Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

At least 18 children and 9 others dead in Connecticut school shooting. Does this change your mind ab Options · View
dvgtsc
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:45:01 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 12
Location: United States
I am not happy with what happened, but I myself am a gun owner. I am a law abiding citizen and I go through the back ground checks. My state has back ground checks for every gun purchase I make. Stricter gun laws will do nothing for the non law abiding citizen. My own school( college) I feel has a silly rule. All faulty and students currently enrolled at my college are not allowed to carry any firearms or weapons on them while on the ground. This includes locked in a car. However this rule only applies to students and faculty. People who are on campus and not a student or faculty and are there for some public event or other form of business, this rule does not apply to them. I have a conceal carry license and my school is located in not the greatest area. I get out of class late at night and with in the past month there have been 3 attempted rapes and 4 assaults not to mention who knows how many robberies. I feel I have a right to protect myself.

Again I do own a gun, but owning a gun comes with great responsibility. I know my laws and what constitutes when I am allowed to discharge my firearm. I do believe in the second amendment and it is my right to bear arms. But because of certain individuals who misuse this right the rest suffer. The college rule placed I feel made the area much more dangerous. The criminals know the college students on my campus have nothing to protect themselves. I feel it makes us a much easier target since all of them know the school policy as well.

My school elementary-high school all had security guards. Maybe it is just in the area I grew up in but I felt safer with them there.I atleast knew if anything went down someone within the judicial power was firing back. The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I truly feel that way.
sprite
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:00:31 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,729
Location: My Tower, United States
Monkey1282 wrote:


According to the CDC, second hand smoke kills 4 times more people than firearm related homocides.




so, by your logic, it's ok to gun down children as long as we don't exceed the amount killed by second hand smoke, right?

lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:06:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,343
Location: Alabama, United States
She wrote:


the difference is in a intend.

rarely drunk people will sit behind the wheels and decide to kill someone else, if you discard hollywood action movies that is. usually they are suicidal, but with firearms, you thought things through, you made a plan, you went into a school and kill children. big difference. and maybe will this sound brutal, but difference is as well how many you can kill before someone will stop you with car or with semi automatic gun.


I know what you mean. I disagree though, anyone who drinks and chooses to drive is intending to be irresponsible. If my child is killed by a bullet or a drunk driver, I'm not really going to care about his intent. My only care would be my kid.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:20:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,343
Location: Alabama, United States
Here's another part of this whole firearms issue. When we see or hear the term "semi-automatic" gun, and people that want to ban semi-automatic guns.... they're ALL (mostly all) semi-automatic guns to a degree. Sort of, even if they aren't designated that way. A semi-automatic gun is one that doesn't have to be reloaded after it's been fired once. Even old Colt 45s from the old west were technically "semi-automatic. A revolver holds six bullets, hence the term "six shooter", and it allows the shooter to pop off 6 shots before having to reload. These days, most shotguns hold more than two shells and they can be fired one after another. Although some of these require the shooter to "pump" it, which takes about 1 second so in essence, it's nearly semi-automatic. All handguns are semi-automatic (except for small derringer type guns that hold only one or two shots). A revolver with six shots, or one that has a clip holding up to ten bullets can fire multiple rounds before needing to be reloaded. Most rifles, including hunting rifles, will hold multiple rounds of bullets. All capable of being shot without needing to be reloaded after one shot fired.

The difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic" is this. With an automatic gun, you pull and hold the trigger and it will continue to fire until you let go of the trigger or you run out of ammunition.

A semi automatic requires the shooter to pull the trigger, release, and pull the trigger again. Less than half a second.

The problem the "gun nuts" are going to have is the proverbial "slippery slope". If semi-automatic rifles are banned, what will come next? That would be a scary precedent in the eyes of the NRA and the Second Amendment. It's an easy leap in logic and legalese to then seek bans on semi-automatic guns altogether. For the true gun enthusiest or person concerned with protecting his home, having a gun capable of only one shot would be useless.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
foxjack
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:11:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
sprite wrote:




so, by your logic, it's ok to gun down children as long as we don't exceed the amount killed by second hand smoke, right?


I think his point is that it’s okay to own a gun as long as others continue their own equally deadly hobbies. Especially when good things can come from guns, the only good thing you get from cigarettes and alcohol is good feelings.
Jack_42
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:53:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 978
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:56:29 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
sprite wrote:


so, by your logic, it's ok to gun down children as long as we don't exceed the amount killed by second hand smoke, right?



Not at all. Actually, I never even mentioned kids in that post. Read my post before that one to see how I feel about this... individual... who shot those children. The reason I posted that statement was simply a response to Foxjack's post about drunk driving, and was adding another bit of information to his statement.

But, if you want me to make a logic argument out of my statement, then let me ask this. If alcohol, smoking, drug abuse, and accidental poisonings (among others) are each responsible for more avoidable deaths than firearms, why are firearms the target? If you're looking to save lives, shouldn't you logically start at the deadliest "unnecessary" right and work your way down the list? What percentage of the people who are against guns have never fired a gun in their life, and are acting more out of a fear based on lack of knowledge, fear inducing media buzzwords (assault weapon, sniper rifle, automatic rifle, etc), or our Attorney General's "brainwashing" (his word, not mine)?

If illicit drugs are illegal, drunk driving is illegal, and alcohol used to be illegal, but nothing changed, why will making guns illegal be the one prohibition that works?

Why aren't smoking and civilian availability of poisons targeted? Both of them are good for only one thing: killing. There is a difference in intent, and She is right about that. But I own guns, I use them responsibly, and I have no "intent" to kill anybody. So the argument is being based on the "intent" of the criminals, not of the law abiding citizens, which doesn't seem fair, regardless of what the topic is.

I've read so much over the past few days that I can't remember where I read it, so if this point is regurgitating something that someone else on here said, I apologize, but it is a good point:

Using 2009's numbers, roughly 30,000 people were killed with guns. FBI stats say that approximately 3/4 of those involve legally owned firearms, so about 22,750. Banning guns would probably only save a fraction of that; a murderer uses a gun because it's easier, and if there's no guns, they'll use the next best thing.

Obviously, you and others think that if banning firearms could save a fraction of that 22,750, then it's worth it. Let me ask you this though, which other rights would you be willing to give up to save that fraction?

Would you be willing to give up your Fourth Amendment rights, and allow the government or it's entities to take you, your family, or your possessions with no justification?

Would you be willing to give up your Fifth Amendment rights, and be locked away, or even executed without due process?

Would you give up your Sixth Amendment rights, and be held for an indeterminable amount of time, in secret, without a lawyer?

What about the First Amendment? Would you give that up to save a fraction of 22,750? Would you allow yourself to lose the freedom to voice your thoughts, worship as you please, gather together with your friends peaceably?

If you would, I would be very interested to hear your viewpoint on things. Also, you may be interested in North Korea. I hear they have unicorns! ()

But if you wouldn't, why is the Second Amendment allowed? Right after the Founding Fathers enumerated the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the next most important right they wanted to protect was the right to bear arms. And honestly, if the Second Amendment were about protecting the rights of hunters and recreational shooters, then the Bill of Rights would be full of references to other things they enjoyed in their free time, like pies and prostitutes.

Ugh. I hate working with numbers like that, because it tends to trivialize the deaths. These were 30,000 people, each year, who lost their lives. 30,000 sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters, who their families will never get back. Obviously, something needs to be done, I just don't think gun control is the answer.
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 5:04:45 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
I have to head off to work, so feel free to flame away on my comments. That's the wonderful thing about this country that we live in, you can have your opinion, and I can have mine, and we both can voice them. And as long as we respect and value the opinion of the other person, things keep moving along.

Trust me, I understand your viewpoint, and can definitely see the merits of it. We just don't quite agree on the implementation. But, if you feel that we need another "assault weapons ban", or a complete firearms ban, or even need to remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, please do me one favor. Do it. Petition your congressman. Call your senator. Write to the President. Picket the NRA (actually, please do. I'm tired of their "two minutes hate" posts on my Facebook wall).

Do whatever you can, to make your voice heard. Because that's how this democracy works. And if the day comes that you get what you want, then that's a good thing, because that's democracy in action. I won't agree with it, but that's the price we all have to pay to keep this great democracy alive.
echopomp
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 5:14:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 190

why are guns the target?

well because they are designed to kill, and only to kill.

we do not have access to hand guns or rifles in the UK. Our gun crime is very much reduced. Ok we have other crime, but gun crime is down.

personally, if I was in the states I would willingly give up my right to carry a gun, even if it only saved 1 life.

not 1 life a year, but 1 life ever!

you are talking about a fraction of 22,750 as if it is simply a number. if you save 1% that is 227 people per year. hell that is worth it!


Foxjack, what good come out of guns? As far as I am aware only bullets come from Guns, at very high speed.

as for DVGTSC - i am sorry about your situation, but it shows how far the US has sunk. you have 300million + guns, ofcourse that is going to cause problems. but more guns is never the answer
sprite
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:07:55 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,729
Location: My Tower, United States
foxjack wrote:

I think his point is that it’s okay to own a gun as long as others continue their own equally deadly hobbies. Especially when good things can come from guns, the only good thing you get from cigarettes and alcohol is good feelings.


in a lot of cities and states, laws have been enacted dealing with second hand smoke, banning it in the restaurants, schools, airplanes, workplaces, bars, some go as far as prohibiting smoking anywhere public. slowly but surely smoking in public is being banned.

drinking alchohol, while legal, is illegal while driving and being drunk in public is a punishable offense, as is underage drinking and supplying minors with booze.

i think that those keep in line the idea that, while guns may remain legal, it will be illegal to own assault rifles and semi automatic weapons.
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:09:21 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
echopomp wrote:

personally, if I was in the states I would willingly give up my right to carry a gun, even if it only saved 1 life.


Maybe that makes you a better person than me. Maybe my psyche is too "savage" to become that pacifist. But that's not really the issue. You can make all the choices you want in your life, and that's fine. Where it becomes an issue is when you try to make choices for my life, and tell me how I can and cannot protect my children.

Personally, I choose to dance with the devil, so my kids never have to see his face.

Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:20:11 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
sprite wrote:


in a lot of cities and states, laws have been enacted dealing with second hand smoke, banning it in the restaurants, schools, airplanes, workplaces, bars, some go as far as prohibiting smoking anywhere public. slowly but surely smoking in public is being banned.

drinking alchohol, while legal, is illegal while driving and being drunk in public is a punishable offense, as is underage drinking and supplying minors with booze.

i think that those keep in line the idea that, while guns may remain legal, it will be illegal to own assault rifles and semi automatic weapons.


I don't have to agree with your stance to appreciate a respectful and well articulated response. So, thank you. Seriously. :)

I think there are two different debates here: whether or not all guns should be banned, and whether or not these "assault weapons" should be banned. The latter argument depends entirely on your interpretation of the Second Amendment and the reasoning behind it.
foxjack
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:31:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
sprite wrote:


in a lot of cities and states, laws have been enacted dealing with second hand smoke, banning it in the restaurants, schools, airplanes, workplaces, bars, some go as far as prohibiting smoking anywhere public. slowly but surely smoking in public is being banned.

drinking alchohol, while legal, is illegal while driving and being drunk in public is a punishable offense, as is underage drinking and supplying minors with booze.

i think that those keep in line the idea that, while guns may remain legal, it will be illegal to own assault rifles and semi automatic weapons.

I was talking more about the alcohol, the smoking bans have been happening here for 4 or more years now, they also jacked the price up to hell on them. However, even though drinking and driving is illegal, people still manage to make bad choices. Clearly people aren't concerned about what their actions might be when they get drunk, so the solution to that issue might also be the removal of the "tool" since people aren't smart enough to use it safely.

If you put the question to a friend’s life "Would you quit drinking to save just one life your entire life" I'm sure they'd say yes, however they wouldn't do it, not unless they had proof that their drinking would actually cost a life. This is basically the same issue you are putting against gun owners, asking them to give up their hobby to save lives that they probably won’t have affected in the first place.
sprite
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:44:56 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,729
Location: My Tower, United States
Monkey1282 wrote:


Not at all. Actually, I never even mentioned kids in that post. Read my post before that one to see how I feel about this... individual... who shot those children. The reason I posted that statement was simply a response to Foxjack's post about drunk driving, and was adding another bit of information to his statement.

But, if you want me to make a logic argument out of my statement, then let me ask this. If alcohol, smoking, drug abuse, and accidental poisonings (among others) are each responsible for more avoidable deaths than firearms, why are firearms the target? If you're looking to save lives, shouldn't you logically start at the deadliest "unnecessary" right and work your way down the list? What percentage of the people who are against guns have never fired a gun in their life, and are acting more out of a fear based on lack of knowledge, fear inducing media buzzwords (assault weapon, sniper rifle, automatic rifle, etc), or our Attorney General's "brainwashing" (his word, not mine)?


i have fired guns before. we had them in our house while i was growing up. i was educated enough to know how to handle them, that they are not toys. outside of the house i have handled handguns. i hung with gangs for a while. some of them were friends. that was my hood. i have seen, close up, what guns do to a human body. it's not pretty. perhaps the relevant question is, how many of you who are pro-gun have ever been shot, shot someone, or seen the aftermath of a shooting up close and personal?

Monkey1282 wrote:

If illicit drugs are illegal, drunk driving is illegal, and alcohol used to be illegal, but nothing changed, why will making guns illegal be the one prohibition that works?


if even one life is saved by making guns that are manufactured for killing as opposed to sport, is that not worth it? just one? 19 kids in CT instead of 20, lets say. one family spared the pain. i'm willing to try it in hope that even one life is spared. to me, life is more important then owning something that has no use other then killing another human being.

Monkey1282 wrote:

Why aren't smoking and civilian availability of poisons targeted? Both of them are good for only one thing: killing. There is a difference in intent, and She is right about that. But I own guns, I use them responsibly, and I have no "intent" to kill anybody. So the argument is being based on the "intent" of the criminals, not of the law abiding citizens, which doesn't seem fair, regardless of what the topic is.


see my above post as far a smoking goes. and really, do you live in a cave that you miss the information declaring smoking bad for your health plastered all over everything, including the cigerette package? also, i'm fairly certain that no one has ever walked into an elementary school and murdered 20 kids with a carton of cigs.

Monkey1282 wrote:

I've read so much over the past few days that I can't remember where I read it, so if this point is regurgitating something that someone else on here said, I apologize, but it is a good point:

Using 2009's numbers, roughly 30,000 people were killed with guns. FBI stats say that approximately 3/4 of those involve legally owned firearms, so about 22,750. Banning guns would probably only save a fraction of that; a murderer uses a gun because it's easier, and if there's no guns, they'll use the next best thing.

Obviously, you and others think that if banning firearms could save a fraction of that 22,750, then it's worth it. Let me ask you this though, which other rights would you be willing to give up to save that fraction?


yes, i do. take a look around you at the basic rights we were all so happy to give up in the aftermath of 9/11. been thru an airport lately? why aren't you out there complaining about the right not to be invasively searched at the security gate?

Monkey1282 wrote:

Would you be willing to give up your Fourth Amendment rights, and allow the government or it's entities to take you, your family, or your possessions with no justification?

Would you be willing to give up your Fifth Amendment rights, and be locked away, or even executed without due process?

Would you give up your Sixth Amendment rights and be held for an indeterminable amount of time, in secret, without a lawyer?


if you truly think that is going to happen, you're kind of delusional. just saying. for the record, it has happened in the past. WWII - japanese internent. I don't recall the NRA making a stink about it, though. oh, and Guantanemo Bay. How do all of you who are against gun control feel about that? Why doesn't the NRA pour their billions of dollars into calling attention to that, rather then into making sure everyone who wants a machine gun can buy a machine gun?

Monkey1282 wrote:

What about the First Amendment? Would you give that up to save a fraction of 22,750? Would you allow yourself to lose the freedom to voice your thoughts, worship as you please, gather together with your friends peaceably?


Once again, i am fairly certain that there won't be mass murders where someone walks into a school and talks 20 kids to death, prays them to death, or peaceably gathers them to death.

Monkey1282 wrote:

If you would, I would be very interested to hear your viewpoint on things. Also, you may be interested in North Korea. I hear they have unicorns! ()


actually, i think i have a firmer grip on reality than a lot of people on the pro-gun side. after all, i'm not the paranoid one stockpiling guns for when the jack booted gov't thugs kick in my door. oh, and you really should avoid taking cheap shots at unicorns. unicorn have nasty tempers.

Monkey1282 wrote:

But if you wouldn't, why is the Second Amendment allowed? Right after the Founding Fathers enumerated the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the next most important right they wanted to protect was the right to bear arms. And honestly, if the Second Amendment were about protecting the rights of hunters and recreational shooters, then the Bill of Rights would be full of references to other things they enjoyed in their free time, like pies and prostitutes.


the second amendment, as written by the founding fathers, was to insure that we as a country had the means to raise a standing army in our defense at a moments notice. last time i checked, we still have the means. it's called the armed forces, making the need for a militia kind of redundant. and really, do you think Jefferson, etc, didn't have better things to do then add silliness to the constitution like the protection of pies and hookers? really, i may be blonde, but you don't have to talk down to me like i'm a complete ditz.
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:00:57 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
Sprite, you make valid points that deserve a response, but not ones that I can adequately give using my iPhone. So I'm stepping out of this debate for now.

I am only replying right now to apologize if you felt my comment was condescending or insinuated that you were a "ditz". It was only an apparently misguided attempt to add a brief moment of levity to a very emotional and serious discussion. I've seen too many of these debates devolve into vitriolic rhetoric, and sometimes we just need to step back and breathe, and realize that a healthy debate is a good thing. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine, but a well articulated debate is a good thing.
Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:02:05 PM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,340
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
foxjack wrote:

I was talking more about the alcohol, the smoking bans have been happening here for 4 or more years now, they also jacked the price up to hell on them. However, even though drinking and driving is illegal, people still manage to make bad choices. Clearly people aren't concerned about what their actions might be when they get drunk, so the solution to that issue might also be the removal of the "tool" since people aren't smart enough to use it safely.

If you put the question to a friend’s life "Would you quit drinking to save just one life your entire life" I'm sure they'd say yes, however they wouldn't do it, not unless they had proof that their drinking would actually cost a life. This is basically the same issue you are putting against gun owners, asking them to give up their hobby to save lives that they probably won’t have affected in the first place.


So out of curiosity, how many guns do you own? You seem to be pro gun, I would just like to know (and quantify) seeing as you are bringing up other causes of death outside of this horrible tragedy. In this case this firearm is as damned close to an M16 as you can get, oh and you can purchase this at your local Wal-Mart.

How fucked up is that?



The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:10:45 PM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,340
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
foxjack wrote:

I think his point is that it’s okay to own a gun as long as others continue their own equally deadly hobbies. Especially when good things can come from guns, the only good thing you get from cigarettes and alcohol is good feelings.


I sure hope you mean a supper for a less fortunate family by the means of wild game. But why does a family need a semi-automatic firearm capable of piercing a bullet proof vest, that holds 30 or more rounds?

Why did that sick fuck need to unload 11 bullets into an innocent child? Actually no, why does a government allow a person to possess such an instrument of death? Because something was written in the late 1700's - uh yeah sorry it's your "right".

Walks away whistling O'Canada.

The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:25:23 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,817
my heart goes out to all the families out n connecticut that lost their love ones. it was a bad thing that happened.
foxjack
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:28:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
Dudealicious wrote:


I sure hope you mean a supper for a less fortunate family by the means of wild game. But why does a family need a semi-automatic firearm capable of piercing a bullet proof vest, that holds 30 or more rounds?

Why did that sick fuck need to unload 11 bullets into an innocent child? Actually no, why does a government allow a person to possess such an instrument of death? Because something was written in the late 1700's - uh yeah sorry it's your "right".

Walks away whistling O'Canada.

If I recall correctly Canada actually got rid of some of their gun laws last year (or maybe the year before).
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:36:05 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
Actually, I'm bowing out of this debate all together. I just read that they're just now starting to bury these children, and honestly, I'm still sick to my stomach over the whole thing. If you want to read my "delusional" opinion on the 2nd amendment, including it's relation to standing armies, there's a link to my blog in my profile.

Be kind to each other. I think both sides can agree that is something we need more of.
VanGogh
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:37:28 PM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 2,776
Location: Vancouver, Canada
foxjack wrote:

If I recall correctly Canada actually got rid of some of their gun laws last year (or maybe the year before).


Yes we did ....

Quote:
Changes to the Canadian Firearms Program

On April 5, 2012, Bill C-19, Ending the Long-Gun RegistryAct, came into effect. The key changes are as follows:

Removal of the requirement to register non-restricted firearms
Destruction of the existing non-restricted firearms registration records
Allowing the transferor of a non-restricted firearm to obtain confirmation of a transferee’s firearms acquisition licence prior to the transfer being finalized

Until further notice, due to a Court Order issued by the Quebec Superior Court, residents of Quebec are still required to register non-restricted firearms with the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program.

It is important to note that the new law does not change the requirement for all individuals to hold a licence in order to possess a firearm. The licensing, safety training and safe storage requirements for anyone who uses or owns a firearm continue to be in force.

The legislation also does not impact registration requirements for restricted or prohibited firearms.

The Three Legal Classes of Firearms in Canada:

Non-Restricted Shotgun Non-restricted firearms are ordinary hunting and sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns with an overall length of 660mm or greater. Many airguns fall into this class because they are capable of achieving a muzzle velocity of 500 feet per second. If it is a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, the barrel length must be at least 470mm to be non-restricted. These firearms must be stored, transported and displayed according to Federal regulations and you need a firearms licence to possess them. Provincial and municipal rules may further regulate these firearms (e.g., Ontario hunting regulations require that firearms being transported be encased at night). Certain firearms, although they meet the above criteria, have been classified as "restricted" or "prohibited" by order-in-council.

Restricted Handgun - Para-Ordnance Restricted firearms include many handguns and other firearms which do not meet the above specifications. Some firearms are classified as "restricted" by Federal order-in-council. A transport permit is required to transport a restricted firearm from the location where the firearm is registered. Anyone with the appropriate firearms licence and a valid purpose can acquire this type of firearm. Hunting with restricted firearms is not allowed in Canada.

Prohibited Firearm - AK47Prohibited firearms include all fully automatic firearms, converted automatics and a variety of other scary looking firearms which have been classified as "prohibited" by order-in-council. Most types of prohibited firearms are "grandfathered" to their current legal owners (i.e., owners are allowed to keep them), but cannot be transfered to non-grandfathered individuals. Firearms converted from full-automatic to semi-automatic, and many handguns (barrel lengths less than or equal to 105mm, .25 or .32 calibre) fall into the prohibited class. If you do not already own prohibited long guns, there is generally no legal means to acquire firearms of this type.



For the Anal Lovers .... come enjoy my RR honoured An Alluring Ass

Another Sex in the Office Poem (I know you love those!!) In Your Office

* * * * * *
"The supreme accomplishment is to blur the line between work and play." - Arnold J. Toynbee
“Everything you can imagine is real.” - Pablo Picasso
She
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:04:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,052
Location: Europe
lafayettemister wrote:


I know what you mean. I disagree though, anyone who drinks and chooses to drive is intending to be irresponsible. If my child is killed by a bullet or a drunk driver, I'm not really going to care about his intent. My only care would be my kid.


Society is damaged and you are saying that it is not the tool that kills but person, and yes, you are right but.. Our society is damaged, its all kinds of us and we are all quite different in our standards and that's why we have rules and laws, to prevent accidents and try to keep society as clean as possible. It is not perfect world, and we as human race most certainly are not perfect, not even close, but we do develope we do change and we do get new toys to play with every decade or so, but my friend, guns were made to kill. There is no other purpose for them but to kill and I cannot agre with comparison of a drunken driver and gun shooter beause cars were made to take you from A to B, guns for killing, there is no need for them in private houses.
myself
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:09:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
It was not an assault weapon that did this deed and furthermore, they will never take away America's guns. I know the difference between assault weapons and single shot weapons and am sad that there will ever be a time that any non military person would need the use of a assault weapon but still I know that we the American people will take every measure to protect ourselves.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~



Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
VanGogh
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:56:14 AM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 2,776
Location: Vancouver, Canada
holy fuck

after that post .... it's a LOST cause

good luck America!


For the Anal Lovers .... come enjoy my RR honoured An Alluring Ass

Another Sex in the Office Poem (I know you love those!!) In Your Office

* * * * * *
"The supreme accomplishment is to blur the line between work and play." - Arnold J. Toynbee
“Everything you can imagine is real.” - Pablo Picasso
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:08:41 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
PersonalAssistant wrote:
holy fuck

after that post .... it's a LOST cause

good luck America!


Thanks. :(. We'll obviously need it.
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:34:15 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,729
Location: My Tower, United States
myself wrote:
It was not an assault weapon that did this deed and furthermore, they will never take away America's guns. I know the difference between assault weapons and single shot weapons and am sad that there will ever be a time that any non military person would need the use of a assault weapon but still I know that we the American people will take every measure to protect ourselves.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~



paranoid, much? yes, my biggest worry, if we were to take away people's guns is that there will be mass executions of american citizens. in fact, they've already started doing that in CT (27), Columbine(15), VirginiaTech(33), Aurora(12), Seattle(4), Crandon(6), Tuscon(6), Oakland(7)... i could, sadly, go on for a very long time, but i'll leave it at that.
ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:35:41 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Where were the gun wankers during the fight against slavery?

Oh yes, they were committing treason against the federal government, taking up their arms against it to keep black people as slaves.

Where were the gun wankers during the civil rights movement?

Oh yes they were running round with pillow cases on their heads

Where were the gun wankers in NAZI germany?

Oh yes, they were the ones with polished jackboots goose stepping.


Putting a gun in people's hands does not make them a good person. The idea that gun wankers protect freedom is completely a-historical. It is pure wankery.

We have heard rather too much from the North American Man-Gun Love Association on this topic.

The US has an Aurora massacre and a Newtown massacre every single day. Unrepresentative cases make bad laws but Newtown was not an unusual event in any sense. It is merely a symbol of the gun wankery that the NRA and its supporters stand for.

echopomp
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:26:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 190
oh my god!

just when i thought that i had heard it all, someone posts something like 'myself'.

if that is the opinion of people in the US it is not a surprise that you are killing each other in droves.

that is without doubt the maddest rant I have ever heard. If myself owns a gun (which i would assume), then I am very very glad that my kids and I are a long long way away from him.

Monkey, how exactly would you having a gun have helped if it had been one of your kids killed the other day? you planning to camp out at your kids school all day every day watching to see if a nut with a gun turns up?

The point is that legally owned guns caused this along with 60+% of similar events. So if you had gun control you could potentially stop 60% of these events. Why would you object to that?

I have to say that the thought process that powers the pro-gun lobby makes me really sad.

YOU DO NOT NEED A GUN TO BE A MAN!

& not having a gun does not make you a pacifist or a coward or someone who doesn't want to look after his family.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:40:08 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,817
From The Atlantic -

The Secret History of Guns
THE KU KLUX KLAN, RONALD REAGAN, AND, FOR MOST OF ITS HISTORY, THE NRA ALL WORKED TO CONTROL GUNS. THE FOUNDING FATHERS? THEY REQUIRED GUN OWNERSHIP—AND REGULATED IT. AND NO GROUP HAS MORE FIERCELY ADVOCATED THE RIGHT TO BEAR LOADED WEAPONS IN PUBLIC THAN THE BLACK PANTHERS—THE TRUE PIONEERS OF THE MODERN PRO-GUN MOVEMENT. IN THE BATTLE OVER GUN RIGHTS IN AMERICA, BOTH SIDES HAVE DISTORTED HISTORY AND THE LAW, AND THERE’S NO RESOLUTION IN SIGHT.




http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:59:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
echopomp wrote:
oh my god!

just when i thought that i had heard it all, someone posts something like 'myself'.


I have heard the same rant from Timothy McVeigh.

Then he went out and murdered almost 200 people.

When someone says that the gun they are waving in my face protects my freedom I see a pair of stinking jackboots and a NAZI salute. I see the carbines that the guards carried on the watchtowers on the Berlin wall.

I don't see freedom, I see a threat.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.