Reply With Quote
I would change #14 to "Guns only have three enemies; rust, dust and politicians."
And would add #27: "Rapists love gun locks"
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Cons ution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
Objections, comments, etc?
Who actually promotes gun control?
I mean, , I am accused of being a liberal hippie half of the time, have never owned a gun, and have only shot one on several occasions, and I will be damned if someone told me I couldn't possess one had I the desire to do so.
I would change #14 to "Guns only have three enemies; rust, dust and politicians."
And would add #27: "Rapists love gun locks"
I'm against gun control, but that doesn't mean that I think every joe shcmo should be allowed to possess a 50 cal. or even a fully automatic weapon. Guns are for your and your families protection, as well as hunting and recreational sports, but that doesn't mean that the bullets you buy for your gun couldn't and shouldn't be identifiable back to you. The technology is there to ingrain serial numbers or other traceable controls into the core of every bullet sold in the U.S.. If you own weapons then it's up to you to make sure that they are secure. If they get stolen or lost and are used in violent crimes, then you should be able to trace what crimes these weapons were used commit. It's harsh, but it would make people 1.) think twice about owning weapons 2) make damn sure your weapons and bullets are secure 3) help stop drive-by type shootings.
^^Horse hocky, dan.
I think there should be more gun control.
Macho Man with big gun has small
Iraqi citizens are allowed to own fully automatic AK-47, and we all know how much safer and peaceful Iraq is right now, don't we?
I don't "hate" guns, and I don't profess the notion that guns "cause" crime, but many of these "armed society is a polite society" NRA proverbs are mindless bull .
And yet you support folks like Hillary...I mean, , I am accused of being a liberal hippie half of the time, have never owned a gun, and have only shot one on several occasions, and I will be damned if someone told me I couldn't possess one had I the desire to do so.
Well damn. Maybe the day that Christians and Baptists start shooting each other on the streets of America, you'll have a point. Iraq is a horrible attempt at a mindless, bull argument in favor of gun control.Iraqi citizens are allowed to own fully automatic AK-47, and we all know how much safer and peaceful Iraq is right now, don't we?
I don't "hate" guns, and I don't profess the notion that guns "cause" crime, but many of these "armed society is a polite society" NRA proverbs are mindless bull .
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html
In More Guns, Less Crime (1998), the University of Chicago's John Lott examined the impact of concealed carry permits. Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, he found that after controlling for other factors:
* Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. [See Figure II.]
* Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.
These reductions are beyond the general decline in crime rates that the U.S. has experienced during the past eight years.
In the early 1990s, Texas' serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. For example, during the 1990s Texas' murder rate dropped 52 percent compared to 33 percent nationally, and the rape rate fell by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. In light of Lott's research, it is likely that Texas' concealed carry law has contributed to the declining crime rates.
Well damn. Maybe the day European countries with stricter gun control laws have higher rates of violent crimes that the U.S., you'll have a point. (see how easy it is to offer up thoughtless, one-dimensional debate points?)
Here's a wacky idea, maybe voilent crime rates have more to with things like socio-economics, culture, values and law enforcement than the availability to guns.
As for concealed weapons laws, I don't want to live in a state where people who go to bed every night praying for someone to "start in with me so I can waste em" is allowed to carry a concealed pistol.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 01-03-2007 at 08:34 PM.
I have never, and will never, support Hillary or anybody like her. Get a clue and stop making assumptions. Jesus. Pathetic.
Why did you quote two seperate people in the same post without making a distinction between the two?
Here's a wacky idea. If a bunch of Muslim youths tried the kind of they pulled in Paris last year with the riots here in Texas, that should would have been nipped in the bud the first day because they would have all been dead.
Funny. I live in a state like that. I don't go to bed praying for someone to with me. You're a real dumbass. Having to take someone's life is probably one of the most miserable things a person could have to do in their lives.As for concealed weapons laws, I don't want to live in a state where people who go to bed every night praying for someone to "start in with me so I can waste em" is allowed to carry a concealed pistol.
I have a friend who had a relative who had an intruder break into his home and attack him and his wife in their bed room. Luckily he had a gun bed side. The bad guy had a knife. Guess who won?
Hurricane Katrina showed that when the hits the fan, the cops aren't going to be able to make it on time to save you.
Similarly, if someone breaks into my place, whatever is going to happen is going to do so long before Dallas PD can show up to do anything about it.
So, you've got two choices: ban weapons and be the victim, or carry concealed knowing that, God forbid, push ever comes to shove and you're about to be attacked in your own home, you can do something about it to defend yourself, your life, and your family instead of having to mutter it's not fair and pray to God that the asshole that broke into your house at 2 AM is going to let any of you live.
Personally, I hope that day never comes for me, but I know if it does, I won't be a defenseless victim or a statistic.
Didn't have the balls to quote the entire post? Your bull hypothetical is a lame dodge. And if muslim youth did want to start in Texas, they'd have easier access to firearms.
Really? Did any armed, law-abiding citizens take it upon themselves to deal with the snipers?
What does keeping a firearm in your home for protection have to do with Carry-Conceal laws? And for the record, I'm not in favor of banning all guns in this country, I just don't subsribe to your childish notion of Wild West "civility".
Violent robbery isn't the only statistic associated with gun ownership.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 01-04-2007 at 02:06 AM.
I thought gun control means being able to hit your target?
/Center mass
/Owns a Barrett M95
First of all, this dude is not conservative, nor is he liberal. He is however funnier then . I highly recommend reading some of his other stuff throughout his website, he cracks me up. Just my opinion though.
Here's his stance on gun control:
http://www.snipeme.com/archive.php?year=2005&rant=guns
Guns, Gun Control, the 2nd Amendment, et al
November 2, 2005
Yeah, sooner or later, you knew I'd have to get around to writing this. It's amazing that in almost 2 years of ranting I've never covered this topic in a rant (though I have ed about it on the forums here). So, yeah, it's time.
Those who don't know me or don't know my stance on this issue will naturally guess that since I'm a "far left whacko" on damn near every other issue, that I'm about to and and about how guns are evil etc, etc, etc, blah blah blah. And those people would be absolutely wrong.
First of all, despite what many of you seem to think, I'm not a ing liberal. I'm not a conservative either. I don't have any damn labels and I'll thank you to keep your little minimum wage stock-boy label gun away from me, . So don't be surprised that I'm not ing about how evil guns are. Oh, don't worry, I'll deal with those pansy ass ing liberal whiners shortly.
Before we even get started, let's recap the benchmark of any gun debate (not that this is a debate since your opinion means cow- to me). Yup, it's the Second Amendment:
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.
The problem that always comes up is that each side of the ing gun control debate only gives a about half of the Amendment. The anti-gun asshats keep on shouting "A militia, a militia, can't you ing read?! It says for a militia" and then the gun nuts shout back "It doesn't matter, it still says the right of the people to have guns shall not be infringed" and then the anti-gun s say "But it says for a militia!" and it keeps going like that until everybody gets sick of the subject and sick of the other side saying the same stupid thing over and over. Well, here's a late-breaking bulletin for all of you: You're both right, now shut up and listen!
The framers of the cons ution, had they realized what a big issue this was going to be, would've made it a lot clearer. But they didn't, so luckily you have me to do that for you. Let me tell you illiterate morons what the 2nd Amendment says, since you obviously can't read what's right in front of you:
"We have no standing army or police force, so a militia is a neccesary thing to us. Since militias consist of private citizens fighting with their own weapons and ammo, it might be a good ing idea if we make it an absolute law that every citizen has the right to gun ownership." -- The Second Amendment, Revised Plain-english-for- ing-re s Edition
So, YES, the 2nd Amendment was established because of the need for militias (lacking an army to defend the newly-formed nation). So yeah, the anti-gun people are right about that. And to that I say, NO ! Like we all don't ing know why the 2nd Amendment was put into place. We all took history in school and, more importantly, we can all read. Congratulations on the wonderful history lesson. Now, anybody care to tell me exactly how that translates into "people shouldn't have the right to bear arms in today's world?" Wait, lemme go ahead and cut off the automatic party-line retort of "Because it no longer applies."
It no longer applies? SO WHAT? There's lots of in the cons ution that was put there for reasons that no longer apply, yet I don't hear hordes of liberals ing about the rest!
Oh, but it was specifically written to apply to militias, you say? That's funny. No really, you must have a different Cons ution that the one I'm reading, cuz mine says "the right of the people" not "the right of militia members." Militia members were private citizens, you dumb ! When you gave them rights, you gave rights to private citizens NOT to an organization! And, frankly, that wouldn't hold water in "today's society" anyway. You can't give a Cons utional right to only a certain group of people while denying it to everyone else; that's called discrimination, head.
Look, I know you're ing about this and still trying to argue with your monitor, so let me spoon feed it to you dopes with an analogy, like I always have to do when you're too stupid to get my point otherwise.
Let's say there was an Amendment stating "Travel, being neccesary to the people so they can go visit their family back in Englang, the right of the people to travel on ships shall not be infringed." Now along come you dumb s and you're screaming "We have planes now, this amendment no longer applies! Get rid of boats! They can all travel on planes instead!" But then I have to ask: What about my freedom to choose to travel on a boat instead? Where does that freedom go?
See, you can and and all you ing want about how we have police and a badass military now so we don't need militias and therefore people don't need guns. Sure, you can think that and that's your right. If you choose to rely solely on the police and the military to protect you, then fine, do that and have fun. Me, I'd rather not have to rely solely on someone else to protect my family.
All this is great, but the real point that you ing idiots never seem to get is that nothing you do will have much effect. Ok, sure, let's go ahead and make guns illegal for everybody. But then, what if a certain segment of the population doens't give a about the law? What if this segment of the population routinely breaks the law for their own selfish ends? If such a group existed, wouldn't they just keep their guns anyway and find illegal ways to get more? Oh, hey, whaddya know, we DO have a group like that: They're called CRIMINALS! So, now that we've outlawed all guns everywhere, let's say a man steps out of a dark alley, puts a gun to your head and demands your money. What're you gonna do, tell him he's breaking the law by having that gun?
Now here we sit in our perfect little world with no guns at all.... except for the criminals, they still have guns, cuz they don't give a about the laws you happily obey, thinking it'll actually save your sorry ass.
Now, let me take this time to personally condemn all the anti-gun liberals reading this. I once read a cute little bumper sticker that said "Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Liberals." To this day, it still confuses me. I mean, I know it's true; I can see that with my own eyes. It just doesn't make any ing sense at all! All anybody ever hears from the left is "rights rights rights rights, give them to us, now now now!" or "stop infringing on our rights rights rights rights rights!" or "Boo hoo, some evil Hitler wannabe Republican took away 0.000000000000001% of our freedom, let's stage a protest!"
You ing hippies will bend and twist and interpret and spin-doctor every last ing comma in the Cons ution to mean "more freedom" but not when it comes to the Second Amendment. There, suddenly, you decide to ere on the side of LESS freedom!
Yes, yes, militias, blah blah blah. The REASON for it's INCEPTION does not ing matter from a civil rights perspective!!!!!!!!!! The founding fathers of this country make the ing mistake of giving their reasons, YES, but they also made the terrible apparently "anti-liberal" mistake of granting WE THE PEOPLE a Cons utionally gauranteed right. It's spelled out, right there plain as ing day!
It doesn't get much ing clearer than THAT! Oh, but there I go ignoring the first half of the Amendment again. No, I'm not ignoring it all. It's nice to know WHY we have that right, but it has no bearing on whether or not that right exists as a Cons utionally granted and gauranteed RIGHT! Just keep arguing from that perspective asshole. The right to "no taxation without representation" was put into place because of the British government taxing its American colonists (our forefathers) without giving them representation. That's no longer true, so should we do away with that one too, stupid?
Here's my point about anti-gun liberals: You're traitors. That's right! If you call yourself a liberal and then have the ing balls to lobby against a Cons utional right, you are a ing traitor to everything you claim to hold dear! Here we are with like the Patriot Act going on, and you're cheering on the government to take away the 2nd Amendment? What the is wrong with you?!
Bottom line: Whether you like it or not, the founding fathers of these United States felt that the right to gun ownership was second ONLY to the right to free speech. Who the are you, a so-called "liberal," to spit on the Cons ution? You're a ing asshole and a traitor to the freedoms we hold dear. Bite me.
I'd throw in the cliche about how you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, but frankly, if you're an anti-gun nut coming to take away my gun, you're gonna be the one with the cold dead fingers, not me.
Uhhhh???
He's referring to the snipers in NO. Have you forgotten? No law-abiding citizens were still around, at that point. They could afford to flee Katrina's wrath. Interesting what people will do under complete despair.
Snipers? People weren't sniping in NO. They were breaking and entering. One of my roommates from college relayed a story to me about one of his parents' neighbors who stayed behind (they had a house just outside of NO). The guy stayed behind to ride it out. About the fourth day after the storm, some looters tried to bust into the guy's home. When they were cro-barring the door, he ed his 12 gauge and told them to go away or they'd be shot.Really? Did any armed, law-abiding citizens take it upon themselves to deal with the snipers?
Well, they busted down the door and the first guy through got a shotgun s to the face. The others ran away. He called 911, and it still took them a day to make it out to deal with the situation. And you want to ban firearms? No ing way.
You obviously don't subscribe to reality either. Wild West? I think you watched one too many Westerns. I don't turn on the news every night to see someone with a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) shooting everyone at the McDonald's counter for getting their orders wrong.What does keeping a firearm in your home for protection have to do with Carry-Conceal laws? And for the record, I'm not in favor of banning all guns in this country, I just don't subsribe to your childish notion of Wild West "civility".
The CHL types here in Texas are by and large law-abiding folks. It's pretty funny actually - DPS is much more forgiving to registered CHL owners for speeding than they are the general public, because they know you're one of the good guys.
But..But...he should have just let them take what they wanted. They probably were poor and in dire need of a TV set. No need to kill them!
The day the government outlaws gun ownership is the day the government is usurped.
Now your sounding like a Texan.
Now your sounding like a Texan.
or a Michigonian (?)
Michiganite?
You know they're lousy with militias in Michigan.
I can just picture John Wayne saying that.
We live in a violent nation. Gun control would just put the bigger guns in the hands of violent criminals.
Michigander
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
