no photo
Sat 12/29/12 08:43 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Sat 12/29/12 08:47 AM
Id prefer guns be in the hands of RESPONSIBLE citizens
Be honest you want the government to be the only ones with guns. That is the end results of your personal ideology.

and what are the 'best' guns? how is that measured?
How many times do your kind harp on the ability of a weapon to fire multiple rounds, or how many rounds, or how powerful the rounds . . on and on and on.

The ability of the weapon can play into tactical flexibility, into time in the fight, and in taking out opponents when they reload.

If you would take the time to read about the hero I posted about a few days ago you would know that he died a hero, but could have lived if he had different weapons.

Not that those kinds of considerations are important to you.

no photo
Sat 12/29/12 08:32 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Sat 12/29/12 08:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amaVx9e5I1c

I am waiting on an anti gun advocate to tell me how 10K is a larger number than 80K . . . . those numbers are from one of the studies Dianne Feinstein uses to propose her bans . . . the numbers least favorable to us still show that guns have benefit to law abiding citizens, and thinking about the best guns being sent to the black market the way alcohol was during prohibition or drugs now scares the hell out of me.

Honestly, I believe if they made sporting rifles NFA weapons like machine guns are now, you would end up with more machine guns in the hands of gang bangers.

Why . . . because when you drive up the cost of the semi auto rifle you make the full auto one that is already at that price look more tempting.

Now you have citizens who can stand up to that, but after no one will have anything that can stop it.

Just like that recent killing of two UK police, dude had a grenade, and a pistol . . . a GRENADE!!, they had bats . . .

Its stupid, good people should be able to defend themselves, and not have to prove to the government or anyone that they are competent. That is just a BS backdoor ban.

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 01:45 PM


Hmmm . . . I wonder.

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 01:43 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 12/28/12 01:44 PM



wow really our goverment cant defeat piss ants with assult rifels now in the middle east one or two of us yes as a nation if we raise up no we could defeat the goverment just as the ira it would be a long bloody battle pitting brother vsbrother just as it did in the past but history repeats itsself your nation lives by the sword and you day die by the sword i hope its after my time here not wanting to see the horrors it would bring
Well said, but with that said I have to agree, let us not hasten the day. We need to work within the system, oppose the irrational nonsense pushed by the anti 2A groups, and keep up the fight for our rights. Many believe its too late . . . that will just hasten the day. Do not create a self fulfilling prophecy . . . its never too late to win back freedom so long as votes still matter . . . and they do despite all the BS.

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 12:56 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 12/28/12 12:56 PM
Mark Cuban commented after the NRA response to new gun legislation that the Mayans probably had the NRA response in mind when they predicted the end.

Man that is stupid on so many levels, ahhh the stupid it burns.

I guarantee Mark Cuban has armed guards . . . but your children . . . naaa they dont need no guards.

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 12:33 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 12/28/12 12:40 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16215255-arizona-sheriff-orders-armed-posse-to-patrol-schools?lite Hey . . . something effective, with a long track record of working.

Armed guards work. Volunteers are free.


. . . wait for it . . . . wait for it . . .I predict an incoming herd of people who will claim the volunteers will cause more harm than help all the while never showing any data at all to support that concept.


No one balks at someone suggesting having armed guards watch over stacks of gold, or money . . . but children . . . "outrageous"!


. . . must love your gold and money more than your kids . . .

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/23/16101856-nra-chief-if-putting-armed-police-in-schools-is-crazy-then-call-me-crazy?lite
He added that the United States is now spending $2 billion to train police officers in Iraq and asked why federal funds could not be spent to train school guards to protect schools in the United States.
Good question . . .

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 12:30 PM


I believe there's a word for people who think they need pseudo assault
rifles, and multiple large capacity magazines, to "protect
their families".


Agreed. Which it is more likely to do is kill one of the members of the family. By accident or mental unwellness.
Apparently Ad hom is the soup de jour!

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 12:27 PM



Ya know Denial is a coping mechanism.

In order to deny the awful truth, there has to be an alternate story.

It is easier sometimes to blame unseen or unattainable sources rather than to try to address the real deal.

I mean it is the same story of denial you get from the gun crazies who are in denial. All they can say blindly is "more guns" and "more guns". With no acknowledgement of the truth of the situation.


"I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".- Voltair.

…however I really do wish it wasn't such bullsh*t as to not even be worth listening to.

Until you come up with a better and more life-saving response to homicidal maniacs running wild than more guns to stop them, I would suggest that you believe a fantasy utopia of "no murders" can exist, and thus have no contact with the real world. Somebody is in denial, but it isn't your "gun crazies"…You're just projecting.


Example one.

Denial at it's best here.
Queen of assertions . . . NAAA HUHHHH, YAAAAH HUHHHHH

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 12:25 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 12/28/12 12:25 PM




Yea the government stats favor me.


Show me . . . so far your all talk.

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 10:51 AM






Whether severe restrictions on gun ownership would save a thousand lives, or merely a handful now and then, really isn’t the point. The more important question is what kind of country do we want to be? Will we insist on remaining among the most heavily armed nations on Earth — and one of the most deadly, as if those things were merely coincidental — or will we seek to create a culture of non-violence, in which manhood is not defined beginning at an early age, as being related to fighting, hunting, shooting things for fun, and generally being physically tough?

Bottom line: there is something wrong with a society in which so many people want and even seem to need guns, like some kind of psychological crutch; a society in which millions pay good money to watch two men get in a cage and beat the **** out of each other, and think to call that sickness a sport, or even worse, an art form.

Whether or not gun control can really work as advertised, guns, sadly, work exactly as promised. They serve only one function, and it is that purpose for which they were made: to kill, either an animal (usually for fun), or another person.

To think that we would want more killing machines in the hands of a people who are so quick to resort to violence at the drop of a hat — to avenge global, or local “disrespect” by some foe, real or imagined, or to resolve otherwise minor squabbles — seems the stuff of true insanity.

In short, while guns alone don’t kill people, it is rather apparent that Americans do, and mostly with guns. And until we address the cultural sickness that lay at the heart of our national identity, it is quite clear that we are a people unworthy of access to such instruments of death as these.

Perhaps somewhere there are people mature enough to handle guns responsibly. We have proven, over and again, and with the blood of our children, that we are not that people.



from http://www.timwise.org/2012/12/of-heroes-and-hype-mass-murder-and-the-absurdity-of-the-more-guns-crowd/


Gun crazy ideology is more the problem, you are right there.

It is a taught sickness we bear in this country. And it is a sickness.

Gun do not make one more powerful. They are not even protection most of the time. The stats prove these points.

Well stats not originating from the gun crazy sites that tell lies of course.


The data is collected by our government.

Where is your study?

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 10:47 AM
We need to refine those limits in the wake of what happened in Newtown.
Why is this necessarily true?

If we cannot show that previous refinements have had a positive impact, why would we believe future refinements which are almost exactly like the previous ones will have any different effect?

Doing something just to do something is not the same as doing something effective.

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 10:23 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/18/woman-police-officer-killed-manchester

Here is a perfect example, this criminal in the UK acquired a hand gun, and a grenade, then called in a burglary and waiting in ambush for the unarmed police officers to arrive. Then he gunned them down and throw the grenade for good measure.

Banning technology has never prevented a determined human from getting it, making it, or finding alternatives that work.


no photo
Fri 12/28/12 10:06 AM
I have lost IQ just trying to understand the reasoning involved with some of these . . . . theories . . . ohh the tragedy of calling them that . . .

David icke . . . sigh . .

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 09:59 AM


Do you think Walmart was in the wrong for ripping up the customer’s money?
Lets be clear, Walmart has no such policy and Walmart did nothing as Walmart is a company comprised of people who are responsible for their own actions when not prompted by policy or ordered to do so.


Apparently walmart did do something wrong by turning someone loose who was not properly trained, this is a reflection of both the corporation and the management.
Is it really apparent? Could it be possible the person, or persons were actually trained on this facet, or should have read the ACTUAL procedure and just decided not to?

So often on these forums people arbitrarily state something as apparent when they have no ruled out any of the alternatives . . . so sloppy.

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 09:24 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 12/28/12 09:30 AM
I am not done yet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.


Utah is the number one state for concealed carry permits with ~ 1 in 5 people having one.

http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2012/08/10/concealed-carry-permits-rise-in-ohio/
There are four states that have reached double digits in concealed-carry permits as a percentage of adult population: Utah (19.3), Georgia (11.5), Iowa (10.9) and South Dakota (10.6).


Utah violent crime per 100K = 224 compared to UK with ~10 times that much . . .

In all, there were about 8 million active concealed-carry permits nationally in 2011, led by Florida’s 887,000.
Now a million . . . that shows just how much of an uptick in permits. Americans overwhelmingly want to be able to defend themselves, and are overwhelming responsible in that regard.

Anyone pushing a different narrative is just not paying attention to the facts, or couldn't draw a valid conclusion from facts to save their life or are completely dishonest.


no photo
Fri 12/28/12 09:19 AM




Ohh what a bunch of hyperbolic drivel.

US population: 311,591,917
45% of those own firearms.

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

A list of the rate of ALL violent crime per 100,000.

A tiny tiny fraction of gun owners are involved in violent crime.

You will find states with gun ownership higher than the national average with lower violent crime than any of the other countries that the nonsense spewing anti-gun advocates like the OP want us to believe are our role models in this regard. In some cases the population densities of the states in question are just as large as the countries we compare with.

This conclusively proves the narrative being presented as false, inconsistent, and hyperbolic at best. Outright lies at worst.




amen to this amen
To add even more!

More than 1 million concealed carry permits have been issued in the state of Florida. Total population ~14 million. 1 in 14 people have the ability to carry a firearm, and less than 2% of the 1 million permits have been revoked.

Conclusion, the VAST majority of gun owners ARE responsible and SHOULD be the role model you look too . . .





you couldnt be more right ima ask you a favor will you look up the stats for ohios carry law i would but on a towboat for another six days and dont have a way to do it myself but im sure it will be dam near the same


http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/files/Publications/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Statistics

Ohio finished 2011 ranked 11th nationally in estimated total active permits (270,000) and 25th in percentage (3.2) of the population that holds one.


http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2012/08/10/concealed-carry-permits-rise-in-ohio/

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 09:01 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 12/28/12 09:09 AM
I would be extremely restricted in my movement if not for a car
I would be extremely restricted in my ability to defend myself without a gun. In fact if the gun has less capability than the weapon they person who is trying to kill me than the law has restricted my ability to defend myself.

No one needs a car until they need to get from point a to point b swiftly, no one needs a gun until faced with an attacker who has the ability to harm or kill you.

None of your arguments change these facts. The relationship between these two topics is quite cogent despite your nonsense rebuttals.

Amend the constitution until then the gun is an individuals right to BEAR, as in carry!


no photo
Fri 12/28/12 08:54 AM


I thought the gun was there for protection? Doesnt being nervous about a gun possibly being on premise STOP criminals,,?
I am just curious if you can grow up for even a second?

Criminals are NOT stupid, most burglaries occur when no one is home.

I swear it is odd to constantly have to explain the obvious.



HAAAAA

so why the need for the gun? if most burglaries occur when no one is home (or in danger)?

either way, its double talk,,,,
Its not double talk at all. Some situations are not burglaries, some home invasions occur when your home, that does not change the fact that most criminals are not stupid and will follow the path of least resistance. Both situations occur.

Your trying so hard at a gotcha moment that you are making yourself look terribly ignorant and child like.


no photo
Fri 12/28/12 08:50 AM


Let me put your worries to rest, let's assume they are completely tamper proof maybe?
Why would we assume that when it has not been true of any other technology?

I am not against such tech, mandating it is a mistake.




laugh drinker Mandating new weapon safeguards IS NOT a mistake

I'm still waiting on YOUR suggestions!
You did not answer my question, and we are still evaluating your suggestions for merit.

One of the problems with your suggestion is that it would literally make guns unavailable for the poor.

Another is that hacked versions are sure to be developed, and based on our experience with other such devices this would end up being rather inexpensive to do, if not free.

Another issue is that adding complexity to the device would cause some of them to just fail to operate when they should which would lead to a loss of life for officers and law abiding citizens trying to defend themselves.

Another issue is that Millions of firearms already exist that wouldn't have these features and their exists no methods which would not violate other rights to deal with these weapons.

Basically your idea would have little impact on the problem, would cost TONS of money, and would have deadly consequences for a % of the population potentially as great if not greater than the % we are trying to protect.


no photo
Fri 12/28/12 07:36 AM
Let me put your worries to rest, let's assume they are completely tamper proof maybe?
Why would we assume that when it has not been true of any other technology?

I am not against such tech, mandating it is a mistake.


1 2 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 24 25