Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 1:24pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,856 posts

Interesting. You chose to avoid that we pointed out how you were lumping stereotypes like nobody's business. Care to address this, before going on about the idea that those of us who support guns think there should be no gun laws? Which, as you may not have worked out, we do want gun restrictions.

 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 2:26pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Here's a small sample of their criminal activities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ⦠5.htmlrn and they still going at it.


Link didn't work.

Remember, there's a lot of money to make from selling murdering weapons, and that Lapierre ******* probably get's some money from his buddies (gun making retards) who want things to stay the way they are.


There is, except the NRA isn't a gun dealership. It's an association of people who advocate the safe usage of guns and the rights of citizens to own firearms. They do not as a group do anything remotely terrorist like.

NRA

It's not some military arms company that supplies civilians like you make it out to be.

You chose to avoid that we pointed out how you were lumping stereotypes like nobody's business.


Obviously. 3/4 of his argument is calling the opposition, "retards" "rednecks" "terrorists" "gun loving" and whatever else. Only a small portion of what he says, that people do bad things with guns and that people make money from selling guns, is even partially true.

Which, as you may not have worked out, we do want gun restrictions.


I'll repeat this just to be on the clear side, even though you'll be calling us retarded redneck gun lovers come 2 pages from now.

We want more gun restrictions. We agree that the current state of affairs in the US in regards to gun policy is lacking.

However, we do not see why people who can prove themselves responsible and who wish to own a gun should not be able to do so. We are not saying that even those responsible people should be carrying around RPGs, AK-47s, M-16s and who knows what else. If people want to shoot those (minus the RPG...) they can go to a gun club where such things would be under lock and key, or join the military.
 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 2:42pm

SSTG

SSTG

11,367 posts

Knight

Interesting. You chose to avoid that we pointed out how you were lumping stereotypes like nobody's business. Care to address this, before going on about the idea that those of us who support guns think there should be no gun laws? Which, as you may not have worked out, we do want gun restrictions.

Then why all the fuss about Obama's proposition then?
Yes stereotypes in this case fits the target because the majority are way too dumb to own such power in their hands.
If it were for me, they wouldn't be any guns at all, except for the military and law enforcement, period.
Yeah I know, some will come with the fore father crap, the evil government takeover, the violent history of the US argument but shouldn't we put an end to this paranoia eventually and realize that the US territory is safe to live in?
Stop seeing enemies everywhere and maybe the ideas of owning a gun would become obsolete.

BTW, AG need to fix the link problem, it's getting annoying.
 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 2:52pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Then why all the fuss about Obama's proposition then?


Masterforger, wolf1991, Salvidian and I were questioning 404011xz, SteveeXb, and PauseBreak on why they thought the new gun policy was bad.

Then you and partydevil come in, and like usual, throw ad hominems and sarcastic remarks all over the place, act like we're idiots, and leave.

If you didn't mean to include us, then don't say, "you" when in response to our posts.

Yes stereotypes in this case fits the target because the majority are way too dumb to own such power in their hands.


Perhaps, but this it still isn't appropriate to just attack the opposition like that. Name calling is for grade school, if you want to sway them, actually present your case, don't just treat them like an idiot and ride your high horse off into your imaginary sunset.

If it were for me, they wouldn't be any guns at all, except for the military and law enforcement, period.


We know.

Stop seeing enemies everywhere and maybe the ideas of owning a gun would become obsolete.


And I'll respond again.

WE AREN'T. If you're going to make statements like that, ADDRESS THEM TO THE RELEVANT PEOPLE. I can only assume that, since you're quoting my post and you're speaking directly to me, that you're saying that I think there's enemies everywhere and that I'm paranoid about a government takeover.

404011xz, SteveeXb, and PauseBreak and others are the ones who have said that.

NOT Masterforger, wolf1991, Salvidian and I. So again, stop lumping us all together.
 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 3:55pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,856 posts

Thank you, Kasic.
As for you, SSTG, would you kindly (powerful phrase) reply to the actual arguments instead of finding fault in the wrong place? You are just like the paranoid fools you keep whining about, just you whine for different reasons. What part of gun legality AND strict gun laws is hard for you to understand?

 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 4:12pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

It was also established many times over that you and partydevil strawman the hell out of our arguments and lump together everyone who doesn't share a want for a complete ban on guns in the civilian population as some sort of stereotypical ad hominem. We established that quite well.

i have already stated more then once that i'm not for a entire ban on guns.
also are the strawmans i made here sarcastic. (atleast the last few. dunno befor that.)
and even tho i did agree whit most of what sstg said 55 pages ago. he seems to get more radical. and i find myself less often agreeing whit everything he said.
there are true points in what he said. like some dumbnuts thinking about shooting obama for this. but i'm not that radical that i believe this are most of the gun lovers.

i hope it is clear now, and that you dont team me up whit what sstg say's in the future. thx.
 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 5:11pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

Guns can be confiscated during any 'emergency'. example.


"A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006." - taken from Wikipedia

Excuse me but the NRA is a terrorist organization. Here's a small sample of their criminal activities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ⦠5.htmlrn and they still going at it. Remember, there's a lot of money to make from selling murdering weapons, and that Lapierre ******* probably get's some money from his buddies (gun making retards) who want things to stay the way they are


The I just heard some stats the other day about the NRA. It turns out, a majority or gun owners aren't a part of the NRA. So, don't lump gun owners in with the NRA.

However, we do not see why people who can prove themselves responsible and who wish to own a gun should not be able to do so. We are not saying that even those responsible people should be carrying around RPGs, AK-47s, M-16s and who knows what else. If people want to shoot those (minus the RPG...) they can go to a gun club where such things would be under lock and key, or join the military.


I agree. Except for the whole going to gun clubs to shoot assault rifles. That, I don't see the sense in. I don't know how many gun clubs you've been to, but they really don't have any type of security. It'd be really easy to go and take those guns. Most killings are not even done with assault rifles. Restricting or even banning ownership of them does nothing.

Then why all the fuss about Obama's proposition then?
Yes stereotypes in this case fits the target because the majority are way too dumb to own such power in their hands.
If it were for me, they wouldn't be any guns at all, except for the military and law enforcement, period.
Yeah I know, some will come with the fore father crap, the evil government takeover, the violent history of the US argument but shouldn't we put an end to this paranoia eventually and realize that the US territory is safe to live in?
Stop seeing enemies everywhere and maybe the ideas of owning a gun would become obsolete.


I agree that we don't need the 2nd amendment in America, nowadays. But, what about in the future? Are we always going to be free from a tyrannical government? It might be in a thousand years but I guarantee that the 2nd amendment will be needed eventually. Get rid of it now and your potentially dooming the future of this country.
 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 5:25pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

i have already stated more then once that i'm not for a entire ban on guns.


Yes, you have. But you also mock and group people like SSTG does.

also are the strawmans i made here sarcastic.


My point. As stated here. "Then you and partydevil come in, and like usual, throw ad hominems and sarcastic remarks all over the place, act like we're idiots, and leave."

he seems to get more radical.


He's been this way from the very start. I also recall previous gun control threads where I asked him kindly, more than once, to stop the stereotyping.

there are true points in what he said. like some dumbnuts thinking about shooting obama for this.


Which really isn't about gun control, but about violent extremists.

i hope it is clear now, and that you dont team me up whit what sstg say's in the future. thx.


I was grouping you in part with the attitude portion, not the gun control stance.

So, don't lump gun owners in with the NRA.


Not that the NRA is a terrorist organization to begin with.

Except for the whole going to gun clubs to shoot assault rifles. That, I don't see the sense in. I don't know how many gun clubs you've been to, but they really don't have any type of security.


It's my personally thought of solution which would allow people who like shooting those types of guns to be able to do so even with a ban on automatic weapons. Of course, security and such would need to be vamped up.

Most killings are not even done with assault rifles. Restricting or even banning ownership of them does nothing.


True, but why does the average civilian need an assault rifle? Those ARE made for killing, and only killing. When you think home defense, you don't think machine gun. When you think target practice, you generally don't think AK-47 (or at least I don't). Those are simply dangerous weapons, they are not for sport. If people want to shoot them, fine, but we don't need them floating around people's homes.

But, what about in the future? Are we always going to be free from a tyrannical government?


I've said this before. If the government really wanted to suppress us and had the military on their side, a bunch of untrained civilians with hunting rifles or even assault rifles would be absolutely useless. Modern military tech is soooooooooooooooooooooooo much further along than what we civilians have. So unless you are advocating that people own tanks, helicopters, RPGs and what not, we wouldn't stand a chance anyhow.
 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 6:46pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

But you also mock and group people like SSTG does.

you group aswell.

"Then you and partydevil come in, and like usual, throw ad hominems and sarcastic remarks all over the place, act like we're idiots, and leave."
(havn't seen this, i'm not that into this topic anymore. obama is going the right way. so i'm now watching what is going to happen. do they pass or not)
and sorry that i get annoyed of this topic and do not reply on everything all the time. i have better things to do then this topic. as i said befor. personally i dont care if you guys keep shooting each other. just want to bring over the point that you dont need guns. as they seem to think.

He's been this way from the very start.

hmmm no, he has learned some points that he is taking over the top now. things he didn't say in the begin.

I also recall previous gun control threads where I asked him kindly, more than once, to stop the stereotyping.

tbh, i dont see what is wrong whit stereotyping. we all do that. look at yourself. your stereotyping me for being sstg and for having his ideas.
stereotyping happens all the time and people laugh about it.
stereotypes hold some truth but is taken a step further then reality go's. if you know that, then what is wrong whit stereotypes?

Which really isn't about gun control, but about violent extremists.

showing the point that a average joe whit a gun for self defense can easly use it to kill someone if they dont agree. i.e. showing the risk of guns everywhere.

now come and say strawman again. just because it didn't happen.
but looking at the rage of some of these average joe's. you can't convince me that non of them are having the idea. or even are planning for it.

I was grouping you in part with the attitude portion

sofar i know do i say when i'm wrong and do i no longer hammer on statements i made that have been proven wrong to me.

or is this whole grouping only because i use the words "gun lovers"?
if so then i want to make clear that i do not have the same idea if who these people are as sstg does.

I don't know how many gun clubs you've been to, but they really don't have any type of security.

what isn't there can be created. and it will be created if the law say's so.
 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 6:49pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

Of course, security and such would need to be vamped up.


Yes, vampires would be quite the deterrent. :)

True, but why does the average civilian need an assault rifle? Those ARE made for killing, and only killing. When you think home defense, you don't think machine gun. When you think target practice, you generally don't think AK-47 (or at least I don't). Those are simply dangerous weapons, they are not for sport. If people want to shoot them, fine, but we don't need them floating around people's homes.


Do I need an electric mixer for the kitchen? No, I don't. Do I need to own several different kitchen knives? No. They are not made only for killing. Assault rifles are made for accuracy, rate of fire, ruggedness, as well as other things that make them great for competition as well as very enjoyable to shoot. They're easy to use, easy to shoot and most of all they're fun. All guns are made for killing, when it comes down to it. Your argument applies to all guns. Also, machine guns are different from assault rifles. What credible threat is there for a law abiding citizen, as an overwhelming majority of gun owners are, to own an assault rifle?

I've said this before. If the government really wanted to suppress us and had the military on their side, a bunch of untrained civilians with hunting rifles or even assault rifles would be absolutely useless. Modern military tech is soooooooooooooooooooooooo much further along than what we civilians have. So unless you are advocating that people own tanks, helicopters, RPGs and what not, we wouldn't stand a chance anyhow.


if you look at history and how many times that's been said before you'd realize how completely ridiculous it is to even think it. That advanced military tech is really working over in Iraq and Afghanistan against mostly untrained civilians with ak-47s. Also, You might wanna take a look at the Vietnam War.
 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!