Jump to content
GRIZ

Why Outlawing Guns Doesn't Work

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Zeke said:

It’s history... 

history yes but you asked and included nonsensical variables like gender and race.

To vote, one must have skin in the game, free from undue gov't influence at the very least imho.  While I recognize the equality of all citizens, the reality is that not all contribute equally.  I do not mean monetarily via taxes but should people who have generational welfare vote?  Should people who do nothing but take from the taxpayer be allowed to vote at the expense of those who support them generously?  fair questions I believe

 

should 18yr old still in HS be allowed to vote?  What about college students?  If you can't drink then are you old enough to vote?

I'm not in either camp, I do think the discussion is valid however

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeke said:

@myhatinthering tbh

i think we should at least have an Id requirement. 

The government teet thing is somewhat more problematic 

ID should be a no brainer but yes there are problems with the teet thing.  I added  to my point including college kids, hs kids etc.  all fair game I believe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

ID should be a no brainer but yes there are problems with the teet thing.  I added  to my point including college kids, hs kids etc.  all fair game I believe

If you’re old enough to die in service of our country, you should be able to vote, drink, smoke, vape, own firearms, marry. Etc

We can’t have it one way

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeke said:

If you’re old enough to die in service of our country, you should be able to vote, drink, smoke, vape, own firearms, marry. Etc

amen, I agree 1 million percent.  absofkinglutely!!!!!!!!!

 

I personally don't care what people do.  You want to do drugs, do it and fk your life as I don't care but don't ask me to fund getting your life back together.  I think gov't stops at the driveway for all things

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

amen, I agree 1 million percent.  absofkinglutely!!!!!!!!!

 

I personally don't care what people do.  You want to do drugs, do it and fk your life as I don't care but don't ask me to fund getting your life back together.  I think gov't stops at the driveway for all things

Emerson.. self reliance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeke said:

If you’re old enough to die in service of our country, you should be able to vote, drink, smoke, vape, own firearms, marry. Etc

We can’t have it one way

 

1 hour ago, myhatinthering said:

amen, I agree 1 million percent.  absofkinglutely!!!!!!!!!

 

I personally don't care what people do.  You want to do drugs, do it and fk your life as I don't care but don't ask me to fund getting your life back together.  I think gov't stops at the driveway for all things

I've been through that era.  Problem was the people screaming for the 18 year old vote in the 60's and 70's were mostly people trying to figure out how to dodge the draft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

Venezuela will not happen here! There are WAY too many true Americans here that will never allow it!

with all due respect.. its already happening.. 
as you are slowly exposed to something painful in tiny increments.. it sucks.. but you endure it.. because its small relative to the giant picture.. but then suddenly you come to the realization that you have been slowly worn away.. for years.. decade.. and well at that point there is nothing left.. 

gun control is only a small piece.. but its significant because its a good illustration of the absurdity of our society.. 

we take a right... and we put stipulation after stipulation on to it.. in the name of "safety" in the name of the greater good.. when we all know killers.. gang bangers.. mass shooters.. they don't care about rule of law.. we know with complete certainty that only law abiding people follow law.. we know things like Columbine happened during the federal AWB... we know these rules that we accept have no reasonable merit.. especially when we consider they are in exchange for our freedom.. 

yet we swallow them.. we accept them.. because losing a third magazine capacity is not the end of the world.. after all people have jobs.. bills.. families.. they don't want to be put in jail.. so they comply.. or they hide.. whatever.. 

but the rules don't stop.. the irony is we are screwed no matter what the outcome.. 

magazine reduction to 10 rounds.. 

violent crime increases.. "its not enough we need more limits" 
violent crime decreases "look it worked we need more limits"

no matter what the outcome.. the people bent on fundamentally changing the place that you call home will continue... they will grind and wear away at everything.. until there is nothing left.. 

this is not panic.. paranoia.. anything like that.. it is simple logic.. there is a serious rift in our nation.. where a good chunk of people do not want it to be America anymore.. at least the America we know... and if you think those people will get tired.. or back down.. you are mistaken.. 

my grandmother used to say "I am glad I am going out of this world".. the older I get.. the more I look around.. the more I understand what she meant.. people are really screwed up.. 

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GRIZ said:

@Greenday read my post.  You didn't prove anything.  I said,

"strict gun control including an outright ban"

You seem to be the only one who didn't understand that. Would you have felt better if I said "or" instead of "including".  I'm glad your knowledge of chemistry is better than your reading comprehension.

Being you brought it up earlier, do you think you should prove yourself responsible to exercise free speech? You should tested before you practice a religion so you can do so responsibly?  What about fully testing 18 year old voters to make sure they vote responsibly?

Don't get me wrong.  I might take some heat on this but I'm not for many felons, drug addicts, children, and other categories of people access to guns.

Why do you see the 2A as different from the rest of the Bill of Rights?

"name me one socialist state that doesn't have strict gun control including outright bans on private gun ownership."

That's what you said and I provided 3 socialist states that don't have strict gun control including outing bans.

The First Amendment already has limitations. Specific limitations from people abusing it that would cause harm to other people. That's what vetting of gun owners is. Just making sure people have the knowledge and ability to responsibly have guns without hurting people.

The Bill of Rights is meant to protect everyone (at least now it does thanks to Amendments added to protect people based on sex and race). Our goal should be to have the people's lives being kept safe. Ensuring people who will use guns aren't recklessly and illegally using them isn't a bad thing by any measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Greenday said:

"name me one socialist state that doesn't have strict gun control including outright bans on private gun ownership."

That's what you said and I provided 3 socialist states that don't have strict gun control including outing bans.

The First Amendment already has limitations. Specific limitations from people abusing it that would cause harm to other people. That's what vetting of gun owners is. Just making sure people have the knowledge and ability to responsibly have guns without hurting people.

The Bill of Rights is meant to protect everyone (at least now it does thanks to Amendments added to protect people based on sex and race). Our goal should be to have the people's lives being kept safe. Ensuring people who will use guns aren't recklessly and illegally using them isn't a bad thing by any measure.

People should justify a need to excercise their rights... or else it would be a freedom for all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Greenday   Throughout history the only way socialism/communism/fascism/Nazism can be implemented is through the barrel of a gun. Without the control of the weapons and the people these "isms" all are doomed to fail. All three of the countries you mentioned have strict gun control. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Greenday said:

"name me one socialist state that doesn't have strict gun control including outright bans on private gun ownership."

That's what you said and I provided 3 socialist states that don't have strict gun control including outing bans.

The First Amendment already has limitations. Specific limitations from people abusing it that would cause harm to other people. That's what vetting of gun owners is. Just making sure people have the knowledge and ability to responsibly have guns without hurting people.

The Bill of Rights is meant to protect everyone (at least now it does thanks to Amendments added to protect people based on sex and race). Our goal should be to have the people's lives being kept safe. Ensuring people who will use guns aren't recklessly and illegally using them isn't a bad thing by any measure.

@Greenday you apparently know nothing about the gun laws of those countries.

Canada- no handguns with barrel less than 4.1", no handgun designed to shoot .25 or .32 ammo, no semi AK or FN FAL, no rifle with barrel less than 18".  Everything is licensed and registered.

UK- no handguns, no semi rifles.  The UK Olympic shooting team has to leave the country to practice with handguns. At one time their handguns were stored in Switzerland.  Don't know if they are still there.

Australia- handguns only after 6 month club membership and must shoot a minimum number of matches to keep handgun.

Sounds like more than one outright ban there.

These are just a few of laws of those countries you claim don't have "strict gun control laws".

Yes, their laws make NJ look like AZ compared to the countries you listed.

Yes, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.  But you can make a speech or write an article advocating anything you want short of a violent overthrow of the government.  I guess you forget all the ilk that has called for the death of Trump.  Kathy Griffin displayed a severed Trump head.  By your standard she should be in prison. She's not.  Maybe we should have vetting for so called "comedians" so they don't offend anyone.

I explained I'm not objecting to limiting gun ownership to some classes of people.  The situation in many states is way too much though.

What about the rest of the Bill of Rights?  Shouldn't those involved in voting, self incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment be vetted to see if they "deserve it" as you say should be done for gun owners?

There are amendments to the COTUS dealing with race. Please enlighten me on which amendment deals with sex.  That is one I missed.

America is about taking responsibility for your actions, good or bad.  It's not about states protecting us from everything.  It's about protecting the people from abuses by the state.  That's what the Amendments to the COTUS are about.  The 4A doesn't protect you from an illegal search by me.  It protects you by one from the state.

Get your facts straight.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greenday said:

"name me one socialist state that doesn't have strict gun control including outright bans on private gun ownership."

That's what you said and I provided 3 socialist states that don't have strict gun control including outing bans.

The First Amendment already has limitations. Specific limitations from people abusing it that would cause harm to other people. That's what vetting of gun owners is. Just making sure people have the knowledge and ability to responsibly have guns without hurting people.

The Bill of Rights is meant to protect everyone (at least now it does thanks to Amendments added to protect people based on sex and race). Our goal should be to have the people's lives being kept safe. Ensuring people who will use guns aren't recklessly and illegally using them isn't a bad thing by any measure.

how do people still not understand that laws exist to punish not prevent.. 

I will say it slowly.. criminals.. by simple definition.. are people that do NOT follow the law.. what is difficult about that to comprehend.. 

you can institute "universal background checks" you can even have "mental health screening" you can impose full registration you can require people to take safety classes.. 

and even with all that said.. someone bent on taking another human beings life is going to find a way to get a gun.. or use some other means.. 

the notion that an individual like that.. being stopped by any law is basically delusion..

people that wake up one morning and decide to shoot up a school.. 
people that sell heroin for a living.. 
people that commit violent home invasions.. 

THESE PEOPLE DO NOT THINK LIKE YOU.. they are outside the rules of society.. and thus the rules of society do not apply to them.. they don't care what the sentence is for stealing a gun.. or having a 100 round drum.. or a sawed off shotgun.. why is that so difficult to grasp... 

during the federal assault weapons ban.. one of the most strict times of gun law nationally.. we had columbine.. these kids went to school with guns and homemade explosives.. they bought the guns illegally... so ANY AND ALL LAWS were USELESS.. they wanted to kill.. so they got guns.. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenday is a clueless brainwashed liberal. I have family in British countries, it is near impossible to get a firearm and excessively expensive. He will will be the one crying when it comes to pass. I just switched to my 1911s to carry, it is nice being old, even nicer to plan ahead. Right now I can carry 8 different handguns, some are under 10 rounds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TheWind said:

Greenday is a clueless brainwashed liberal. I have family in British countries, it is near impossible to get a firearm and excessively expensive. He will will be the one crying when it comes to pass. I just switched to my 1911s to carry, it is nice being old, even nicer to plan ahead. Right now I can carry 8 different handguns, some are under 10 rounds.

How sketchy are they that they it's near impossible for them to get a firearm? Just because it's harder than it is here doesn't make it near impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 3:37 PM, Greenday said:

You said outright ban. I proved you wrong. Most do not have an outright ban.

It's still not hard to own a gun legally in those countries just like it's not hard to own a gun in any state in this country.

NJ does not have an outright ban on private citizens carrying weapons legally.

 

How is that working out for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

NJ does not have an outright ban on private citizens carrying weapons legally.

How is that working out for us?

Other than concealed carry issues, nothing but minor annoyances. No one is stopping me from getting just about any gun I want. The process is pretty simple and easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Greenday said:

How sketchy are they that they it's near impossible for them to get a firearm? Just because it's harder than it is here doesn't make it near impossible.

Sorry guy, they are all respectable, one is on the list to be a cop, couple are scientists, a welder, the Choir Director for the Church of Scotland. Oh wait the Master Scotch Taster for a small Highland Distillery, you are wrong, simple as that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Greenday said:

Other than concealed carry issues, nothing but minor annoyances. No one is stopping me from getting just about any gun I want. The process is pretty simple and easy.

Everything would be stopping me from the guns I wanted, if I were still in NJ. Machine guns, SBS, SBR, Suppressors, AR Pistols, and all. Oh, not to mention accessories like collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash hinders, normal capacity mags, and all. But the NJ simple and easy process is okay for your duck gun and revolver. Go back to the 1A forum where people tolerate you Fuckhead.

  • Like 9
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Greenday said:

Other than concealed carry issues, nothing but minor annoyances. No one is stopping me from getting just about any gun I want. The process is pretty simple and easy.

Lol, you must have shitty taste in guns bro. Or no taste at all. There is an entire list of gun I want but cant own in NJ. 

But then again, you find 10 round magazine easier to handle than standards... so no suprise there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When filling out the form for handgun purchase permits, I would always get to the part where they want 2 references and think to myself.. Am I applying for my constitutional right to bear a firearm like I’m applying for a friggin job..  Needing references for a constitutional right, what BS is this!!!  If that’s the case make it ID & 2 references to vote!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kawi7 said:

When filling out the form for handgun purchase permits, I would always get to the part where they want 2 references and think to myself.. Am I applying for my constitutional right to bear a firearm like I’m applying for a friggin job..  Needing references for a constitutional right, what BS is this!!!  If that’s the case make it ID & 2 references to vote!

Lol who doesn’t put friends as references?

moreso... who doesn’t put friends they know will respond in timely fashion. All this crap is a joke

40 minutes ago, PK90 said:

Everything would be stopping me from the guns I wanted, if I were still in NJ. Machine guns, SBS, SBR, Suppressors, AR Pistols, and all. Oh, not to mention accessories like collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash hinders, normal capacity mags, and all. But the NJ simple and easy process is okay for your duck gun and revolver. Go back to the 1A forum where people tolerate you Fuckhead.

How do you rilly feel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Lol who doesn’t put friends as references?

 moreso... who doesn’t put friends they know will respond in timely fashion. All this crap is a joke

They blamed a 3 month+  holdup on my change of address on waiting for my references to respond.. Total BS..  One reference handed it in person the day after he received it and the other filled it out and gave it to me to mail out... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kawi7 said:

When filling out the form for handgun purchase permits, I would always get to the part where they want 2 references and think to myself.. Am I applying for my constitutional right to bear a firearm like I’m applying for a friggin job..  Needing references for a constitutional right, what BS is this!!!  If that’s the case make it ID & 2 references to vote!

Better watch out, next they'll be looking for a urine drug test too...

Plus, they're trying to push a Bill that they can search the last 3 years of your social media and Internet history before approving a new permit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Greenday said:

Other than concealed carry issues, nothing but minor annoyances. No one is stopping me from getting just about any gun I want. The process is pretty simple and easy.

But you can't get "just about any gun" you want in the UK, Canada, or Australia.  Your selection is much more limited.

The process is "easy and simple" in NJ compared to Canada, the UK, and Australia.

You're not stupid.  Can't you see that?

21 hours ago, Greenday said:

How sketchy are they that they it's near impossible for them to get a firearm? Just because it's harder than it is here doesn't make it near impossible.

Your assertation that @TheWind''s relatives are sketchy is totally baseless.  Why do you feel you need to try to demean someone?  I thought you were one of the love everyone crowd.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 9:15 PM, GRIZ said:

There are amendments to the COTUS dealing with race. Please enlighten me on which amendment deals with sex.  That is one I missed.

Love ya Griz, but it's the 19th (Women's Sufferage)

AMENDMENT XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...