Really? Some people...

[Staccs]

I don't want to spark up this whole debate again but I just wanted to show you how stupid some people are..

Bombs are already illegal numbnuts

Yet.. two bombs went off and more were found. so much for criminals following the law.

Stupid photo. As Murray said, those explosives would have already been illegal. -.-

Again..?

To all the people out there who are trying to defend their rights to have guns, what do they for you? They are killing machines designed to kill. For what reason are you defending your precious gun rights? If no one has guns, will you need one?

I actually responded to this one.

"Criminals do not obey laws. If you take away our right to own guns, the only people that will be affected will be law abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey laws, they sure as hell won't obey any that either outlaw guns, or restricts access to them. I, for one, do not trust the police to protect me. So as soon as I turn 18, I'm getting myself one. For what? To protect my home."

an awesome comment;

because making bombs illegal and banned stops people from getting them. oh wait...

Is the guns that is being blamed or the almost unfettered access to guns??? Context, some people need to get themselves some.

That is what I have a problem. That is what we should be fixing. Not outlawing every freaking gun.

[Tzar Rob]

Originally Posted by Staccs

That is what I have a problem. That is what we should be fixing. Not outlawing every freaking gun.

I agree with you on that one. The problem isnt guns, its who gets their hands on one. Also, I just dont see a reason why assault rifles need a place in our modern day society.

[Lord Emperor Clot]

If we do reopen the debate, the crime is how we treat and help our mentally ill people. Or really, how we don't. We have the best medicines in history, and house most of our people with chronic problems in prison, where the state puts them on state insurance, which means the individual is sent to square one, with the most basic diagnosis, often the most ill-fitting meds. The ill who are homeless, old poor also benefit from this great system. They are often put in low rent, private contract facilities where our counties put all their old and poor and homeless. In short, we don't have a system. Ad we wonder why our culture is the way it is.

[Staccs]

Originally Posted by Tzar Rob

I agree with you on that one. The problem isnt guns, its who gets their hands on one. Also, I just dont see a reason why assault rifles need a place in our modern day society.

I dunno much about guns, but is there a difference between military pistols and normal pistols? or what? because if there is, I don't see any point in civilians having military weapons.

[Anson]

I support the signing of laws that give you tax incentives to lawfully own and know how to properly use guns. The best way to end gun violence is to make it so that more people know how they are used, how to use them properly, to teach people the right mentality to use one, and to also teach them how to properly defend themselves. This gripe fest about taking guns away is actually making more people stock up on guns. If they really wanted to remove guns from more peoples' hands, all they'd have to do is teach everyone how to use them and show them what sort of damage can be done by owning one.

I know personally, I own a few different weapons but have them locked away. I learned that the amount of damage a single shot can do to a watermelon and a pumpkin is intense, and so I'm less likely to go off the deep end and shoot someone. I've seen the damage it can do on a vegetable with similar consistency. I still know how to shoot, but I do so more for sport.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by Staccs

I dunno much about guns, but is there a difference between military pistols and normal pistols? or what? because if there is, I don't see any point in civilians having military weapons.

I agree that only the government should have access to military grade weapons. When the second amendment was written, the founders couldn't possibly have envisioned automatic armor piercing weapons with 30 round clips. That kind of power is only safe in the hands of the government.


In the same way, I think only the government should have access to mass media like TV and the internet. When the first amendment was written, the founders couldn't possibly have envisioned that you could instantly communicate with millions of people in an instant on any topic basically for free. That kind of power is only safe in the hands of the government.

[killer04]

Originally Posted by tom the pit leader

I agree that only the government should have access to military grade weapons. When the second amendment was written, the founders couldn't possibly have envisioned automatic armor piercing weapons with 30 round clips. That kind of power is only safe in the hands of the government.


In the same way, I think only the government should have access to mass media like TV and the internet. When the first amendment was written, the founders couldn't possibly have envisioned that you could instantly communicate with millions of people in an instant on any topic basically for free. That kind of power is only safe in the hands of the government.

I know for a fact that automatic weapons made after 1984 are illegal, and to own one made before that requires permits and heavy background checks. Regarding armor piercing ammo, iirc ammo designed to pierce armor is illegal. Just about ANY rifle round can pierce body armor that is worn on a daily basis by law enforcement.

[IronsightSniper]

Originally Posted by killer04

I know for a fact that automatic weapons made after 1984 are illegal, and to own one made before that requires permits and heavy background checks. Regarding armor piercing ammo, iirc ammo designed to pierce armor is illegal. Just about ANY rifle round can pierce body armor that is worn on a daily basis by law enforcement.

sure you can kill a few deputies but the idea is that without AP it's gonna be hard for you to kill SWAT members. really though, if the argument for guns is to safeguard people from the government, then you're going to need far more than 80 million people with 240 million small arms because the u.s. military can bulldoze through that if given the time to. you can get into the nuances of supplying the military for that, which is almost entirely a civilian venture, but generally speaking if you pit the u.s. military against joe rebel, joe rebel's dead.

[killer04]

Originally Posted by IronsightSniper

sure you can kill a few deputies but the idea is that without AP it's gonna be hard for you to kill SWAT members. really though, if the argument for guns is to safeguard people from the government, then you're going to need far more than 80 million people with 240 million small arms because the u.s. military can bulldoze through that if given the time to. you can get into the nuances of supplying the military for that, which is almost entirely a civilian venture, but generally speaking if you pit the u.s. military against joe rebel, joe rebel's dead.

What point are you trying to make?

[IronsightSniper]

Originally Posted by killer04

What point are you trying to make?

guns aren't there to safeguard against tyranny anymore because the forces of tyranny is stronger than that.