouble

BUT with 'rigorous mental health laws in effect' you are labeled unstable, prone to violence and assigned a negative mental health profile that follows you the rest of your life. put on medication. you have problems finding work, no bank loans, health ins denied etc... AND your kids will be labeled a genetically unstable, put on a watch list and possible medicated as well

you're are supposed to be a smart guy... think about it... all these 'kids' at GFY have all these 'one stop shopping solutions' with out any life experience or understanding of the complexities of the situation.... this is the fucking reality of 'sorting out the fucking nuts'

Grapesoda · 12-29-2012, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I know you are responding to what Rochard said, but the point you guys always miss in these hero defender situations, is more times than not a successful defense by a gun carrier is usually at the hands of someone in law enforcement not some random guy carrying a gun hoping to be a hero.

I do support gun ownership, but honestly it does scare me at times that pretty much any idiot can get their hands on a gun in this country. I also have never been in a situation where I felt having a gun would help the situation.

The chances of ever needing to defend one's self with a gun for the average American is probably along the same lines of your chance of being in a plane crash. Of course your chances go up if you are in bad areas, but you always have the choice to remove yourself from that area.

I can tell you I've worked in some pretty bad areas before and never once did I feel my life was threatened just because I was there or that I needed a gun to protect myself.

I really support gun ownership with tactical training and a fail clause that denies the gun

crockett · 12-29-2012, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

---- According to an annual report published by the National Safety Council, there were 39,800 deaths last year related to motor vehicles in 2008.

so what's you're point? people with cars are stupider than people with guns?

Cars are used far more often than guns, anyone with half a brain could figure that is going to cause for a more deaths due to accidents.

Grapesoda · 12-29-2012, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Cars are used far more often than guns, anyone with half a brain could figure that is going to cause for a more deaths due to accidents.

I would say there are more guns than cars in the US, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure that out

crockett · 12-29-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

I really support gun ownership with tactical training and a fail clause that denies the gun

I do too, but truth of the matter is that it won't stop the mass type shooting. In just about every one of these cases the attacker could likely get the guns regardless if it were a little harder.

More training, stricter registration & focusing on criminals/unregistered guns will have the biggest effect on deaths & shootings. It's just not gonna solve these mass type shootings like the one in Conn.

Meaning I don't support a ban as a knee jerk reaction to a random mass shooting, but rather looking at the overall picture to see what could have the larger affect in curbing gun crime/violence.

MakingItPay · 12-29-2012, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Why is everybody worried about assault weapons?

The percentage of crime committed with assault weapons is minimal compared to the amount committed with handguns.

Adam Lanza didnt even use an assault weapon, the media just jumped all over it, and the sheep believed it, because it was stated that he had a bushmaster AR15 in his car.

NEWSFLASH: He didnt shoot those kids in his car.

They just want to start there. Then they start including handguns as "assault pistols." These guys see opportunity to grab guns everytime this happens. And it doesn't happen often. But when it does, it occurs in a "Gun Free Zone." These were created by anti gun politicians, not the NRA.

crockett · 12-29-2012, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

I would say there are more guns than cars in the US, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure that out

There is roughly the same number. It's about 250-300 mil registered cars in the US and about the same number of guns. However those 250 mil guns are spread out across roughly 50 million households.

That's roughly 45-50% of US household that have a gun meanwhile it's only about 9% of the households in the US that don't have a car or roughly 91% that do.

Meaning it's far more likely for a gun owner to own more than one gun than it is for a car owner to own more than one car and simply put cars are used far more often by more people than guns, which is why they are involved in more deaths.

fatfoo · 12-29-2012, 08:34 AM

We are not living in the caveman age, stone age, bronze age or whatever. We are technologically advanced right now. Still, some humans act like apes. Think about Darwin. These humans are thinking about the first time they saw a hammer, axe or metal gun. How violent can they become… Guns are most dangerous because they can create mass shootings. Are defenses really defenses? The courts are there to decide. Good luck.

crockett · 12-29-2012, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingItPay

They just want to start there. Then they start including handguns as "assault pistols." These guys see opportunity to grab guns everytime this happens. And it doesn't happen often. But when it does, it occurs in a "Gun Free Zone." These were created by anti gun politicians, not the NRA.

Even in the Old west they had gun free zone.. Other wise known as towns you couldn't enter and carry a gun.

Barry-xlovecam · 12-29-2012, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

A friendly soldier patrolling with a machine gun for public protection is not such a bad thing in these circumstances notwithstanding posse comitatus concerns that would have to be addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Jesus Christ.

Why do armed soldiers, your own county's armed soldiers, protecting a public place seem so sinister? When you see soldiers of your own nation patrolling in an airport, a potentially dangerous public place -- why does that scare you? The alternative suggested is that teachers, with very limited training, should wear side arms in a foolish but well intentioned attempt to guarantee the safety of their charges -- that sounds like an accident waiting to happen. Who is more liable to go postal -- a teacher or a trained soldier?

Direct to the point; Guns in the hands of good samaritans or vigilantes guarding the public is a bad idea -- I would much rather see a trained soldier doing that job. In a perfect world that would not be necessary but this is not a perfect world and will never be -- history has proven that.

MakingItPay · 12-29-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Even in the Old west they had gun free zone.. Other wise known as towns you couldn't enter and carry a gun.

I don't remember that. Not old enough. But I bet outlaws would love going into town if that is true. They probably ended up having to have an armed Marshall on site at all times.

Rochard · 12-29-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultPornMasta

BULLSHIT!

"Yes, Columbine Had Armed Guards?And They Saved Lives!"

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ves.htm?p=full

From the cited article:

"Yes, the critics respond, and there was an armed security guard at Columbine High School in 1999. Yet, 12 students and a teacher were killed by two armed intruders, as if that disqualified the solution of placing armed guards, possibly unemployed army veterans, at each of our nation's 100,000-plus schools.

Yes, there was, and it was the guard's presence and the resistance he and others offered that kept the carnage less than it might have been.

On April 20, 1999, Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years, was eating lunch when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at Columbine with their deadly arsenal and deadlier intentions.

Gardner said he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school's back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris, and the two exchanged gunfire. The exchange with Harris lasted for an extended period of time, during which Harris' gun jammed.

The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library."

Stop it with your liberal lies already!

What bullshit? There was an armed guard there, and the killings still took place.

Rochard · 12-29-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Why do armed soldiers, your own county's armed soldiers, protecting a public place seem so sinister? When you see soldiers of your own nation patrolling in an airport, a potentially dangerous public place -- why does that scare you? The alternative suggested is that teachers, with very limited training, should wear side arms in a foolish but well intentioned attempt to guarantee the safety of their charges -- that sounds like an accident waiting to happen. Who is more liable to go postal -- a teacher or a trained soldier?

Direct to the point; Guns in the hands of good samaritans or vigilantes guarding the public is a bad idea -- I would much rather see a trained soldier doing that job. In a perfect world that would not be necessary but this is not a perfect world and will never be -- history has proven that.

I have no problems going to the airports here in the US and seeing what looks like armed soldiers. Hell, we should have United States Marines guarding our airports!

PornoMonster · 12-29-2012, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

There were armed guards in Columbine and that didn't change a damn thing.

I'm okay with the good guys having the firearms. We need to figure out way to prevent the mentally ill from getting them. That's the key.

AGAIN,

He drew Fire so a wounded person could get away according to what I read. Also if drawing fire from a shooter, that shooter is NOT killing people at the time. (room to room style)

But even if the above is not correct or they even ran away .....
TELL ME WHAT IT HURT HAVING THEM THERE? You make it seem like it made the situation WORSE, it did not, and that security guard "might" have shot and killed one of the shooters.

I KNOW for a FACT that this would NOT of even been a chance of killing the shooter without the security guards and took the police what 45 minutes, an hour, what was the time?

Your argument does NOT Hold any water, since having them there did not make things worse.

PornoMonster · 12-29-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I have no problems going to the airports here in the US and seeing what looks like armed soldiers. Hell, we should have United States Marines guarding our airports!

100%

Bring our troops Home.
I Loved them in the airports and other places.
We are already spending the money, be cheaper to have our guys services over here than over seas in a pointless endless money pit war(s)

Grapesoda · 12-29-2012, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I do too, but truth of the matter is that it won't stop the mass type shooting. In just about every one of these cases the attacker could likely get the guns regardless if it were a little harder.

More training, stricter registration & focusing on criminals/unregistered guns will have the biggest effect on deaths & shootings. It's just not gonna solve these mass type shootings like the one in Conn.

Meaning I don't support a ban as a knee jerk reaction to a random mass shooting, but rather looking at the overall picture to see what could have the larger affect in curbing gun crime/violence.

it's a big mess made bigger because self seeking, mentally ill people are in change of sorting it out (politicians

)

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 11:16 AM

Guys, the Second Ammendment to the constitution says that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It doesn't specify that the "people" (which means the citizens of the United States) can only have a certain type of weapon.

And banning any kind of weapon is "infringing".

It's this simple...either the second ammendment will be stripped, or shut the fuck up.

P.S.: LOL at "training"
It ain't fucking brain surgery to shoot a gun and/or lock your gun up when you aren't using it. "training"

OneBallJohn · 12-29-2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

P.S.: LOL at "training"
It ain't fucking brain surgery to shoot a gun and/or lock your gun up when you aren't using it. "training"

People like you will be the second group to go when the shit hits the fan. Owing a gun means nothing if you aren't properly trained in how to handle it. There is far more to it than pointing and squeezing the trigger. If you're not properly trained, somebody like me will roll up and take everything you have then bitch slap you with your own gun.

If there were no need for training then there would not be so many firearms training groups out there.

crockett · 12-29-2012, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Guys, the Second Ammendment to the constitution says that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It doesn't specify that the "people" (which means the citizens of the United States) can only have a certain type of weapon.

And banning any kind of weapon is "infringing".

It's this simple...either the second ammendment will be stripped, or shut the fuck up.

P.S.: LOL at "training"
It ain't fucking brain surgery to shoot a gun and/or lock your gun up when you aren't using it. "training"

I can't wait to be the first kid on my block with my own tactical nuke for self defense.

Gozarian · 12-29-2012, 12:00 PM

amazing collection of loons

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBallJohn

People like you will be the second group to go when the shit hits the fan. Owing a gun means nothing if you aren't properly trained in how to handle it. There is far more to it than pointing and squeezing the trigger. If you're not properly trained, somebody like me will roll up and take everything you have then bitch slap you with your own gun.

If there were no need for training then there would not be so many firearms training groups out there.

yeah right. My dad had me shooting guns since I was 5 years old. (my family owned cattle and orange groves...literally thousands of acres of land)

You keep on "training" on how to "handle it"

But if you break into my house, I have a chrome shotgun with 5 shells full of birdshot that will make you wish you were dead. And I don't even have to aim that very well. It's scattershot and will fuck you up BAD.

You just keep on training and waitng for the "shit to hit the fan"

glamourmodels · 12-29-2012, 12:12 PM

Your kindergarten reading level cartoon makes a persuasive argument. I'm sold.

madm1k3 · 12-29-2012, 12:16 PM

I don't beleive in any gun bans (a short term solution that won't work) but the The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

To me that is more about arming the military than a person's indiviual freedom, but yes the Second Ammendmant will be stripped like the others:

1st Amendment: Well republicans are trying to create a Christian state, infact A GOP superstar (Michelle Bachman) wanted a witch hunt looking for any muslim in the government

4th Amendment: Google patriot act

5th Amendment: Gone, you can be held as a terrorist with no trial

6th Amendment: Government can now decline a witness from testifying and present a "summary" of the testimony.

7th Amendment: Supreme courts handed big Corporations a major victory and crippled the ability of consumers to file class action law suits

So basically the Constitution is something that can be changed or ignored, the Second Amendment will be no different

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I can't wait to be the first kid on my block with my own tactical nuke for self defense.

crockett, you won't ever even have a slingshot. lol

Like I said, if the people (the citizens of the U.S.) no longer want the right to be armed...then the people need to abolish the 2nd amendment.

Everything else is stupid and unconstitutional.

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madm1k3

I don't beleive in any gun bans (a short term solution that won't work) but the The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

To me that is more about arming the military than a person's indiviual freedom,

A "militia" is not the govt. military. It's the exact opposite.

Remember, the constitution was written by a group of revolutionaries whom had just finished rising up against an oppressive govt. and against all odds won their freedom from them.

They envisioned being able to do the same thing anytime the govt. became oppressive. Of course we all know that if you tried that now, the govt. would kill you and all your cohorts and brand you as "terrorists".

I think the 2nd ammendment gives me the right to any arms that I want. Not what I "need" as so many are trying to say. But what I WANT.

Right now all I have is a shotgun just in case someone were to break into my home. My German shepard would attack them while I grabbed my shotgun.
I'd also like to own a nice pistol for my office in my backyard Casita. I work late outside and if somebody were to break into the main house it would be nice to have a pistol out here with me to take in and defend my family.

But if I wanted to have some kind of crazy ass gun that fired a million rounds...I should be able to according to the constitution.

So if you think that is wrong, then we need to get rid of the 2nd ammendment. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Not try to tiptoe around it.

Gozarian · 12-29-2012, 12:26 PM

A little research will show that the Second Amendment had more to do with freedom than historical militias. Here is what some of the Founding Fathers actually said about arms:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1764

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't.
-- Ben Franklin

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
--Thomas Paine

A free people ought not only to 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

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined?The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
--Patrick Henry.

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
--Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

The right of the people to keep and bear?arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country?
--James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation?(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
--James Madison.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government...
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
-- George Mason

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
--Noah Webster, ?An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
-- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 12:33 PM

Don't bring up those pesky founding fathers.

You have to understand that they didn't live in 2012 and don't understand how things are now.

It's best just to let those nice and benevolent police officers have guns. They are there to protect us and would never abuse their power.
Just imagine how much nicer they will be when they are the only ones with guns.

Rochard · 12-29-2012, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

the armed guards changed a lot of stuff, saved very many lives... and yes the mentally ill should not be allowed to have weapons...

This just proves my point. We can spend tens of billions a year on armed guards at schools and it's not going to stop mass murders at schools. Once a madman has a gun in their hands, it's too late and they will kill. At Columbine it was 13 dead and 21 wounded, and the armed guard did nothing to stop the killing, other officers arrived on the scene, and the two killers committed suicide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

how about this though. say when you're about 20 you get drunk and start a fight in bar, get arrested and spend the night in jail... no big deal happens all the time to kids, life goes on... never get in any more trouble

BUT with 'rigorous mental health laws in effect' you are labeled unstable, prone to violence and assigned a negative mental health profile that follows you the rest of your life. put on medication. you have problems finding work, no bank loans, health ins denied etc... AND your kids will be labeled a genetically unstable, put on a watch list and possible medicated as well

If you are twenty years old and get drunk enough in public to start a bar fight, well, clearly your not mature enough to own a firearm.

Years ago I had a neighbor who was arrested three times in one year for assaulting his wife. For reasons I cannot understand no one thought to take away his firearms until he was shooting at his wife... Really? Why isn't there a law in place saying "If you are charged with assault, we are searching your house and taking away your firearms". Common fucking sense.

12-29-2012, 12:34 AM	#3
Mr Pheer Mark Osterholt Sucks Cock Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In your AirBNB Posts: 19,507	Why shoould I have to give up my rights? So I can just become a helpless victim? I dont think so. Arm more citizens. __________________ PHEER FOR YO LIFE!!!!

12-29-2012, 12:41 AM	#4
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 71,106	There were armed guards in Columbine and that didn't change a damn thing. I'm okay with the good guys having the firearms. We need to figure out way to prevent the mentally ill from getting them. That's the key. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

12-29-2012, 12:50 AM	#6
NETbilling Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Posts: 8,556	Start by banning assault weapons except for military and peace officers __________________ Mitch Farber CEO - NETbilling, Inc. Email / Phone: 888-357-8166 / 661-252-2456 Transaction processing & 24/7 call center services with exceptional rates and flexibility, since 1998!

12-29-2012, 01:55 AM	#14
buzzard Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Midwest Posts: 1,276	GFY is full of Supposed "Men" that have never even been in a fight. I'm not surprised the pussification of America is Here. The Ban should be on government, If you are associated in any way, shape or form with government, you are NOT allowed at any time to posess a firearm. __________________

12-29-2012, 05:51 AM	#17
martinsc Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 27,047	__________________ Make Money

12-29-2012, 12:11 AM	#2
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Gun bans in the USA is a red herring argument. There are somewhere between 250 million and 420 million registered and unregistered firearms in the USA. OK, they pass a gun ban then what? Start a war on guns and start knocking on citizens' doors to take their legally registered firearms ... How may gun deaths do you think that will achieve? 10K 20K 30K 50K -- that would start a civil war here. I am sorrowful of the mass killings of innocent schoolchildren by a nutcase with guns. The guy who lit the house on fire and laid in ambush for the firefighters was a shitstain ex-murderer that should have never been paroled -- as a convicted murderer he was banned from holding a firearm -- what good did it do? He had killed his grandmother with a hammer I read so he was a confirmed psycho-killer and is a best case argument for capital punishment. We have a large number of returning soldiers from overseas -- why not station them on guard duty in schools? A friendly soldier patrolling with a machine gun for public protection is not such a bad thing in these circumstances notwithstanding posse comitatus concerns that would have to be addressed. Arming teachers is a bad idea. When I think back to my schooldays I can't think of many teachers that I would have trusted carrying pistols ...

12-29-2012, 08:34 AM	#30
fatfoo ICQ:649699063 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 27,763	We are not living in the caveman age, stone age, bronze age or whatever. We are technologically advanced right now. Still, some humans act like apes. Think about Darwin. These humans are thinking about the first time they saw a hammer, axe or metal gun. How violent can they become… Guns are most dangerous because they can create mass shootings. Are defenses really defenses? The courts are there to decide. Good luck. __________________ Send me an email: [email protected]

12-29-2012, 11:16 AM	#39
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,845	Guys, the Second Ammendment to the constitution says that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" It doesn't specify that the "people" (which means the citizens of the United States) can only have a certain type of weapon. And banning any kind of weapon is "infringing". It's this simple...either the second ammendment will be stripped, or shut the fuck up. P.S.: LOL at "training" It ain't fucking brain surgery to shoot a gun and/or lock your gun up when you aren't using it. "training" __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 12-29-2012 at 11:18 AM..

12-29-2012, 12:00 PM	#42
Gozarian Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: most recently Bucharest Posts: 558	amazing collection of loons

12-29-2012, 12:12 PM	#44
glamourmodels Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,121	Your kindergarten reading level cartoon makes a persuasive argument. I'm sold. __________________ Hot london escorts and international escort directory

12-29-2012, 12:16 PM	#45
madm1k3 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 472	I don't beleive in any gun bans (a short term solution that won't work) but the The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" To me that is more about arming the military than a person's indiviual freedom, but yes the Second Ammendmant will be stripped like the others: 1st Amendment: Well republicans are trying to create a Christian state, infact A GOP superstar (Michelle Bachman) wanted a witch hunt looking for any muslim in the government 4th Amendment: Google patriot act 5th Amendment: Gone, you can be held as a terrorist with no trial 6th Amendment: Government can now decline a witness from testifying and present a "summary" of the testimony. 7th Amendment: Supreme courts handed big Corporations a major victory and crippled the ability of consumers to file class action law suits So basically the Constitution is something that can be changed or ignored, the Second Amendment will be no different __________________ Always looking for trades on Linkspun! Check my Id here

12-29-2012, 12:26 PM	#48
Gozarian Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: most recently Bucharest Posts: 558	A little research will show that the Second Amendment had more to do with freedom than historical militias. Here is what some of the Founding Fathers actually said about arms: Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1764 What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. -- Ben Franklin Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. --Thomas Paine A free people ought not only to 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 Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined?The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. --Patrick Henry. Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386. The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. --Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87. The right of the people to keep and bear?arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country? --James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). (The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation?(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. --James Madison. If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) . The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B. To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them. -- George Mason The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. --Noah Webster, ?An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888) [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People. -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

12-29-2012, 12:33 PM	#49
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,845	Don't bring up those pesky founding fathers. You have to understand that they didn't live in 2012 and don't understand how things are now. It's best just to let those nice and benevolent police officers have guns. They are there to protect us and would never abuse their power. Just imagine how much nicer they will be when they are the only ones with guns. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com