Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

New Android Wear, House and Home & Automotive forums!
Please report any threads you come across that should be moved to these new sections!

Like Tree162Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old April 12th, 2013, 08:48 AM   #401 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
What about the 2 four year olds who have shot and killed an older woman and a six year old in the past week. One with the firearm of a sheriff's deputy, the other of a "law abiding citizen"?

There are irresponsible gun owners out there that are not classified as criminals, which is a huge part of accidental shootings. The state I reside in (Tennessee) has an accidental shooting death rate of 2 and a half times the national average. Responsible gun owners, I think not. These are not gang bangers, convicted felons; these are non criminal owners whose weapons discharged without purpose whether in their hands or those of someone else.
So these parents chose to be irresponsible, the same as when someone chooses to be irresponsible and kill someone while driving drunk. Should every person in America face more restrictions on what they can drive when they are exercising the privilage of driving? Then why should millions of responsible gun owners have more restrictions about exercising a right because of a few irresponsible gun owners???

Why should I feel more remorse or responsibility for someone killed by a gun than an automobile?? Both ways innocent people die at the hands of someone irresponsible or not right mentally??

__________________
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

-Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old April 12th, 2013, 02:54 PM   #402 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
What about the 2 four year olds who have shot and killed an older woman and a six year old in the past week. One with the firearm of a sheriff's deputy, the other of a "law abiding citizen"?

There are irresponsible gun owners out there that are not classified as criminals, which is a huge part of accidental shootings. The state I reside in (Tennessee) has an accidental shooting death rate of 2 and a half times the national average. Responsible gun owners, I think not. These are not gang bangers, convicted felons; these are non criminal owners whose weapons discharged without purpose whether in their hands or those of someone else.
In Ireland guns are required to be kept in locked gun cases, I think that is pretty reasonable. Would help prevent kids and criminals getting access to them anyhow.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2013, 04:43 PM   #403 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
In Ireland guns are required to be kept in locked gun cases, I think that is pretty reasonable. Would help prevent kids and criminals getting access to them anyhow.
What one person sees as reasonable another sees as putting people in danger. If all of my guns were locked up and someone broke into my house I would have no chance of getting my firearm to protect my family.

The smarter thing to do is to lock them all up when no one is home to prevent criminals from getting them, and educate your children properly about firearms so accidents don't happen when people are home.

Again, this comes down to being responsible adults and not needing the government to regulate every single aspect of our lives. What happens in my house is no one else's business including the government.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chrlswltrs For This Useful Post:
Bob Maxey (April 13th, 2013)
Old April 12th, 2013, 07:35 PM   #404 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,333
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 245 Times in 192 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
No, that's not true. Benadryl® a.k.a. Diphenhydramine HCl is a powerful antihistamine, which means it's for the treatment of allergies. Although drowsiness is a side-effect, it's not its primary action. Its primary action is as a histamine block. And while it has proven effective in treating other things, psychiatric conditions are not among them.
hope this helps clarify your serious confusion

the first link is the list of PSYCHOTROPIC drugs as defined by your own state of Wisconsin
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2013, 04:46 AM   #405 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
The fact remains that it's not.

The US federal government can proclaim that all sorts of non-opiate related drugs are "narcotics", but it doesn't make it true. This sort of magical thinking never solves anything.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2013, 02:22 PM   #406 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,333
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 245 Times in 192 Posts
Default

the fact remains that its prescribed by doctors as a psychotropic drug...... as defined by the government (the ONLY definition that matters).... its on the list of psychotropic drugs even in your state....... and some states are already stripping guns and rights from anyone who has taken psychotropic drugs.... and the Feds want to do the same

not really sure why youre trying to strawman with 'opiates and narcotics' to even further confuse the discussion

we are talking about psychotropic drugs..... a totally different category of drugs.... and a category the government is using to strip gun rights

maybe it would help to clarify the problem by first defining psychotropic...... its not just for crazy people.... its also for people who cant sleep (such as Benadryl, a drug commonly prescribed as a sleep agent)..... or who have ADHD........ or people afraid of flying.... or someone who has OCD.... and this list goes on

Psychotropic | Define Psychotropic at Dictionary.com

it doesnt require "magical thinking" to understand that if the government creates a list of psychotropic drugs (which they have)..... and Benadryl is on that list (which it is)...... and they then create a law that says you can lose gun rights for taking psychotropic drugs (which some states have, and the feds are trying to do) ...... the taking Benadryl.... for any reason.... even allergies.... can get you stripped of your guns and rights
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2013, 05:14 PM   #407 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
We do still have a chance because the majority of our military would never follow orders to turn against the people.
I am absolutely NOT convinced this is true. People can be intimidated and soldiers are no different. Sorry, but for some reason, I just do not agree.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2013, 05:42 PM   #408 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,333
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 245 Times in 192 Posts
Default

I read a few things on this when it was first brought up...... statistics say the majority of soldiers will kill americans

as I recall numerous studies were done on the human condition...... and something like 60%-65% of subordinates will do ANYTHING they are told to do by someone who they perceive has authority over them.... even if they personally believe what they are doing is wrong

of course these studies were done when there was a different mentality in americans....... and people actually had morals etc............ I would have to believe that percentage is much higher given the mentality of the generations that are serving now

of course as it pertains to this discussion it really doesnt matter if 100% of soldiers will kill americans if told to.... 100% of soldiers will kill the enemy if told to .... and they are continiously getting their collective arses kicked by cave dwellers with antique weaponry in the desert as we speak

it has always made me wonder a bit about the argument that the scarey squirrel gun crowd uses........ that being we dont need guns for self defense because we couldnt possibly defeat the government anyhow.......... if thats the case..... then you have nothing to fear by us having our dreams and weapons
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2013, 06:27 PM   #409 (permalink)
Member
 
JohnLaird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 167
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 74 Times in 46 Posts
Default

This is the criteria that Texas effectively uses to determine whether someone is too ill to hold a CHL...I think it might work as criteria for owning a firearm (for background checks) on a federal level. Problem is enforcement...it would discourage people from getting help and force them to choose between owning a gun and getting healthy...

d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of
exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of
a handgun if the person:

(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a
psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause
substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or
intellectual ability;

(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by
Subdivision (1) that:

(A)
is in remission but is reasonably

likely to redevelop at a future
time; or

(B)
requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;

(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a
review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent
to manage the person's own affairs; or

(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason
of insanity.

(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric
disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):

(1)
involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;

(2)
psychiatric hospitalization;

(3)
inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the
preceding five year period;

(4)
diagnosis in the preceding five
year period by a licensed
physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance,
or a similar substance; or

(5)
diagnosis at any time by a l icensed physician that the person
suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting
of or relating to:

(A)
schizophrenia or delusional disorder;

(B)
bipolar disorder;

(C)

chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or
brain injury;


(D)

dissociative identity disorder;

(E)
intermittent explosive disorder; or

(F)
antisocial personality disorder.

(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been
diagnosed

as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described
by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that
disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect
to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the
department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary
practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or
condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future
time.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf
JohnLaird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2013, 09:54 PM   #410 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLaird View Post
Problem is enforcement...it would discourage people from getting help and force them to choose between owning a gun and getting healthy...
Yep. It's just another loophole.

This nation's mental health system is seriously flawed and rife with "double dipping" with cops and lawyers getting paid to make it a criminal offense and physicians getting paid to make it a disease. Obviously if it's one it can't be the other.

This corruption of the system needs to be addressed as a greater issue, and not as part of some gun law.

If Americans really want to see the chain of destruction end, then they'll have to go much further than quick 'n' dirty kludges.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old April 15th, 2013, 12:46 AM   #411 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

I've been reading about some of the amendments that are likely to be included with the background check bill. From what I understand this might actually turn out being a good thing. Here is why:

1. "Universal background checks" will not change anything. You already have to do a background check to buy a gun in a store, online, and at 95% of gun show purchases. As written there is a exception for giving a gun to a family member (spouse, sibling, child, parent, etc) which was the biggest concern of gun owners when the talk of "UBCs" started.

2. There is an amendment for "Universal Reciprocity" which is HUGE. This would allow me to carry my handgun in any state that I travel too as long as my Concealed Pistol License is valid in my home state. This would also allow people to get a non resident license in a state that offers one (Utah or Oregon for example) so that they can carry a pistol in their home state, when their home state won't issue one (NY, CA, IL, etc)

3. There is an amendment that criminalizes any attempt to use background checks to create a national gun registry and carries a 15 yr prison sentence.

I am still wary of what the final bill will look like, especially with idiots like Feinstein in the Senate. But the title of "Universal Background Checks" will make the democrats happy without doing too much harm (or really accomplishing anything) and the amendments currently could actually be a step forward toward making everyone safer. We will have to see how this progresses in the coming days.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 12:36 AM   #412 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Big win for Americans today!!!!!

We didn't get National reciprocity, which is REALLY needed, but we didn't have our rights further eroded either!
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 07:39 AM   #413 (permalink)
Member
 
ItnStln511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Eastern Seaboard
Posts: 188
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note 2
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Big win for Americans today!!!!!

We didn't get National reciprocity, which is REALLY needed, but we didn't have our rights further eroded either!
I guess for the most part it was a win! I just learned about this earlier this morning.
ItnStln511 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 07:42 AM   #414 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Only a battle won. It looks like the backers of the "neo-'80's" gun laws are back at full throttle again today. And it's not even 8AM where I am.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 08:15 AM   #415 (permalink)
Member
 
ItnStln511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Eastern Seaboard
Posts: 188
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note 2
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Only a battle won. It looks like the backers of the "neo-'80's" gun laws are back at full throttle again today. And it's not even 8AM where I am.
It's a never ending mission for them.
ItnStln511 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 08:47 AM   #416 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItnStln511 View Post
It's a never ending mission for them.
I don't know who "them" is in this case. This latest movement seems to have been organized by the MSNBC talk show hosts, and was quickly picked up by Democratic politicians. But I can't say whose idea it was to push so vehemently the exact same bullet points that typified the anti-gun rhetoric from 29-31 years ago. Back then I was on the cusp of turning 21, and only wanted to be able to go to the range and do some target shooting, like I had done with my dad until the state of Illinois had outlawed that sometime in the '70s. (My dad died in 1977, so it had to have been several years before that date.)

I have heard the carriers of this torch say that "this time" they're not going to stop until they get their way. Well, those are fighting words when their agenda is nothing better than what failed in the '80s, and mighty hypocritical coming from people who criticize reactionary politicians for "wanting it to be like the '50s".

After seeing the rise in senseless shootings in the US in general, and Chicago in particular, I am willing to make major concessions to the anti-gun lobby, but if and only if those concessions actually work towards solving the actual problem. Needless to say, their current bill of goods just doesn't pass muster with me. I think it's a real shame that they are unwilling to negotiate, or to even educate themselves about firearm basics, like the difference between a clip and a magazine. As long as they continue the tack of "all or nothing" coupled with proposals that are highly arbitrary half-measures that come from a position of ignorance, it will then be nothing for them.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 09:13 AM   #417 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,567
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 46
Thanked 862 Times in 771 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Big win for Americans today!!!!!

We didn't get National reciprocity, which is REALLY needed, but we didn't have our rights further eroded either!
Guess you must feel like you dodged a bullet


(Just hope you're all as lucky dodging the real ones)
SiempreTuna is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 10:35 AM   #418 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
I am still wary of what the final bill will look like, especially with idiots like Feinstein in the Senate. But the title of "Universal Background Checks" will make the democrats happy without doing too much harm (or really accomplishing anything) and the amendments currently could actually be a step forward toward making everyone safer. We will have to see how this progresses in the coming days.
My view is the dems will not stop there. Those that hate guns will never stop. We will have more rules, laws and regs proposed that will sound reasonable at the time to many uneducated people, but will only further erode our absolute right to keep and bear arms.

There will be another school shooting and that will further the anti-gun agenda.

We need to get rid of most gun laws, rules and regs. They do little to no good. A local talking head proposed making more gun free zones. He was asked about the schools that are already GF zones and what good did that do. No answers forthcoming.
chrlswltrs likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (April 18th, 2013)
Old April 18th, 2013, 10:43 AM   #419 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

OK, I'll be the bad guy and say it.

School shootings and gun violence is largely not the fault of the gun and gun owner, rather, it is the fault of irresponsible parents and crappy kids. Perhaps we need to repeal all gun laws and start looking at holding parents of bad kids responsible for these shootings?

If a child is bullied by another (something we will never, ever solve) kid, part of the blame should be placed upon the bully, too. Blame the victim? You betcha, to some degree.

Do kids deserve to die because they peater others? HECK NO, not what I am saying.
chrlswltrs likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Last edited by Slug; April 18th, 2013 at 03:18 PM. Reason: Grossly insensitive comment
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (April 18th, 2013)
Old April 18th, 2013, 11:08 AM   #420 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Mass shootings will never be reduced until we get rid of defenseless victim zones. It sickens me that I am forced to put my child in such an unsafe environment everyday!
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old April 18th, 2013, 07:09 PM   #421 (permalink)
Member
 
JohnLaird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 167
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 74 Times in 46 Posts
Default

The thing is...both Columbine and Sandy Hook were murder/suicides. I can't help but wonder if the shooters did what they did just so that they would not be forgotten after they committed suicide...and so they would not have to die alone. Very similar to a suicide bomber. In both cases the shooters got what they really wanted...attention-via mass media coverage and the internet. Maybe that is part of the reason for all of these shootings...because 20-30 years ago the world was a lot bigger...news took a lot more time to get out. You couldn't shoot a bunch of people and expect it to be splattered all over twitter, facebook, etc within an hour after you offed yourself. You would have been forgotten after a while...maybe the relatives of the people you killed would stop to piss on your grave but that is all the attention you would ever get.
JohnLaird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 07:51 PM   #422 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLaird View Post
The thing is...both Columbine and Sandy Hook were murder/suicides. I can't help but wonder if the shooters did what they did just so that they would not be forgotten after they committed suicide...and so they would not have to die alone. Very similar to a suicide bomber. In both cases the shooters got what they really wanted...attention-via mass media coverage and the internet. Maybe that is part of the reason for all of these shootings...because 20-30 years ago the world was a lot bigger...news took a lot more time to get out. You couldn't shoot a bunch of people and expect it to be splattered all over twitter, facebook, etc within an hour after you offed yourself. You would have been forgotten after a while...maybe the relatives of the people you killed would stop to piss on your grave but that is all the attention you would ever get.
Pretty sure that is why every mass shooting in the last 50 years except one has taken place in a defenseless victim zone ("gun free" zone). Plenty of time to run up the body count before anyone shows up that has a chance to stop them.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2013, 10:15 PM   #423 (permalink)
Member
 
ItnStln511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Eastern Seaboard
Posts: 188
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note 2
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
I don't know who "them" is in this case. This latest movement seems to have been organized by the MSNBC talk show hosts, and was quickly picked up by Democratic politicians. But I can't say whose idea it was to push so vehemently the exact same bullet points that typified the anti-gun rhetoric from 29-31 years ago. Back then I was on the cusp of turning 21, and only wanted to be able to go to the range and do some target shooting, like I had done with my dad until the state of Illinois had outlawed that sometime in the '70s. (My dad died in 1977, so it had to have been several years before that date.)

I have heard the carriers of this torch say that "this time" they're not going to stop until they get their way. Well, those are fighting words when their agenda is nothing better than what failed in the '80s, and mighty hypocritical coming from people who criticize reactionary politicians for "wanting it to be like the '50s".

After seeing the rise in senseless shootings in the US in general, and Chicago in particular, I am willing to make major concessions to the anti-gun lobby, but if and only if those concessions actually work towards solving the actual problem. Needless to say, their current bill of goods just doesn't pass muster with me. I think it's a real shame that they are unwilling to negotiate, or to even educate themselves about firearm basics, like the difference between a clip and a magazine. As long as they continue the tack of "all or nothing" coupled with proposals that are highly arbitrary half-measures that come from a position of ignorance, it will then be nothing for them.
"Them " would be the anti-gun left.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
My view is the dems will not stop there. Those that hate guns will never stop. We will have more rules, laws and regs proposed that will sound reasonable at the time to many uneducated people, but will only further erode our absolute right to keep and bear arms.

There will be another school shooting and that will further the anti-gun agenda.

We need to get rid of most gun laws, rules and regs. They do little to no good. A local talking head proposed making more gun free zones. He was asked about the schools that are already GF zones and what good did that do. No answers forthcoming.
Sadly I think you're right. They won't stop until they get what they want. I'm just glad they haven't gotten what they want so far.
ItnStln511 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2013, 07:33 PM   #424 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

I guarantee that no one in MA is thinking "I sure am glad I don't have a dangerous semi automatic rifle and ammo right now" while the terrorist that bombed the Boston Marathon is running loose and police, FBI, and the national guard can't find him even going door to door.

Police won't face him without body armor and automatic rifles, but the POS POTUS still wants to take our guns away after the Senate actually listened to the people they represent and voted against new gun control legislation.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2013, 09:34 PM   #425 (permalink)
Member
 
ItnStln511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Eastern Seaboard
Posts: 188
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note 2
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
I guarantee that no one in MA is thinking "I sure am glad I don't have a dangerous semi automatic rifle and ammo right now" while the terrorist that bombed the Boston Marathon is running loose and police, FBI, and the national guard can't find him even going door to door.

Police won't face him without body armor and automatic rifles, but the POS POTUS still wants to take our guns away after the Senate actually listened to the people they represent and voted against new gun control legislation.
I couldn't have said it better myself!
ItnStln511 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2013, 11:53 PM   #426 (permalink)
share the love peeps ;)
 
funkylogik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Paisley, Scotland, Western Europe
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,287
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (I9300) Carbon nightlies (4.4.2) Nexus 7 (2012) Validus, Franco Kernel
Carrier: 3 (three) UK £15 p/m unltd data/txt

Thanks: 11,654
Thanked 4,225 Times in 3,367 Posts
Default

Speaking as a person on bail and charged with Attempted Murder, facing a jury in the High Court Glasgow in June, my "Special Defence" being Self Defence..
Im glad it wasnt a gun in my hand or the other guy would be dead right now.
Im glad i didnt have that kind of power in my hand!

What if the other guy had had a gun?........ he WOULDNT have one because theyre illegal here! Only gangsters have them here and they only shoot other gangsters (people living the same life as them for the same gains and risks).

This is why i think i can say that a country is safer without legal guns. (And i live in one of the most violent cities in western europe so im not in some fairytail)
Peace
sntaylor and SiempreTuna like this.
__________________
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/funkylogik
For a UK prepay sim with unlimited data, unlimited text, 250mins for £12p/m, no contract, no catch (runs on o2 network)
funkylogik is online now  
Last edited by funkylogik; April 24th, 2013 at 11:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to funkylogik For This Useful Post:
msndrstood (April 25th, 2013)
Old April 25th, 2013, 12:40 AM   #427 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
Speaking as a person on bail and charged with Attempted Murder, facing a jury in the High Court Glasgow in June, my "Special Defence" being Self Defence..
Im glad it wasnt a gun in my hand or the other guy would be dead right now.
Im glad i didnt have that kind of power in my hand!

What if the other guy had had a gun?........ he WOULDNT have one because theyre illegal here! Only gangsters have them here and they only shoot other gangsters (people living the same life as them for the same gains and risks).

This is why i think i can say that a country is safer without legal guns. (And i live in one of the most violent cities in western europe so im not in some fairytail)
Peace
I don't know what your situation is, every situation is different. If more people were armed in your country, there would be less crime though. When someone thinks about committing a crime they have to think twice when the person they are about to assault, rob, whatever might be armed.

Personally, if someone broke into my house or tried to attack my family anywhere I would not be able to live with myself if I didn't have the ability to protect them by all means up to and including deadly force.

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if my family was out watching a movie and some nut job came in shooting everyone and the was nothing I could do to protect my family and everyone else in the theater.

I just choose to not be a victim to anyone!
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chrlswltrs For This Useful Post:
funkylogik (April 25th, 2013)
Old April 25th, 2013, 12:53 AM   #428 (permalink)
share the love peeps ;)
 
funkylogik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Paisley, Scotland, Western Europe
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,287
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (I9300) Carbon nightlies (4.4.2) Nexus 7 (2012) Validus, Franco Kernel
Carrier: 3 (three) UK £15 p/m unltd data/txt

Thanks: 11,654
Thanked 4,225 Times in 3,367 Posts
Default

Ditto and in that situation, i used what was lying around to defend myself.

In a separate incident, i have a scar across the top of my hand (3 severed tendons) and another scar on my wrist where the surgeon stitched those tendons back together where 2 very nasty guys kicked in my ex's door and marched in with mini samurai swords (weapon of choice here) because they thought a guy who stabbed one of their friends was there. I got in the way and if i hadnt lifted my hand, it would have been my throat.
Now these guys REALLY believed that this other guy was there and theyd have murdered him happily if he was. If theyd had guns, me and my then girlfriend would probably have had our brains blown out..
funkylogik is online now  
Last edited by funkylogik; April 25th, 2013 at 12:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 01:08 AM   #429 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
Ditto and in that situation, i used what was lying around to defend myself.

In a separate incident, i have a scar across the top of my hand (3 severed tendons) and another scar on my wrist where the surgeon stitched those tendons back together where 2 very nasty guys kicked in my ex's door and marched in with mini samurai swords (weapon of choice here) because they thought a guy who stabbed one of their friends was there. I got in the way and if i hadnt lifted my hand, it would have been my throat.
Now these guys REALLY believed that this other guy was there and theyd have murdered him happily if he was. If theyd had guns, me and my then girlfriend would probably have had our brains blown out..
That is a very real situation and one I don't want to be in unarmed. I'm glad you came out with minimal injury considering the situation.

Also with the theater... We had the aurora massacre here that was covered all over the media, I'm sure you heard about that one. A week later there was another one attempted. That one was stopped by a legally armed citizen before any innocent lives were lost, that one wasn't covered by the media.

I joined the military because I really will do anything to protect innocent people. Not everyone can do that. I look at it as my responsibility, and am willing and able to accept that responsibility. I don't think everyone should own a gun, but anyone who is responsible and willing to accept the responsibility should be able to. They should also be able to choose what firearm works the best for them.
funkylogik likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chrlswltrs For This Useful Post:
funkylogik (April 25th, 2013)
Old April 25th, 2013, 01:17 AM   #430 (permalink)
share the love peeps ;)
 
funkylogik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Paisley, Scotland, Western Europe
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,287
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (I9300) Carbon nightlies (4.4.2) Nexus 7 (2012) Validus, Franco Kernel
Carrier: 3 (three) UK £15 p/m unltd data/txt

Thanks: 11,654
Thanked 4,225 Times in 3,367 Posts
Default

Yup i TOTALLY understand that mate and i respect what youve done for what you believe in.
If were talkin about the US then it really is a difficult situation. Theres SO many legaly sold and legaly/illegaly owned arms and ammunition that it seems like the only defence against that is decent folk owning an equal and opposite force to defend themself with. I honestly cant think of a way to fix that now.
But would you agree that in countrys that havent got that problem yet (saturation of firearms) that they should learn from the US mistakes and NEVER make firearms so easy to own?
Its a vicious circle mate, its how the world ended up having atomic weapons. Like-for-like force.
It may make the person who posesses that weapon feel safer but in the big picture, does it make everyone safer?
funkylogik is online now  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old April 25th, 2013, 01:27 AM   #431 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
Yup i TOTALLY understand that mate and i respect what youve done for what you believe in.
If were talkin about the US then it really is a difficult situation. Theres SO many legaly sold and legaly/illegaly owned arms and ammunition that it seems like the only defence against that is decent folk owning an equal and opposite force to defend themself with. I honestly cant think of a way to fix that now.
But would you agree that in countrys that havent got that problem yet (saturation of firearms) that they should learn from the US mistakes and NEVER make firearms so easy to own?
Its a vicious circle mate, its how the world ended up having atomic weapons. Like-for-like force.
It may make the person who posesses that weapon feel safer but in the big picture, does it make everyone safer?
I think countries that have made firearms Illegal should change that. Look at recent trends in Australia and Britain for example. As soon as guns are banned, violent crime (assault, rape, robbery, etc) skyrockets. An armed society is a polite society.

Probably one of the most peaceful and safe countries in the world is Switzerland. Every home there is required to have an assault rifle (a real one, not an AR15) and ammunition. People regularly carry guns in public.

Clearly guns are not the problem, people are. Guns are a deterrent. Yes, they can be used for evil, but so can knives, hammers, swords, chainsaws, etc. I wouldn't want to face 4 trained men with swords with out a gun, even if I had a sword also, and I have extensive martial arts training including weapons.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chrlswltrs For This Useful Post:
funkylogik (April 25th, 2013)
Old April 25th, 2013, 01:41 AM   #432 (permalink)
share the love peeps ;)
 
funkylogik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Paisley, Scotland, Western Europe
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,287
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (I9300) Carbon nightlies (4.4.2) Nexus 7 (2012) Validus, Franco Kernel
Carrier: 3 (three) UK £15 p/m unltd data/txt

Thanks: 11,654
Thanked 4,225 Times in 3,367 Posts
Default

Yeah true mate. Switzerland, to be fair, is a very rich, fairytail land lol. If the place gets bad, theyl regret having all those weapons lying around.
I think in the US, the (is it the 2nd ammendment?) declaring the right to bear arms made a lot of sense when it was written but it makes no sense to apply it to another nation now.

Can i ask hypotheticly (i cant spell lol).. if you could press a button and only law inforcement in the US would posess a gun (everyone elses would vanish), would you?

P.s, mainstream police forces here only started using firearms because of mainly illegaly imported US and Russian firearms in the hands of criminals
funkylogik is online now  
Last edited by funkylogik; April 25th, 2013 at 01:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 01:58 AM   #433 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
Yeah true mate. Switzerland, to be fair, is a very rich, fairytail land lol. If the place gets bad, theyl regret having all those weapons lying around.
I think in the US, the (is it the 2nd ammendment?) declaring the right to bear arms made a lot of sense when it was written but it makes no sense to apply it to another nation now.

Can i ask hypotheticly (i cant spell lol).. if you could press a button and only law inforcement in the US would posess a gun (everyone elses would vanish), would you?
Absolutely not (correct 2nd amendment). If Switzerland gets bad, I think you are wrong about the guns. I'll address these 2 things in 2 points:

1. People have a right to protect themselves. There have been over 100million people killed by their own governments in the last century. Everyone thought their government would never do that to them and the first step has ALWAYS been disarming the citizens. It doesn't always happen after disarmament, but sometimes it does. That is why the amendment was written, and it still has relevance today. Sure, if the government turned against us we may not have a chance, but we might. Look at Syria, there are rebels fighting against their government right now to some degree of success. I really haven't followed that much, but it is just an example of how an armed populace has a chance. Another of the more recent examples... Nazi Germany. When Hitler took power he had a 90% approval rating, he disarmed everyone except the government, everything he did in Germany was legal when he did it, look how that turned out...

2. There is a HUGE flaw in your thinking. You think guns are bad. If guns were bad, then yes Switzerland would hate all those guns being out there. A gun does not have the ability to be good nor evil, only the person pulling the trigger controls that.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 02:09 AM   #434 (permalink)
share the love peeps ;)
 
funkylogik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Paisley, Scotland, Western Europe
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,287
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (I9300) Carbon nightlies (4.4.2) Nexus 7 (2012) Validus, Franco Kernel
Carrier: 3 (three) UK £15 p/m unltd data/txt

Thanks: 11,654
Thanked 4,225 Times in 3,367 Posts
Default

I understand what you mean by guns not being the bad thing, its the person pulling the trigger but how can you or anyone decide what is a right or wrong reason to kill someone?
How can you think that a country having more guns (an easy way to kill someone) is a good thing lol??
Noones opinion is right or wrong so in your ultimate world.. the minority die?
funkylogik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 02:13 AM   #435 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
You could stop the other guy from wanting to have or use that weapon mate

The government IS the people, its who they voted for or failed to vote against. Its all the same thing man.
You and the annoying dude nextdoor or the US/UK and Russia/Most of the arabia/most of asia....
(Quoted from a different thread)

How do you stop someone else from having a weapon? Make them illegal? That is why no one ever gets high because cocaine, pot, meth, etc are all illegal right? No??? What do you mean, criminals don't follow the law and get what they want anyways? I can't stop anyone from having a weapon, I can however stop someone from using that weapon to kill innocent people. If I die or am wounded in the process, so be it, that is a price I am willing to pay to try to give innocent people a chance to not be a victim.

The government is not always the people. There are politicians that lie, then change everything after getting elected, there is voter fraud (huge here in the US), there is corruption once people are elected, etc. There are people that aren't elected that control things (CIA director, FBI director, police chiefs, all of the UN, etc). I'll stay off of that anymore, because that isn't the topic of either thread.
funkylogik likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chrlswltrs For This Useful Post:
funkylogik (April 25th, 2013)
Old April 25th, 2013, 02:23 AM   #436 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
I understand what you mean by guns not being the bad thing, its the person pulling the trigger but how can you or anyone decide what is a right or wrong reason to kill someone?
How can you think that a country having more guns (an easy way to kill someone) is a good thing lol??
Noones opinion is right or wrong so in your ultimate world.. the minority die?
Using a gun is justified to protect one's self or property. I have the right to kill someone who is trying to kill me. I have the right to kill someone who breaks into my house because I don't know their intention, but if it was anything good they wouldn't be breaking in. If it isn't defense (self or someone else), murder is wrong. I hope I never have to use my gun, but if I do, it is a last resort and I won't regret it. If I watch someone die, especially my family, and have no way to stop it I would not be able to live with it.

Evil can not be eliminated. Crime can not be eliminated. People that want to hurt others can not be eliminated. Crazy can not be eliminated. Drugs making people wants to hurt others can not be eliminated. Other than crazy or drugs, the thought that someone might be armed is a deterrent to committing that act of violence or theft. That is why more guns make people safer.

Perfect example. 25 states in America require no permit at all to carry a concealed firearm, 4 out of every 5 murders occur in the other 25 states. The highest murder rate in America is in Chicago which has the strictest gun laws and ZERO conceal carry in the whole state (that will soon change due to court order). If you look at any statistics, when gun ownership is higher, violent crime rate is lower.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 02:26 AM   #437 (permalink)
share the love peeps ;)
 
funkylogik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Paisley, Scotland, Western Europe
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,287
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (I9300) Carbon nightlies (4.4.2) Nexus 7 (2012) Validus, Franco Kernel
Carrier: 3 (three) UK £15 p/m unltd data/txt

Thanks: 11,654
Thanked 4,225 Times in 3,367 Posts
Default

Yup, you can legislate against the guy having that weapon (its working pretty well in rich societys outside the US) OR stop the guy from using one by shooting him with one before he shoots you (50:50 chance)
I without a doubt prefer the former for me and my loved ones

The US situation does bother me though because i like the people of the US as a personality.

Id whole-heartedly disagree with relaxing firearms laws in countries like mine but i honestly dont know how to fix it in the US...
..does anyone who DOES agree that its a problem in the US, know how to start fixing it?
funkylogik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 02:56 AM   #438 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
Yup, you can legislate against the guy having that weapon (its working pretty well in rich societys outside the US) OR stop the guy from using one by shooting him with one before he shoots you (50:50 chance)
I without a doubt prefer the former for me and my loved ones

The US situation does bother me though because i like the people of the US as a personality.

Id whole-heartedly disagree with relaxing firearms laws in countries like mine but i honestly dont know how to fix it in the US...
..does anyone who DOES agree that its a problem in the US, know how to start fixing it?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with good law abiding citizens owning weapons. These are people that will never use that weapon against another person unless they have no other option, in which case they need and deserve that option. I guarantee my odds are better than 50:50 if someone breaks in my house (I would say at least 80:20 on a bad day), they are maybe 50:50 outside my house when I only have a handgun, but at least I have a chance. My odds are 0:100 when I don't have a gun against someone with a gun, and lots of in betweens with other weapons. I put my odds so high because of training and practice. I've been in life and death situations and I practice with my firearms whenever I can.

I think things need fixed, I've stated that earlier in this thread. I am very firm that no more guns need outlawed. Anyone who is scared of an AR15 and not a shotgun is only scared out of ignorance about guns. Personally, close range, indoors, I would take my 12GA pump shotgun because at close range you can't get much more destructive, but again my wife can't effectively use a 12GA due to power. I know the "universal background check" bill that failed would not have fixed anything. There are 2 things that need done that would immediately help:

1. Prosecute those that break the law. Last year alone over 12,000 people applied to purchase a gun that were convicted felons. Every one of them broke the law by trying to purchase one, 44 were prosecuted. We don't enforce the laws we already have, why would more help??

2. Mental health!!!!!! This is the big one. I have a family member that will end up murdering someone. We will be lucky if he is caught after 1. He has a history of hurting animals and attempted murder (at only 8 years old, and more than once). He was in and out of psychiatric care and eventually no one would see him anymore because even at a young age he could fool the doctors. He was physically, mentally, and sexually abused at a very young age, but eventually social services wouldn't even help anymore. I won't go into any more detail because it is very personal, but this is the biggest problem to preventing mass murder.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 03:07 AM   #439 (permalink)
Member
 
Poweredge99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
 
Device(s): HTC EVO V
Carrier: VM

Thanks: 66
Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
I understand what you mean by guns not being the bad thing, its the person pulling the trigger but how can you or anyone decide what is a right or wrong reason to kill someone?
How can you think that a country having more guns (an easy way to kill someone) is a good thing lol??
Noones opinion is right or wrong so in your ultimate world.. the minority die?
Sorry to jump in here. I feel I do have the right to decide when to defend myself or my family. I don't see it as killing someone. If another person makes a decision to attempt harm on me or my family, why shouldn't I be allowed to use a weapon to defend my family? If you disarm the citizens, you open the door for more crimes and eliminate any ability to try and parallel what weapons a criminal can get their hands on.

IMO, if criminals know that there are no weapons, they are at a higher comfort level. If they know that there is a chance that someone will be carrying, that decreases the odds. That's just how people think.

If you look at guns as a "easy way to kill someone", why? So are numerous other things. They are the extension of a sick mind. If for some reason you could ban them, and all the criminals said " darn, this sucks" and even turned them in. That would only force them to find another route to execute what ever agenda they have. Start there and fix the real issue, don't keep eliminating things until someone realizes its the person on the other end of a gun, behind the wheel of a car, or someone looking up stuff on the internet.


Let me ask you this, Its 3:30 in the morning, my dogs starts barking. I hear a gun shot, killing my dog. I have just a few seconds to get to my kids and get my phone to call for help. This intruder is in my house, armed. (Because he refused to turn his gun in, when asked. Crazy right?) . He has made the intent known that he is going to harm either myself or my family. How does this play out? How can I defend my family? Throw some of the kids toys at him?, ask him to please leave? What would you do?
funkylogik and pbf98 like this.
Poweredge99 is offline  
Last edited by Poweredge99; April 25th, 2013 at 05:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Poweredge99 For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (April 25th, 2013)
Old April 25th, 2013, 03:25 AM   #440 (permalink)
share the love peeps ;)
 
funkylogik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Paisley, Scotland, Western Europe
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,287
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (I9300) Carbon nightlies (4.4.2) Nexus 7 (2012) Validus, Franco Kernel
Carrier: 3 (three) UK £15 p/m unltd data/txt

Thanks: 11,654
Thanked 4,225 Times in 3,367 Posts
Default

Can i use the legal defense we have in this country that although i stand by what i say and believe it to be true, i just cant even begin to defend myself against the overwhelming and (frankly jury-winning) evidence being put forward by the prosecution? lol

Its been interesting though and i understand the NRA psyche more peeps thanks and PEACE
funkylogik is online now  
Last edited by funkylogik; April 25th, 2013 at 03:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old April 25th, 2013, 06:14 AM   #441 (permalink)
Member
 
ItnStln511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Eastern Seaboard
Posts: 188
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note 2
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkylogik View Post
What if the other guy had had a gun?........ he WOULDNT have one because theyre illegal here!
So you're telling me that no one illegally owns any weapons? That's very wrong, as criminals don't follow the law.
ItnStln511 is online now  
Last edited by ItnStln511; April 25th, 2013 at 06:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 08:44 AM   #442 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,089
 
Device(s): Galaxy S5 Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 104
Thanked 179 Times in 138 Posts
Default

I'm a little late on this one, but what about the 14 year old boy who was babysitting his siblings?
They were all home alone, and there was knocking at the door, and the parents had told him never to answer the door while home alone, after not answering the door, the knocking turned into banging on the door. The boy then rushed upstairs and grabbed his dad's hand gun when he got back to the stairs the intruder had made his way into the house and he was armed. Without hesitation, the boy fired and wounded the intruder.

So what would have been the outcome of this had the gun been locked away where the son couldn't get to it? The intruder could have killed the children, or even taken them. You can't hold everyone responsible for what a slight percentage does wrong.

14-year-old Phoenix boy shoots, critically wounds armed intruder
Poweredge99 likes this.
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pbf98 For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (April 25th, 2013)
Old April 25th, 2013, 08:56 AM   #443 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,089
 
Device(s): Galaxy S5 Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 104
Thanked 179 Times in 138 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poweredge99 View Post
Sorry to jump in here. I feel I do have the right to decide when to defend myself or my family. I don't see it as killing someone. If another person makes a decision to attempt harm on me or my family, why shouldn't I be allowed to use a weapon to defend my family? If you disarm the citizens, you open the door for more crimes and eliminate any ability to try and parallel what weapons a criminal can get their hands on.

IMO, if criminals know that there are no weapons, they are at a higher comfort level. If they know that there is a chance that someone will be carrying, that decreases the odds. That's just how people think.

If you look at guns as a "easy way to kill someone", why? So are numerous other things. They are the extension of a sick mind. If for some reason you could ban them, and all the criminals said " darn, this sucks" and even turned them in. That would only force them to find another route to execute what ever agenda they have. Start there and fix the real issue, don't keep eliminating things until someone realizes its the person on the other end of a gun, behind the wheel of a car, or someone looking up stuff on the internet.


Let me ask you this, Its 3:30 in the morning, my dogs starts barking. I hear a gun shot, killing my dog. I have just a few seconds to get to my kids and get my phone to call for help. This intruder is in my house, armed. (Because he refused to turn his gun in, when asked. Crazy right?) . He has made the intent known that he is going to harm either myself or my family. How does this play out? How can I defend my family? Throw some of the kids toys at him?, ask him to please leave? What would you do?
In my state, in the cities, the average response time for a priority call is around 8 minutes. The average time for me to get my handgun when being awakened in the night is only seconds, getting my AR only a few more seconds. I have waken up in the middle of the night to intruders at my friends house once and I just so happened to be carrying that night. I woke up my friend and told him what was going on and we did exactly what we needed to do. No shots were fired.

Point is I will always be prepared for that situation. I don't want to have it come to it, but I will not let anything happen to me or my friends and family
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pbf98 For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (April 25th, 2013)
Old April 25th, 2013, 02:24 PM   #444 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
I think countries that have made firearms Illegal should change that. Look at recent trends in Australia and Britain for example. As soon as guns are banned, violent crime (assault, rape, robbery, etc) skyrockets. An armed society is a polite society.
Well, violent crime (muggings, assaults, rape etc) has been declining in Europe over the last few years. England and Wales has seen violent crime go down by around 5% or something. France has seen a decrease too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Probably one of the most peaceful and safe countries in the world is Switzerland. Every home there is required to have an assault rifle (a real one, not an AR15) and ammunition. People regularly carry guns in public.
You are getting 'military reserves' confused with every home.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 02:28 PM   #445 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sfbloodbrother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 5,098
 
Device(s): Two Nexus 7's, Note 10.1, 4 Desktops, HP Chromebook 11, Moto g
Carrier: Boost Mobile

Thanks: 61
Thanked 525 Times in 440 Posts
bbbloodbrothercccx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Well, violent crime (muggings, assaults, rape etc) has been declining in Europe over the last few years. England and Wales has seen violent crime go down by around 5% or something. France has seen a decrease too.



You are getting 'military reserves' confused with every home.
You also make a good point. For some reason, when things are made legal there's a decline in the bad that comes out of it.
__________________
Please consider joining our IBM World Community Grid team here on Phandroid. Use your Android powered Phone/Tablet to research into finding cures to humanities toughest problems like AIDS, Clean Water, and Green energy! To learn more, please visit: http://androidforums.com/computers/818420-lets-cure-cancer-our-phones.html
sfbloodbrother is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2013, 03:19 PM   #446 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,089
 
Device(s): Galaxy S5 Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 104
Thanked 179 Times in 138 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
You are getting 'military reserves' confused with every home.
While it may not be every home, it is every male ages 20 - 30. At around age 20 swiss males will undergo basic military training and will stay a part of the militia until around their early 30s. After their period in the militia is up they are offered the choice to keep the firearm and other equipment received in their training or to give it up. If they choose to keep it, the rifle will be sent to the factory and be made to function as a semi auto only and returned to the individual.

To carry a gun in public even if it is someone belonging to the militia (pertaining to their personal arms) requires a permit which is usually only given to citizens who work in occupations that may require the need to do so.

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world

snopes.com: Gun Ownership in Switzerland
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2013, 05:23 PM   #447 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Are We Finally Insane Yet?

From the NYT:

"Officials in the movie and television industry say the new laws could prevent them from using the lifelike assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that they have employed in shows like “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and films like “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Twenty-seven pilots, television and feature projects, including programs like “Blue Bloods” and “Person of Interest,” are now in production in New York State using assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Industry workers say that they need to use real weapons for verisimilitude, that it would be impractical to try to manufacture fake weapons that could fire blanks, and that the entertainment industry should not be penalized accidentally by a law intended as a response to mass shootings.

Mr. Cuomo has gone out of his way to promote the industry’s success; on Monday, he issued one news release to say the state was on track to break its record for the number of television pilots shot in a year, and another to announce that “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” would begin production this week in Rochester. The governor has also enjoyed political support from Hollywood: a rare out-of-state fund-raiser as governor was held at the Los Angeles home of an HBO executive. "

Yes, I think we are truly nuts. When I visit NYC, will the NYC officials ban my Law and Order Boxed Set?
pbf98 likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2013, 06:52 PM   #448 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Are We Finally Insane Yet?

From the NYT:

"Officials in the movie and television industry say the new laws could prevent them from using the lifelike assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that they have employed in shows like “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and films like “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Twenty-seven pilots, television and feature projects, including programs like “Blue Bloods” and “Person of Interest,” are now in production in New York State using assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Industry workers say that they need to use real weapons for verisimilitude, that it would be impractical to try to manufacture fake weapons that could fire blanks, and that the entertainment industry should not be penalized accidentally by a law intended as a response to mass shootings.

Mr. Cuomo has gone out of his way to promote the industry’s success; on Monday, he issued one news release to say the state was on track to break its record for the number of television pilots shot in a year, and another to announce that “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” would begin production this week in Rochester. The governor has also enjoyed political support from Hollywood: a rare out-of-state fund-raiser as governor was held at the Los Angeles home of an HBO executive. "

Yes, I think we are truly nuts. When I visit NYC, will the NYC officials ban my Law and Order Boxed Set?
The insane part is wanting to put the citizens of New York in danger by removing their right to protect themselves. The Hollywood thing is just the icing on the cake. All kinds of businesses are going to be driven out of New York.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2013, 12:32 PM   #449 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,533
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 502
Thanked 379 Times in 296 Posts
Default

BBC News - Five-year-old boy shot two-year-old sister with kids' gun
sntaylor is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2013, 01:13 PM   #450 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

That's a parent being stupid. When children are that young you don't store a loaded gun in a corner so your 5 year old can play with it. When someone is stupid and it results in a death, that is not justification to remove any rights or freedoms from anyone else.
pbf98 likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags
constitution, guns, laws, politics, second amendment


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.