# Gun control??



## DF (Jan 5, 2016)

Can anyone tell me exactly what Obumma's plan is?  I've read a few things but I don't get it.  We already go through back ground checks to get a license.  Are back ground checks actually going to do shit?  Discuss


----------



## mickems (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> Can anyone tell me exactly what Obumma's plan is?  I've read a few things but I don't get it.  We already go through back ground checks to get a license.  Are back ground checks actually going to do shit?  Discuss



DF, I don't even think Obama knows what his gun control plan is.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

Here are three things that are in the package (according to the White House fact sheet):

• Hiring more people to run the FBI background check system, so the government can be "processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."

• Requesting from Congress an additional $500 million to increase access to mental health care.

• Clarifying that people selling guns over the Internet can still be required to conduct background checks on buyers if they are "engaged in the business" of selling guns, not just a hobbyist.

And here's the stuff discussed in the days before the announcement that is NOT in the package:

• A requirement that every gun sale in the country is proceeded by a criminal background check.

• A ban on gun sales to people on terrorist "no-fly" lists.

• A ban on large capacity magazines that hold a lot of bullets.

The reason for the difference is that the administration does not believe it has authority under existing laws to do the bigger stuff. So they are using administrative actions to squeeze the stuff out of the corners of existing laws.


----------



## Flyingdragon (Jan 5, 2016)

Background checks are not done at gun shows.....IMO there is no need for anyone to own an assault weapon, a simple handgun is more than enough.  Also clips that can hold 15 or more rounds is simply only meant to kill as many as possible in a short period of time, again this type of clip is meant for the military.....What the military needs versus an American needs are completely different.  I do not own a gun and never will....


----------



## Infantry87 (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> Can anyone tell me exactly what Obumma's plan is?  I've read a few things but I don't get it.  We already go through back ground checks to get a license.  Are back ground checks actually going to do shit?  Discuss



Ultimately disarm all Americans. Right now he's placing an executive action for the so called "loophole" at gun shows not requiring federal background checks. Congress pretty much told him to go suck a fat dick. If Hillary wins, we will all be fukked. It's every Americans right to own any weapon they want, because guns don't kill people- dumbass extremists with guns kill people. If someone doesn't want a gun , ok but don't expect one of us that own plenty to protect you when retards start shooting up gun free zones.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

I am sssssooooooo staying out of this conversation hahahahahaha




To gov..............leave me the fukk alone


----------



## Bstalker (Jan 5, 2016)

LOL ^^clip, really


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 5, 2016)

Flyingdragon said:


> Background checks are not done at gun shows.....IMO there is no need for anyone to own an assault weapon, a simple handgun is more than enough.  Also clips that can hold 15 or more rounds is simply only meant to kill as many as possible in a short period of time, again this type of clip is meant for the military.....What the military needs versus an American needs are completely different.  I do not own a gun and never will....



The fact that you called a magazine a "clip" amuses me....


----------



## Flyingdragon (Jan 5, 2016)

NRA act like a cult, they want no gun control at all, they never offer any solutions.....They remind me of the Republican party, a bunch of old white guys who are out of touch with Americans and reality....Again I have no problem with someone owning a gun, but owning 50 guns with 10,000 rounds of ammo tells me your either paranoid or a nut case waiting to happen....Again just my 2 cents....


----------



## Flyingdragon (Jan 5, 2016)

Not a gun guy, wrong term used but u get what I am saying.....I meant hair clip, they are dangerous if stepped on without socks on.....



DieYoungStrong said:


> The fact that you called a magazine a "clip" amuses me....


----------



## mickems (Jan 5, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Here are three things that are in the package (according to the White House fact sheet):
> 
> • Hiring more people to run the FBI background check system, so the government can be "processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."
> 
> ...



A lot of that could be avoided if, they would just enforce the laws that are already in place. we have the laws already, it's just the punishment isn't fitting the crimes.


----------



## Infantry87 (Jan 5, 2016)

Flyingdragon said:


> NRA act like a cult, they want no gun control at all, they never offer any solutions.....They remind me of the Republican party, a bunch of old white guys who are out of touch with Americans and reality....Again I have no problem with someone owning a gun, but owning 50 guns with 10,000 rounds of ammo tells me your either paranoid or a nut case waiting to happen....Again just my 2 cents....



Plenty of people have more than 10,000 rounds of ammo with considerable amounts of guns. 10,000 rounds is about what me and 3 friends can go through in about 1-2 hours at the range. Also the majority of gun owners in America are actually combat veterans and yea most of us are nut cases but not towards the American people but towards terrorists. Every major shooting that's happened in the past 6-8 years have been 1- gun free zones 2- Muslim extremists 3- mentally ill people 4- democratic stronghold states. Most of the shooters were probably democrats as well


----------



## gymrat827 (Jan 5, 2016)

Flyingdragon said:


> Background checks are not done at gun shows.....IMO there is no need for anyone to own an assault weapon, a simple handgun is more than enough.  Also clips that can hold 15 or more rounds is simply only meant to kill as many as possible in a short period of time, again this type of clip is meant for the military.....What the military needs versus an American needs are completely different.  I do not own a gun and never will....



a .45 with a 10/12 round clip can pretty much take down any living animal & maybe a person wearing a bullet proof vest if you know where to shoot aside the head.........No need for a ar-15, m4, AK, etc, etc at the house.  

Im with ya on that.


----------



## Pinkbear (Jan 5, 2016)

Why is everyone bitching ...

1. Congress is a bunch of crooks and nothing ever gets done in congress.

2. he's not taking your ****ing guns away. You ****s

3. Yes just implementing more background checks. If you have a criminal or terrorist background why should you have a firearm? 
Now I believe there is grey area here. Not every criminal did something horrible to be put on that list.

Let's hear the crying began... "It's our rights" boohoo rember in this country there is no such thing as rights they're privilages and that's it....


----------



## Yaya (Jan 5, 2016)

I still believe throwing hammers is the best line of defense


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Flyingdragon said:


> Again I have no problem with someone owning a gun, but owning 50 guns with 10,000 rounds of ammo tells me your either paranoid or a nut case waiting to happen....Again just my 2 cents....



I have plenty of people that I work with that own more than a dozen firearms and well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition. They're all well adjusted contributing members to society. My grandfather had so many firearms he had to store them in his dropped ceiling. They were all registered and locked at all times (except during use) like a responsible gun owner should do.

Firearms are a hobby and a collectible item for a lot of people just like archery.


----------



## blackpantherusmc (Jan 5, 2016)

There will always be a black market for weapons!


----------



## Flyingdragon (Jan 5, 2016)

Thats my point, ex veterans are still arming themselves as if they were still at war....Not calling ex veterans nut cases....Have no problem with u shooting off 10K rounds at a gun range, my problem is having the ammo at your house....There is a major shooting every day in America, it just doesnt make the front page news.  Look at all the shootings in Chicago on a daily basis.....There are more guns than people in the US.....


----------



## Flyingdragon (Jan 5, 2016)

My grandfather collected old playboy magazines.....More exciting to look at....




Iron1 said:


> I have plenty of people that I work with that own more than a dozen firearms and well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition. They're all well adjusted contributing members to society. My grandfather had so many firearms he had to store them in his dropped ceiling. They were all registered and locked at all times (except during use) like a responsible gun owner should do.
> 
> Firearms are a hobby and a collectible item for a lot of people just like archery.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

Arnold didn't need a gun...







I wonder how many mass murders we had in 2015 where a knife was the primary weapon used... Hrmmm


----------



## Yaya (Jan 5, 2016)

My grandfather had unlimited amounts of hammers ready to go at all times


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Infantry87 said:


> Plenty of people have more than 10,000 rounds of ammo with considerable amounts of guns. 10,000 rounds is about what me and 3 friends can go through in about 1-2 hours at the range. Also the majority of gun owners in America are actually combat veterans and yea most of us are nut cases but not towards the American people but towards terrorists. Every major shooting that's happened in the past 6-8 years have been 1- gun free zones 2- Muslim extremists 3- mentally ill people 4- democratic stronghold states. Most of the shooters were probably democrats as well



Can you cite the statistics that most gun owners are combat vets? There's well over 300,000,000 guns in the US, by a conservative estimate and not including military servicemen and women. You really think combat vets make up the majority of that list?



Infantry87 said:


> Ultimately disarm all Americans. Right now he's placing an executive action for the so called "loophole" at gun shows not requiring federal background checks. Congress pretty much told him to go suck a fat dick. If Hillary wins, we will all be fukked. It's every Americans right to own any weapon they want, because guns don't kill people- dumbass extremists with guns kill people. If someone doesn't want a gun , ok but don't expect one of us that own plenty to protect you when retards start shooting up gun free zones.



Like John Parker did in the Oregon campus shooting?


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Like John Parker did in the Oregon campus shooting?



"According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom."


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> "According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.
> 
> Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom."



Exactly. Then you have the fact that to actually be helpful in that situation or one similar you'd need time to assess the situation and your options/consequences further delaying the "armed civilian killing the bad guy" rhetoric spewed so frequently


----------



## snake (Jan 5, 2016)

"Let's get ready to rumble!!!" 

Along with FD, I personally do not see a need to own 100 guns and 10,000 rounds of ammo. But more importantly, I do see a need to protect someones right to do so. I have never marched on the White House over the pro-abortion rights nor do I agree with it, but I will fight for your right to free speech and peaceful protest. 

Infintry87 hit the nail on the head, "Ultimately disarm all Americans". They will just settle for less for the time being. At one time they figured that they couldn't take away the guns so they went after the bullets that go into the guns; hopefully making a rifle just a metal club. Those plans didn't work so now it's back to the firearms themselves.

Oddly enough, gun control makes some strange bedfellows. You would be surprised when you pull back the cloak how many anti-gun owners are actually anti- hunters and PETA members.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

Flyingdragon said:


> Thats my point, ex veterans are still arming themselves as if they were still at war....Not calling ex veterans nut cases....Have no problem with u shooting off 10K rounds at a gun range, my problem is having the ammo at your house....There is a major shooting every day in America, it just doesnt make the front page news.  Look at all the shootings in Chicago on a daily basis.....There are more guns than people in the US.....



Chicago has to strictest gun laws?!?!?!?!


----------



## Infantry87 (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Can you cite the statistics that most gun owners are combat vets? There's well over 300,000,000 guns in the US, by a conservative estimate and not including military servicemen and women. You really think combat vets make up the majority of that list?
> 
> 
> 
> Like John Parker did in the Oregon campus shooting?



Combat veterans make up a large number of those statistics brother. Every veteran I know from my era all the way back to the Vietnam era each have at least 20-30 guns and same goes with all my buddies I served with and their grandfathers and great grandfathers. Also John Parker was an outlier of the fact. He said by the time he heard of the shooting, swat was already there. I call bullshit because the average response time for any police is well over 7-15 minutes before they actually arrive on a scene. He was portraiting something he's not. Dude was a joke with a concealed weapon permit hiding in his class like a pussy. Any well trained combat veteran knows you don't run away from firing, you move, seek cover and eliminate the hostile threat. If anything he should have been charged with accessory to multiple counts of murder because he had every opportunity to help and refused to do anything.


----------



## bsw5 (Jan 5, 2016)

It's all a part of a big agenda by the left wing. Disarm Americans. Lie to yourselves all you want. Keep your head in the sand but this is what it's about. Gun laws do not prevent anything. People will always be able to get guns from somewhere even if they are completely illegal. Look at drugs as an example. The only people the government will be disarming is the law abiding citizen.


----------



## snake (Jan 5, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> "According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.



Well I can tell you I personally know of a shooting that injured several people and left 3 people dead, one that I had the pleasure of knowing. The assailant was wrestled to the ground and shot with his own gun. I asked one of the guys that I know well and who was there if they wished they had his pistol with them at the time. He said, " Yeah, I do. I may not have been able to stop him from killing ****, but I would have had a good chance to stop him from killing the other 2 and wounding the rest. 

There's your "single case"


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 5, 2016)

I bet you you stance on the gun ****rol and 2nd amendment changes once some nutcase goes shoots up a mall, school, whatever and one of your loved ones is a casualty. 

turn on the f*ckign news, everyday killings, shootings, etc. It's an epidemic. We're just used to it.  It's too late anyways, the guns are on teh streets, nothing can be done. It'll only get worse. Just pray you and your loved ones won't be in the line of fire. 

I'm all for stricter laws, I actually think they should have a psychotriast interview ANYONE who wants to buy a gun. This might avoid selling guns to morons who have no grasp on reality.   Just my opinion. 

The problem really lies with guns on teh streets (ghettos, thug life etc.. , and mentally ill people)


----------



## snake (Jan 5, 2016)

Infantry87 said:


> I call bullshit because the average response time for any police is well over 7-15 minutes before they actually arrive on a scene.



I'm my own 'First Responder"


----------



## bugman (Jan 5, 2016)

I used to be a Federal Firearms License holder.. so here is my take.   

1.  A background check can be done 24/7 already.
2.  To sell a gun online, it has to be shipped to a FFL holder and in turn HE/SHE has to conduct the background check.

This is just another was to waste money and assert stupidity.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

StoliFTW said:


> ghettos, thug life


----------



## bugman (Jan 5, 2016)

mickems said:


> A lot of that could be avoided if, they would just enforce the laws that are already in place. we have the laws already, it's just the punishment isn't fitting the crimes.



Mickems for prez..


----------



## snake (Jan 5, 2016)

Who likes history?


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

snake said:


> Who likes history?



Here we go....


----------



## bugman (Jan 5, 2016)

I gotta say this too.  Why do we need stricter gun laws??

Have any of you actually read your states gun laws? Or the federal gun laws for that matter??  

All I see is people calling for gun/ammo bans, for decreased MAGAZINE capacity.

What I don't see is people calling for the existing gun laws to be enforced.  What I don't see is the people calling for personal accountability for the criminals who commit these shootings.  

Why does the blame go straight to the gun?   

I'm a fatass, but have I ever blamed fastfood, or the fork and spoon?  NO.  I made the conscious decision to pick up the spoon and fork and to use them.  IT'S MY FAULT.


----------



## tunafisherman (Jan 5, 2016)

I was always told gun control is being able to hit your target.

My other favorite thing:  Gun buy back programs.  Make some homemade shotguns (really easy--pipe, wood, and a nail) and the cops will give you the $.  Then, sit across the road and offer $50-$75 more than the police are giving out and you can score some really good (and sometimes some really vintage) weapons.

As to the OP, this is simply the new way to solve "problems"--have people that aren't really educated on the subject write and pass legislation and ensure that legislation throws a literal shit-ton of money into government.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 5, 2016)

Flyingdragon said:


> Background checks are not done at gun shows.....IMO there is no need for anyone to own an assault weapon, a simple handgun is more than enough.  Also clips that can hold 15 or more rounds is simply only meant to kill as many as possible in a short period of time, again this type of clip is meant for the military.....What the military needs versus an American needs are completely different.  I do not own a gun and never will....


An ar15 is defined by armalite as a defensive sporting rifle. 
No civilians in the US own actual assault weapons without a class 3 FFL. 
Magazine capacity is irrelevant. You want a 15 limit? Fine, I'll have 40 of them loaded and ready. 

I am glad you don't a firearm.


----------



## Seeker (Jan 5, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Arnold didn't need a gun...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, there was a few. The media just decided not to report it. Didn't fit their agenda.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Infantry87 said:


> Combat veterans make up a large number of those statistics brother. Every veteran I know from my era all the way back to the Vietnam era each have at least 20-30 guns and same goes with all my buddies I served with and their grandfathers and great grandfathers. Also John Parker was an outlier of the fact. He said by the time he heard of the shooting, swat was already there. I call bullshit because the average response time for any police is well over 7-15 minutes before they actually arrive on a scene. He was portraiting something he's not. Dude was a joke with a concealed weapon permit hiding in his class like a pussy. Any well trained combat veteran knows you don't run away from firing, you move, seek cover and eliminate the hostile threat. If anything he should have been charged with accessory to multiple counts of murder because he had every opportunity to help and refused to do anything.



I agree combat vets makeup a large portion of gun owners. I just don't think, nor have seen the statistics to say, they are the majority. 

You can't charge a civilian as an accomplice or accessory to murder. You would then violate an even greater right than gun ownership if you did that. I have and would step forward to help when I can but that's my choice to. Not everyone makes the same choice. 

Do you have any statistics in the amount of gun violence stopped by gun owners. 

I should add, I'm not against gun ownership. I think some laws should be put in place regarding ownership but don't believe in disarmament either.


----------



## jojo58 (Jan 5, 2016)

Pinkbear said:


> Why is everyone bitching ...
> 
> 1. Congress is a bunch of crooks and nothing ever gets done in congress.
> 
> ...



I guess it depends on who is on the government no fly list. 
who determines who goes on the government no fly list? I didn't get to vote on who is on there. 
they have already successfully revoked the right to bear arms from convicted felons and now they are pursuing people who do not have convictions. 
oh not to mention if you are declared a terrorist or an enemy of the state then congress has the authority to terminate you with drones.


----------



## tunafisherman (Jan 5, 2016)

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=concealed+carry+saves+lives

for those who say it never happens....I would say it rarely makes news because, well, a tragedy was adverted, and tragedies are news, not this.


----------



## jojo58 (Jan 5, 2016)

About 25% of the total US adult black population has a felony, while 6.5% of adult non-blacks have a felony conviction. About 8.6% of the adult population has a felony conviction.

Florida is a particularly egregious police state.  35% of adult blacks in Florida have felony conviction, 14% of the total adult population in Florida have a felony conviction.

About 20 million people have a felony conviction in America.  That works out to about 1 in 12 adult Americans.

I'm just saying. that is a shit ton of people who have already lost their rights. if you think they are not trying to take yours then you may want to reconsider.


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 5, 2016)

It'll never get through the majority of the house and Congress already said they'd vote against it and if bush Cruz or trump win the election anything obama puts into law will go bye bye with the rest of Obama's BS Presidential authority that he passes behind close doors . the next president is basically gonna have to un**** everything obama did starting with Obama Care and gun control. Is a proven fact that the stricer the gun laws are the higher the murder , assault and burglary rates. The Obama administration is a bunch of scares by opinion pussies , we need a president with balls like FDR or Regan again not some coward that hides behind his political agendas . I have a lot of guns and ammo and if I want to own a ak47 and go shoot off 4 k rounds on the wknd i can bc that's my right as a ****in American **** all these gun control pussies if there's a mass shooting around me where's everyone gonna go behind me BC I have a ****ing gun 

End rant


----------



## tunafisherman (Jan 5, 2016)

lets also not pretend that the felons can't get their hands on guns.  Shit, there was a 19 yr old that shot someone around here a few weeks ago, with a pistol.  Funny, I thought you had to be 21 to buy a pistol.  And, he owned it, it did not come from a family member.

Criminals will get guns.  As I said before, it's not even that hard to make a gun.  Sure, it wont function as well as some of the ones I own now, but it will work well enough---especially if I know that the populace is unarmed.  

Yes, I know I am a redneck.  I own a lot of weapons.  I actually have one sitting about 8 inches from the computer I am typing on.  It is also my every day carry.


----------



## tunafisherman (Jan 5, 2016)

Also, when people ask me why I own so many firearms, or why I "need" a sporting rifle, my usual response is "why do you need 2 cars and a motorcycle?  Why does a 60 yr old need a Ferrari?"  I don't need them, I enjoy using them on the range, or hunting, or simply hanging over the fireplace.  I also enjoy history, and therefore collect many WWII weapons, including those from Russia, China, Japan, and Germany.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 5, 2016)

tunafisherman said:


> lets also not pretend that the felons can't get their hands on guns.  Shit, there was a 19 yr old that shot someone around here a few weeks ago, with a pistol.  Funny, I thought you had to be 21 to buy a pistol.  And, he owned it, it did not come from a family member.
> 
> Criminals will get guns.  As I said before, it's not even that hard to make a gun.  Sure, it wont function as well as some of the ones I own now, but it will work well enough---especially if I know that the populace is unarmed.
> 
> Yes, I know I am a redneck.  I own a lot of weapons.  I actually have one sitting about 8 inches from the computer I am typing on.  It is also my every day carry.


I usually carry two. A 380 and a 45. 

In other related news, Hawaii raised the tobacco age to 21. Because logically, that will stop underage tobacco use.


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 5, 2016)

If someone kills 50 people with a claw hammer they won't put stiffer regulations on ****ing claw hammers


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

For those in favor of stricter gun control, are you also in favor of the tax increase that's needed to support the agenda?

How much are you willing to pay to shut down a hobby?

If the anti-gun people succeed in reducing production or even shutting down factories, will you also be there to support the jobless?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

tunafisherman said:


> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=concealed+carry+saves+lives
> 
> for those who say it never happens....I would say it rarely makes news because, well, a tragedy was adverted, and tragedies are news, not this.



What about the 700+ civilians and 17 or so police officers killed by "armed civilians"?




> More gravely, the study found that the fatalities included 17 law enforcement officers shot by people with legal permits along with 705 slain civilians. There were 28 mass shootings (involving three or more victims) in which 136 people were killed — even though concealed carry has also been sold as a defense against massacres like the one in Newtown, Conn.


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 5, 2016)

Everyone knows gun control is using both hands.


----------



## Infantry87 (Jan 5, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> If someone kills 50 people with a claw hammer they won't put stiffer regulations on ****ing claw hammers



We should ban spoons and forks because that's what makes people fat. Not the lack of self control obviously


----------



## bronco (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> What about the 700+ civilians and 17 or so police officers killed by "armed civilians"?



Are you talking about this year or just in general? And what about them?


----------



## snake (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Do you have any statistics in the amount of gun violence stopped by gun owners.



Some quick numbers and please check them, I will take no offence to it. I do admit, this is a broad view but take it for what it's worth.

If California population is 35 million and there are 35 thousand LTC permits, your chance of being saved by someone with a gun is about 1:1000.Mathematically, if you're in a mall with 900 people, you're screwed. You're odds go up drastically if your in my state and you're with me Doc.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

bronco said:


> Are you talking about this year or just in general? And what about them?



I believe the course are for the last 8yrs. 

The point was made that gun carrying civilians stop crime. Which does happen as there are reports and statistics about it. But what gets swept under the rug is what else those gun carrying civilians do and that's kill 700+ other innocent civilians and 17 police officers all while trying to stop the bad guy. Unintended consequences are still consequences and a very real reality.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

snake said:


> Some quick numbers and please check them, I will take no offence to it. I do admit, this is a broad view but take it for what it's worth.
> 
> If California population is 35 million and there are 35 thousand LTC permits, your chance of being saved by someone with a gun is about 1:1000.Mathematically, if you're in a mall with 900 people, you're screwed. You're odds go up drastically if your in my state and you're with me Doc.



We can go after ppl with your guns and bow and arrows Snake! Lol. 

Ok, without checking those figures yet, how many of those 1 in a thousand have the wherewithal to actually make a difference? How many actually do risk their lives? How many don't end up killing other innocent civilians and/or law enforcement officers? How many have the training to hit a moving target vs a stationary one? How many will be able to overcome the fear and make logical decisions when under fire? How many will end up being shot by police officers who weren't aware they weren't the actual threat? How many of those have their guns taken from them while trying to help someone and then that gun gets used for a crime? 

Again, I'm not against gun ownership but these are some of the questions we need to be asking and figuring out.


----------



## mickems (Jan 5, 2016)

A tiny .22 caliber can kill people too. do we take that away? what about a fawking pellet gun? where will they stop?


----------



## mickems (Jan 5, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Here are three things that are in the package (according to the White House fact sheet):
> 
> • Hiring more people to run the FBI background check system, so the government can be "processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."
> 
> ...



Okay but, where's the chart?


----------



## Infantry87 (Jan 5, 2016)

mickems said:


> A tiny .22 caliber can kill people too. do we take that away? what about a fawking pellet gun? where will they stop?



Dude a group was formed awhile ago called mothers against knives. The stupidity is what keeps groups like these going and it will never stop


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

mickems said:


> A tiny .22 caliber can kill people too. do we take that away? what about a fawking pellet gun? where will they stop?



In my state you need a full FID card to possess a little spring loaded pellet pistol.

Back when I was younger (and unable to take the course myself) my father had to go through the full course, background check and everything just to obtain a spring loaded pellet gun that they sold at walmart. That thing was so weak it would literally bounce pellets off a water balloon from 3' away.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 5, 2016)

Here is the main issue. The vast majority of gun control advocates speak purely out of fear and ignorance. Now, understand that I do not mean stupidity. Literally ignorance; being uneducated. People using the term assault weapon drives me nuts. I can assault you with a screwdriver. 

Here's a little test to see where you fall. Which of these two weapons is more dangerous? Which is an assault weapon? Which is more lethal? Which should be banned?













The bottom is a rem 700 in .308
If you were smart, that's the one you'd be scared of. That's the one that you won't hear coming. You won't even see me. Because I'm easily a half mile away. Or more. 

The top one? That ASSAULT WEAPON?!?! 















That's a pellet gun.


----------



## silvereyes87 (Jan 5, 2016)

But the top one look so scary. Lol


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 5, 2016)

silvereyes87 said:


> But the top one look so scary. Lol



And they (defensive sporting rifles) were banned during Clinton's reign for exactly that reason.


----------



## bronco (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> I believe the course are for the last 8yrs.
> 
> The point was made that gun carrying civilians stop crime. Which does happen as there are reports and statistics about it. But what gets swept under the rug is what else those gun carrying civilians do and that's kill 700+ other innocent civilians and 17 police officers all while trying to stop the bad guy. Unintended consequences are still consequences and a very real reality.



And what about the millions of law abiding Americans who do not go around killing innocent civilians or police officers? Should we just stand by and let our constitutional rights be taken away?

I know you said your not for the banning of all weapons but any new measures on gun control is just one step closer to that happening. And if Obama had the votes in congress right now I believe he would do just that


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> What about the 700+ civilians and 17 or so police officers killed by "armed civilians"?



That 717 cases compared to the 15 million responsible gun owners why should 14,999,283 people be punished BC of the actions of 717 ? And that's assuming each one of those cases was an individual shooter and only killed one person . that comparison just like that is the problem . you punishing the 97% BC of the actions of the 3%


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

bronco said:


> And what about the millions of law abiding Americans who do not go around killing innocent civilians or police officers? Should we just stand by and let our constitutional rights be taken away?
> 
> I know you said your not for the banning of all weapons but any new measures on gun control is just one step closer to that happening. And if Obama had the votes in congress right now I believe he would do just that



Correct I'm not for disarmament. I'm for finding a middle ground that enables enthusiasts, hunters, etc to have theirs while also decreasing the likelihood of it getting into a criminal's hands, or mentally unstable, etc. I never said to take away a law abiding citizen's rights to own guns away but you cannot parade around one set of "facts" without providing the full picture. 

And no, new or ammended gun measures don't mean guns will be taken out of the hands of civilians. It's what the NRA and other extremists would have us believe though. Look at all the provisions and taxes and age requirements etc on smoking. When it was made law you couldn't smoke indoors in public anymore, did that get the cigarettes out of the hands of smokers? Just bc Starbucks for example doesn't want guns on their property doesn't mean you can't still have them. I haven't really looked at the new laws Obama is proposing so I can't really comment on them specifically but I'm talking in generalities.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 5, 2016)

I have 7 guns in my home. I hunt deer and pheasant. My wife and I love shooting our 9mm and .45 at the range. That said, something has to be done in this country. There's way too many innocent people getting shot for no reason. 

Just for argument sake, let's take Australia. They banned all guns for civilians in 1996. You can only own a firearm if you're licensed to carry it for work. They have had a total of 4 mass shootings in the last 20 years. The US averages more than 1 mass shooting a day. Obviously it's working for them. I'm not saying that's what the U.S. should do but I think we have to look at some different options. There are waaay too many stupid people with firearms in our country.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> That 717 cases compared to the 15 million responsible gun owners why should 14,999,283 people be punished BC of the actions of 717 ? And that's assuming each one of those cases was an individual shooter and only killed one person . that comparison just like that is the problem . you punishing the 97% BC of the actions of the 3%



No, not really, bc nowhere have I said to punish the law abiding gun owners. Look back at my posts and you'll see I'm in favor of gun ownership. Taken even a little further, asking a gun owner to jump brought some hoops to prove he is fit to own something as potentially dangerous as a firearm isn't punishment either, although, I wouldn't be in favor of all the hoops gun owners could be asked to go through.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> I have 7 guns in my home. I hunt deer and pheasant. My wife and I love shooting our 9mm and .45 at the range. That said, something has to be done in this country. There's way too many innocent people getting shot for no reason.
> 
> Just for argument sake, let's take Australia. They banned all guns for civilians in 1996. You can only own a firearm if you're licensed to carry it for work. They have had a total of 4 mass shootings in the last 20 years. The US averages more than 1 mass shooting a day. Obviously it's working for them. I'm not saying that's what the U.S. should do but I think we have to look at some different options. There are waaay too many stupid people with firearms in our country.



Agreed. We have to look at options and deterrents. This means both sides will have to sacrifice on something's to achieve a common middle ground.


----------



## bsw5 (Jan 5, 2016)

Gun control is not about guns at all with "this" government. It's all about CONTROL!


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

I think an interesting thing to do here would be to ask the people who are most upset about the imposed regulations what the current laws are in their states.

I ask because having licensure, a mandatory background check (including psych history), mandatory training courses and firearms registration has been the way it is here for as long as I can remember. Our process even involves FID application review by the local law enforcement that may include a physical interview and always includes fingerprints and a current photo.

None of this seems to bother anyone at this point and firearms are still bought and sold regularly.


----------



## thqmas (Jan 5, 2016)

Wow, we tackled some tough subjects today didn't we fellas?

Edit: I mean, we had a drug epidemic, a dnp user ending with an amputation and gun control.

This board is just getting better and better every day!


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 5, 2016)

I don't know why anyone could really think that guns will be banned completely...it's just not going to happen but if some want to get all heated and flustered over it...so be it...

I own guns (I'm a HUGE liberal  )

Do I think folks need to have more than a handful no....but does it bother me that some do...no....between my father and his late wife, they had over 30 guns..they were collectors and avid shooters. I have no issue with the folks in their right minds having as many guns as they want but how in the fuuuuk is there ever going to be a way to distinguish between the sane and the insane....it's not possible unless they have something in their history showing they are unstable and if my memory serves me correctly...most of these mass shooters don't have anything...people that know them say.."yea, he was a bit odd"...what the fuuk does that mean????

This shit is always going to serve as a huge platform in the political arena to fuuk with peoples minds......


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> And they (defensive sporting rifles) were banned during Clinton's reign for exactly that reason.



A kid running around with that top gun... I'm sure the cops would be able to tell from a distance that it fired pellets and not bullets. Right?


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Here's an example of a brandy new law regarding gun control in California
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/c...-let-police-confiscate-legally-owned-weapons/



> A new California law scheduled to take effect Friday will allow the police to seize private, legally-owned weapons for up to three weeks without charges or allowing the citizen to contest the seizure.
> 
> Under the law, a judge has the power to grant a restraining order telling police to seize a person’s guns, based solely on accounts from family members or police that the person is poses an imminent danger to others. The restraining order can be granted without the affected person knowing it exists or being allowed time to contest it.
> 
> Under the law, the factors a judge can consider in granting the restraining order include not only threats of violence, but also prior felony arrests (even without a conviction), evidence of alcohol abuse, and even the simple act of recently purchasing a gun or ammunition.



Now, I can see this going in only one direction; badly for everyone.

I truly expect a law like this to end in blood shed whether it be police of civilian. There are people out there with the "over my dead body" attitude and this is exactly the sort of thing that they'd fight over.

What happens when some asshole fraudulently reports someone? The firearms are taken away, the investigation is conducted and the firearms are returned. That person now has a reason to seek vengeance. Police are supposed to de-escalation situations, this law is the exact opposite. 

Mark my words, when that happens, media will explode and leverage the situation to impose even stricter regulations. These are gestapo tactics.


----------



## tunafisherman (Jan 5, 2016)

The "one mass shooting a day" statistic has already been proven as a unique play on numbers.  Additionally, look at the gang violence.  The vast majority of gang members cannot legally possess a handgun.  Yet, walk through Compton and i'm sure you'll see some people packing.

Jenner is absolutely right, it's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem.  Those saying we already have laws are also right, there are an asinine amount of laws on the books already.  Perhaps we should be upset with the Judges that let the gang bangers plead down to a lesser charge and get out of jail (if they ever get into it) and get back on the streets.  They aren't going to get the guns from Cabellas, they are going to get it on the black market...and guess what, there's already laws making that illegal so...

And while we are on the black market side of things, didn't this President and his justice department have a little gun running operation to the cartels?  And he wants to lecture me on gun ownership...yea, gfy.  "But Bush armed the cartels too" is not an excuse for the current presidents actions.  How about the gun running in other countries?  Or, if you want to really get depressed, look at SOFEX.  Vice did a good little piece on it not that long ago.  That's just the governments way of getting around those pesky gun laws.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

bsw5 said:


> Gun control is not about guns at all with "this" government. It's all about CONTROL!



And this pertains to only "this" government? Try again. How about every government we've had in recent and not so recent history will always have one platform or another to divide and conquer the people. When you get to that level of government it's always about control regardless of who is in power. To think otherwise is naïveté IMO.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> How about every government we've had in recent and not so recent history will always have one platform or another to divide and conquer the people.



The first thing a tyrant does upon seizing power is take away their peoples ability to fight back.


----------



## snake (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> We can go after ppl with your guns and bow and arrows Snake! Lol.
> 
> Ok, without checking those figures yet, how many of those 1 in a thousand have the wherewithal to actually make a difference? How many actually do risk their lives? How many don't end up killing other innocent civilians and/or law enforcement officers? How many have the training to hit a moving target vs a stationary one? How many will be able to overcome the fear and make logical decisions when under fire? How many will end up being shot by police officers who weren't aware they weren't the actual threat? How many of those have their guns taken from them while trying to help someone and then that gun gets used for a crime?
> 
> Again, I'm not against gun ownership but these are some of the questions we need to be asking and figuring out.



All factors of good training on both the civilians and law enforcement. So you're right , we need more and better trained people on our streets. See, you agree with me.  I knew you'd come around.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Lest we forget that the gubment that's 'doing this for the safety of it's people' just sold fuking Saudi Arabia $13 BILLION worth of military gear including:


> over 10,000 bombs, munitions, and weapons parts produced by Boeing and Raytheon. This includes 5,200 Paveway II “laser guided” and 12,000 “general purpose” bombs. “Bunker Busters,” also included in the deal, are designed to destroy concrete structures. Don't forget the war ships we sold them just a month before."
> 
> The U.S. statement indicates that the deal will, in part, be used to replenish arms for Saudi Arabia’s seven-month-long military assault on Yemen, which has killed at least 2,355 civilians and wounded 4,862



Yep, the gubment really cares about the lives of civvies.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

I would like to bring your attention to...

https://www.ugbodybuilding.com/threads/20059-Olivia-Jensen-(-teambigbootyhoes)


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 5, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> What happens when some asshole fraudulently reports someone? The firearms are taken away, the investigation is conducted and the firearms are returned. That person now has a reason to seek vengeance. Police are supposed to de-escalation situations, this law is the exact opposite.



This is the deal with that, I seriously doubt there is going to be a massive outbreak of false accusations 1. due in part to most folks...especially the dumbasses that would take part in making a false accusation wouldn't even know this law existed. 2. If you are an upstanding citizen that minds their own fuuking business, you wouldn't have to worry about someone trying to fuuck with you.

Shit like this is just another thing for folks to grab onto and act like the country is going to fall apart over....ridiculous


----------



## snake (Jan 5, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> I would like to bring your attention to...
> 
> https://www.ugbodybuilding.com/threads/20059-Olivia-Jensen-(-teambigbootyhoes)



You're just trying to butter me up. I will have you know that it's working.

Now there's something we both can agree upon.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

Jenner said:


> This is the deal with that, I seriously doubt there is going to be a massive outbreak of false accusations 1. due in part to most folks...especially the dumbasses that would take part in making a false accusation wouldn't even know this law existed. 2. If you are an upstanding citizen that minds their own fuuking business, you wouldn't have to worry about someone trying to fuuck with you.
> 
> Shit like this is just another thing for folks to grab onto and a*ct like the country is going to fall apart *over....ridiculous


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> The first thing a tyrant does upon seizing power is take away their peoples ability to fight back.



I wholeheartedly agree, although guns aren't, and shouldn't, be the first or only chance of fighting back.


----------



## Yaya (Jan 5, 2016)

There is much more to this then we all know.. it's political and it's mostly bullshit

Hammers4life


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

snake said:


> All factors of good training on both the civilians and law enforcement. So you're right , we need more and better trained people on our streets. See, you agree with me.  I knew you'd come around.



I'm not a bodybuilder yet


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 5, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> A kid running around with that top gun... I'm sure the cops would be able to tell from a distance that it fired pellets and not bullets. Right?


YOU would let your kid "run around" with a pellet gun? 
Please don't ever buy any for your children then. Pellet/BB guns are not toys. And it's the parents responsibility to teach that.


----------



## Bullseye Forever (Jan 5, 2016)

With all due respect,random shootings are gonna happen regardless and any and every gun law they pass....weapons will always be available anywhere


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 5, 2016)

#hammers4life is trending on Twitter now


----------



## gymrat827 (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Chicago has to strictest gun laws?!?!?!?!



no it doesnt.


Or if it does they dont do shit.  ive lived in shytown for all my life and the last 10 yrs have really been bad shooting wise.  Yes there are some in other areas, but week to week........no where but the worst areas of the middle east have anything close to our crime/murder rate.  

The south and west side, prepare yourself, they are hood.  Not the whole things, but quite a bit are "watch ur fukinn ass" places.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> YOU would let your kid "run around" with a pellet gun?
> Please don't ever buy any for your children then. Pellet/BB guns are not toys. And it's the parents responsibility to teach that.


----------



## DF (Jan 5, 2016)

Jenner said:


> This is the deal with that, I seriously doubt there is going to be a massive outbreak of false accusations 1. due in part to most folks...especially the dumbasses that would take part in making a false accusation wouldn't even know this law existed. 2. If you are an upstanding citizen that minds their own fuuking business, you wouldn't have to worry about someone trying to fuuck with you.
> 
> *Shit like this is just another thing for folks to grab onto and act like the country is going to fall apart over....ridiculous*



So you don't think the government would take the guns if we let them?  or you dont think the government has an agenda? 
Do you think the government just wants to protect its citizens cause they really care?  Just curious


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 5, 2016)

gymrat827 said:


> no it doesnt.
> 
> 
> Or if it does they dont do shit.  ive lived in shytown for all my life and the last 10 yrs have really been bad shooting wise.  Yes there are some in other areas, but week to week........no where but the worst areas of the middle east have anything close to our crime/murder rate.
> ...


That was exactly his point. Concealed (or open, for that matter) carry was completely illegal in all of IL until recently. 

Did someone forget to inform the criminals?


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 5, 2016)

Bunch of Commies!

Gun Control doesn't work. It only effects people who were no threat to being with - law abiding gun owners.

Gun Confiscating does work for the gubmint...but there would be an uprising in this country if they tried that.

Guns are America. America is guns. We are a nation founded by people with guns.

A skilled marksman with a single shot 22 can be more deadly then an incompetent dick weed with an AR-15 and his fully loaded "clip".


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> So you don't think the government would take the guns if we let them?  or you dont think the government has an agenda?
> Do you think the government just wants to protect its citizens cause they really care?  Just curious



I think I was pretty self explanatory on my response to his post.

But, to answer what you are asking me...no, I don't think there is an agenda to wipe guns off the face of the US planet.

What's funny to me is the folks that accuse others of falling for government BS...are usually the ones that get swept up into the government BS

No, I don't believe guns will ever be taken away from us...

No, I don't believe there will ever be a way to keep bad people from doing bad things with guns....

So, we will stay on this marrygoround for many more years to come.....

That's all I got....


----------



## DF (Jan 5, 2016)

Jenner said:


> I think I was pretty self explanatory on my response to his post.
> 
> But, to answer what you are asking me...no, I don't think there is an agenda to wipe guns off the face of the US planet.
> 
> ...



If it was self explanatory I would not have asked the questions.  Now shut it Jenn!  I'll be waiting for my PM :32 (19):


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

gymrat827 said:


> no it doesnt.
> 
> 
> Or if it does they dont do shit.  ive lived in shytown for all my life and the last 10 yrs have really been bad shooting wise.  Yes there are some in other areas, but week to week........no where but the worst areas of the middle east have anything close to our crime/murder rate.
> ...


That's my point..........Chicago DOES have some of the strictest gun laws and it doesn't make a bit of difference


----------



## mickems (Jan 5, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> An ar15 is defined by armalite as a defensive sporting rifle.
> No civilians in the US own actual assault weapons without a class 3 FFL.
> Magazine capacity is irrelevant. You want a 15 limit? Fine, I'll have 40 of them loaded and ready.
> 
> I am glad you don't a firearm.



most people that are against what they call "assault rifles" such as ar15 's don't even realize, it's only slightly bigger than a 22. there are plenty of hunting rifles with way more power than the ar.


----------



## Bullseye Forever (Jan 5, 2016)

mickems said:


> most people that are against what they call "assault rifles" such as ar15 's don't even realize, it's only slightly bigger than a 22. there are plenty of hunting rifles with way more power than the ar.



Yup like my 7mm magnum,hunting rifle


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Jenner said:


> No, I don't believe guns will ever be taken away from us...



The law states that they will do literally just that and are not required to give you notice or explanation as to why.

Here is why it's concerning for me;
The Gov isn't going to immediately take away our guns with this law, no. What they are doing however, is laying the groundwork for them to have the ability to take them away at a moments notice. 

California has always been a progressive state that often leads the country with new laws.
Medical Marijuana
Emission standards
Gun control laws
Green Energy standards
etc.

History has proven that the rest of the country likes to adopt policy that works well for Cali. This law will be no different. 

One needs to have a healthy skepticism about their government and apply critical thinking when necessary.


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 5, 2016)

buy more guns b4 it's too late


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> No, not really, bc nowhere have I said to punish the law abiding gun owners. Look back at my posts and you'll see I'm in favor of gun ownership. Taken even a little further, asking a gun owner to jump brought some hoops to prove he is fit to own something as potentially dangerous as a firearm isn't punishment either, although, I wouldn't be in favor of all the hoops gun owners could be asked to go through.



i hate that you have a way with words you sexy bastard


----------



## RISE (Jan 5, 2016)

I love that we're talking about taking away guns to get them out of the hands of civilians...on a steroid site.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 5, 2016)

StoliFTW said:


> buy more guns b4 it's too late



I'm doing exactly that this weekend.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

You gotta admit, stuff like this is a ridiculously powerful marketing technique.


----------



## DF (Jan 5, 2016)

I still need my license!!!!!  Fukn local cops wont give me an appointment to turn in my application!


----------



## SuperBane (Jan 5, 2016)

A whole lot of butt hurt and commies in this thread!
All I will say is laws have never stopped any criminal activity pertaining to the use of a firearm.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> That's my point..........Chicago DOES have some of the strictest gun laws and it doesn't make a bit of difference



Using Chicago as an example for this is a poor choice. 60% of the guns used and recovered in crimes in Chicago come from out of state. Roughly 24% come from Indianna (not regulated), about 20% from Mississippi (not much regulation) and about 22% from nearby Cooks county (where gun shows and dealers are legal). That can make an argument to make neighboring states more restrictive.


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Using Chicago as an example for this is a poor choice. 60% of the guns used and recovered in crimes in Chicago come from out of state. Roughly 24% come from Indianna (not regulated), about 20% from Mississippi (not much regulation) and about 22% from nearby Cooks county (where gun shows and dealers are legal). That can make an argument to make neighboring states more restrictive.



can i use your brain for about 4 yrs to get a college degree then ill return it ? i promise !!!!


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Using Chicago as an example for this is a poor choice. 60% of the guns used and recovered in crimes in Chicago come from out of state. Roughly 24% come from Indianna (not regulated), about 20% from Mississippi (not much regulation) and about 22% from nearby Cooks county (where gun shows and dealers are legal). That can make an argument to make neighboring states more restrictive.



That's exactly the argument.......... It doesn't matter what laws you pass, it will happen and people with bad intentions will get them


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> That's exactly the argument.......... It doesn't matter what laws you pass, it will happen and people with bad intentions will get them



And the statistics show the criminals will go to the least restrictive states.... But that makes the argument to make all states more restrictive which is the opposite if what you want is my point lol. 

So should we not have any laws bc bad guys will not follow them anyway?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> can i use your brain for about 4 yrs to get a college degree then ill return it ? i promise !!!!



Sure but I must warm you I used to fall asleep in class a lot lol


----------



## Beedeezy (Jan 5, 2016)

Flyingdragon said:


> Background checks are not done at gun shows.....IMO there is no need for anyone to own an assault weapon, a simple handgun is more than enough.  Also clips that can hold 15 or more rounds is simply only meant to kill as many as possible in a short period of time, again this type of clip is meant for the military.....What the military needs versus an American needs are completely different.  I do not own a gun and never will....



Background checks are done at gun shows by ANYONE who is an FFL.
Handguns are weapons to hold people off until you can get a long gun, that had adequate stoppage.
Clips are used in an M1 Garande, think you mean magazines.
15 is standard issue in the gun I daily carry, ask someone who's ever been in a gun fight is 15 round is more than they needed. I've never heard some say after a gun fight they wish they didn't have that extra ammo.
I own many guns, my wife and I also legally carry a sidearm everywhere we go and do real world training like practicing draw/reloads/movement/cover.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> If it was self explanatory I would not have asked the questions.  Now shut it Jenn!  I'll be waiting for my PM :32 (19):



lmao.....I will not be beating you up via PM anymore....it's all about love


----------



## DF (Jan 5, 2016)

Jenner said:


> lmao.....I will not be beating you up via PM anymore....it's all about love



Dammit!!!!!!


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 5, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> The law states that they will do literally just that and are not required to give you notice or explanation as to why.
> 
> Here is why it's concerning for me;
> The Gov isn't going to immediately take away our guns with this law, no. What they are doing however, is laying the groundwork for them to have the ability to take them away at a moments notice.
> ...



honey, I'm not talking about your post when I said that...that's why I keep things separate when I answer......

I'm saying IMO, in general.....in other words...no complete ban


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

I just want my fuking grenade launcher for varmint hunting.


Where the fuk is jol anyway!?




Jenner said:


> I'm not talking about your post when I said that


You sneaky sunova...


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> And the statistics show the criminals will go to the least restrictive states.... But that makes the argument to make all states more restrictive which is the opposite if what you want is my point lol.
> 
> So should we not have any laws bc bad guys will not follow them anyway?


No the point is they would just get them illegally just like the drugs they get. People that mean to do harm will always do harm, it doesn't matter how they do it.   Restricting me from protecting my family and the things I love from people like that is what I will do, regardless of the laws


When guns are outlawed.....I will be an outlaw


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 5, 2016)

gun laws dont work for the people who dont follow the laws to begin with


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> No the point is they would just get them illegally just like the drugs they get. People that mean to do harm will always do harm, it doesn't matter how they do it.   Restricting me from protecting my family and the things I love from people like that is what I will do, regardless of the laws
> 
> 
> When guns are outlawed.....I will be an outlaw



when guns are outlawed there will be a revolution


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> when guns are outlawed there will be a revolution



Na, they'd have to ban smart-phones and McD's for that to happen.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> Dammit!!!!!!



hey....love can include noodz....just sayin!


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> gun laws dont work for the people who dont follow the laws to begin with



They only effect the people who don't break the laws in the first place


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 5, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> I just want my fuking grenade launcher for varmint hunting.
> 
> 
> Where the fuk is jol anyway!?
> ...



why everybody wanna fight..........


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Jenner said:


> why everybody wanna fight..........



I'm not even mad, lol. Who want's to fight?

Just gimme my friggin grenade launcher!


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 5, 2016)

be right back....saw ammo brothers is having a huge sell....gotta get it before its' gone....:32 (18):


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> I'm not even mad, lol. Who want's to fight?
> 
> Just gimme my friggin grenade launcher!



Have used the mark19 its badass...........you should get one lol


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 5, 2016)

Jenner said:


> why everybody wanna fight..........



We're doing pretty well considering the average TT here has to be above 3k


----------



## DF (Jan 5, 2016)

Not sure about the granade launcher, but one of these would be cool too.

https://throwflame.com/


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> Not sure about the granade launcher, but one of these would be cool too.
> 
> https://throwflame.com/



There's less shipping restrictions on that than there are on sling shots... I must have one.



Armedanddangerous said:


> Have used the mark19 its badass...........you should get one lol





I had to search for this one. My god, it's beautiful!


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> Not sure about the granade launcher, but one of these would be cool too.
> 
> https://throwflame.com/



That definitely has potential...,...... But will prob start some shit in Oregon hahahaha


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> That definitely has potential...,...... But will prob start some shit in Oregon hahahaha



In the meantime just fill your standard super-soaker with alcohol and tape a bic to the end. 

Don't expect to have much body hair left after trying it out though.


----------



## DF (Jan 5, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> There's less shipping restrictions on that than there are on sling shots... I must have one.
> 
> I had to search for this one. My god, it's beautiful!



I used to have a good Sling Shot.

Dammit something else I need now.






Good Lord!


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> Good Lord!



Andy gets to play with all the best toys and he never shares!


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

DF said:


> I used to have a good Sling Shot.
> 
> Dammit something else I need now.
> 
> ...



It's a lot of fun hahaha


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Andy gets to play with all the best toys and he never shares!



Can you imagine what jol would do with that thing hahahahahaha


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Can you imagine what jol would do with that thing hahahahahaha



The yotes (and neighbor kids) will finally leave him alone.

I'm honestly surprised he hasn't chimed in on this.

Paging Colonel Coanbread!


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Can you imagine what jol would do with that thing hahahahahaha



**** Jol , that elephant molesting sicko, hate that guy. hes the Bill Cosby of Serengeti


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> No the point is they would just get them illegally just like the drugs they get. People that mean to do harm will always do harm, it doesn't matter how they do it.   Restricting me from protecting my family and the things I love from people like that is what I will do, regardless of the laws
> 
> 
> When guns are outlawed.....I will be an outlaw



Restriction is NOT prevention Andy.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> YOU would let your kid "run around" with a pellet gun?
> Please don't ever buy any for your children then. Pellet/BB guns are not toys. And it's the parents responsibility to teach that.



Is the gun in this video an pellet or a the real deal?


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Restriction is NOT prevention Andy.



And you shouldn't be able to restrict how I protect myself and the people I love


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> And you shouldn't be able to restrict how I protect myself and the people I love



Do you live in the projects?


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 5, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Do you live in the projects?



What the fukk does that have to do with it you dumb fukk, me and doc are not saying mean things and not even arguing just talking it out.......keep your stupid shit to your self

The fukking people in California weren't in the projects when they got shot



(I'm sorry, you guys know I don't usually act like that, but what a fukking idiot and fukk him)


----------



## IHI (Jan 5, 2016)

The part that honestly makes me nervious and the stage has been being assembeled, the mental health aspect and restriction for somebody diagnosed with (right now) specific mental condition, which will eventually be expanded and exploited to any and all mental conditions because it'd be safer that way to make it all inclusive and less selective, "NOT PICKING ON SPECIFIC CONDITIONS" because that would hurt feelings and god forbid anybody speaks bluntly and risk offending a person/s.

So, that being said, over the last 2 decades everybody wants to label everything. When I was a kid, kids were called hyper, high strung, etc...but ya dealt with it and got on with life. Now lazy ****in parents more concerned with THEIR personal life than raising their young, want to rush little Johnny off to the doctor to get him diagnosed and on some kind of medication to turn them to zombies making them less intrusive on mommy and hopefully daddy's own personal life.

So fast forward in the future when little Johnny is grown up and decides he wants to protect his family, or little Johnny really likes guns and wants to work on/shoot them as his hobby. "I'm sorry little johnny, it says here you were on psychotic drugs due to (insert any hundreds of mental labels being dolled out today) so we cannot allow yo to purchase this rifle, we cannot issue this ccw.

Laws have been mad since the beginning of our nation, and laws are constant being exploited and taken to extremes to get a groups way of what they think is right.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 5, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> What the fukk does that have to do with it you dumb fukk, me and doc are not saying mean things and not even arguing just talking it out.......keep your stupid shit to your self
> 
> The fukking people in California weren't in the projects when they got shot
> 
> ...



Growing up in the Midwest, I'm 40 years old now, in all my years I've never felt that I needed to have a firearm for any sort of protection. Not for myself or my family. Why? I don't know, I can only assume it was due to the area, environment and culture I grew up around. I never felt there was some life-threatening danger lurking around the corner or in the car next to me that warranted me getting a firearm to protect myself. The smartass in me was at play here but deep down I wonder how much a persons background can influence the point of view here. Shit, maybe you did grow up or currently live somewhere where people get killed, jacked for their car or items, shot randomly, robbed, etc. If that was the case then it would make more sense to see your perspective. I go to work, i go to the gym, i go to the grocery store, i go to kids soccer games and basketball games, I mean, I just don't frequent places or environments or hang around people which make me feel I need lethal protection on my hip or in my car in case "shit goes down" if you know what I mean.

Didn't mean to set you off, just dicking around with my smartass comment up above.


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Do you live in the projects?



I never really gave having a gun in the home for protection much of a thought until I had a family. One day I read this horrible news story about a family and a home invasion. It was a Doc his wife & his 2 girls.  Two guys broke into the home.  They tied up the doc in the basement.  They raped his wife and one of his daughters.  They then set the house on fire.  He managed to escape but his family was killed in the fire. I can't imagine how helpless this guy must have felt.  This happened in a good neighborhood in Connecticut.  

If the doc had a gun would there have been a different outcome?  Maybe not,  but I wouldn't want to feel that helpless to protect my family.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Growing up in the Midwest, I'm 40 years old now, in all my years I've never felt that I needed to have a firearm for any sort of protection. Not for myself or my family. Why? I don't know, I can only assume it was due to the area, environment and culture I grew up around. I never felt there was some life-threatening danger lurking around the corner or in the car next to me that warranted me getting a firearm to protect myself. The smartass in me was at play here but deep down I wonder how much a persons background can influence the point of view here. Shit, maybe you did grow up or currently live somewhere where people get killed, jacked for their car or items, shot randomly, robbed, etc. If that was the case then it would make more sense to see your perspective. I go to work, i go to the gym, i go to the grocery store, i go to kids soccer games and basketball games, I mean, I just don't frequent places or environments or hang around people which make me feel I need lethal protection on my hip or in my car in case "shit goes down" if you know what I mean.
> 
> Didn't mean to set you off, just dicking around with my smartass comment up above.



So what you're saying is it OK to own a gun and carry it as long as you live in the projects????????

Do you hear how stupid that sounds

And I'm sorry I let you set me off but that's some dumb shit right there


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

DF said:


> I never really gave having a gun in the home for protection much of a thought until I had a family. One day I read this horrible news story about a family and a home invasion. It was a Doc his wife & his 2 girls.  Two guys broke into the home.  They tied up the doc in the basement.  They raped his wife and one of his daughters.  They then set the house on fire.  He managed to escape but his family was killed in the fire. I can't imagine how helpless this guy must have felt.  This happened in a good neighborhood in Connecticut.
> 
> If the doc had a gun would there have been a different outcome?  Maybe not,  but I wouldn't want to feel that helpless to protect my family.



See, that's what i've never bought into. I mean, that's one story, one family, out of how many millions of families and homes in this country? The odds just don't seem to make it worth it to me here. So because of 1 news story, i'm going to go out and spend $300 on a gun, I may never need to use, which immediately adds a dangerous item into my home which I have to monitor, protect, license, get training for, etc. All to protect myself and family from this one situation? It almost seems like deciding to never to get on a plane because you heard one crashed before. Hell no, you still fly. Why? Because you know the odds are really really low that it's going to be your plane that crashes. I guess it's the logic in me, the spreadsheet guy, running the odds. "What % of likelyhood is it that XYZ will happen to me?" sort of logic.

Good convo though.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> So what you're saying is it OK to own a gun and carry it as long as you live in the projects????????
> 
> Do you hear how stupid that sounds
> 
> And I'm sorry I let you set me off but that's some dumb shit right there



No, I'm saying you may feel it's needed if you live in an environment where bad things happen often. The "projects" comment was part smartass, part experience. it just so happens that the projects i'm aware of, are pretty rough, but nowhere near where I live now or where I frequent. I used to go to school in a rough part of town, my bus went through the public projects around here, a few of them, and picked up kids that went to my school. All jr high, all high school. Knowing that environment, from what I witnessed, it was a shitty neighborhood, drugs, guns, stolen cars, fights, abuse at home, etc. I'm just saying that maybe growing up right in the middle of that or living in the middle of that would change a persons perspective but outside of that, I have a hard time seeing it. What has you so fearful that you need to own a gun to protect yourself and your family? "Does "shit go down" often where you live?" would have been a better way to phrase my question I think.


----------



## Bullseye Forever (Jan 6, 2016)

I've always had guns for protection at home


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Bullseye Forever said:


> I've always had guns for protection at home



Protection from what though?


----------



## Bullseye Forever (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Protection from what though?



Break ins mainly where I was raised it was bad
Out in the country out in the middle of nowhere


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Bullseye Forever said:


> Break ins mainly where I was raised it was bad
> Out in the country out in the middle of nowhere



See, now that I can understand.


----------



## NbleSavage (Jan 6, 2016)

1) Legalize weed.

2) Promote "Guns for Bud" federal buy-back program.

3) World peace plus stock in 'Funyons' skyrockets.

4) Profit.


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> See, that's what i've never bought into. I mean, that's one story, one family, out of how many millions of families and homes in this country? The odds just don't seem to make it worth it to me here. So because of 1 news story, i'm going to go out and spend $300 on a gun, I may never need to use, which immediately adds a dangerous item into my home which I have to monitor, protect, license, get training for, etc. All to protect myself and family from this one situation? It almost seems like deciding to never to get on a plane because you heard one crashed before. Hell no, you still fly. Why? Because you know the odds are really really low that it's going to be your plane that crashes. I guess it's the logic in me, the spreadsheet guy, running the odds. "What % of likelyhood is it that XYZ will happen to me?" sort of logic.
> 
> Good convo though.



I understand that it's only 1 story.  I'm pretty positive though that there are more like that one.  When I took my fire arms class the instructor said something that made a great deal of sense to me.  He said "You never need a gun until you really need a gun.  And if you should happen to really need that gun you better have it."  A hillbilly Confucius !


----------



## Bullseye Forever (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> See, now that I can understand.



I'm from the country so I have always had guns to hunt etc,and just normal protection in my home....until recently I started carrying a pistol in my truck because of where I live now in the city


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

Bullseye Forever said:


> I'm from the country so I have always had guns to hunt etc,and just normal protection in my home....until recently I started carrying a pistol in my truck because of where I live now in the city



City Boy!!!!!


----------



## Fsuphisig (Jan 6, 2016)

I've grown up in nice areas, no need for a gun whatsoever and I don't hunt, so for me it's plenty easy to say yeah gun laws, but everyone isn't in the same boat...... That being said I have friends who have never been robbed once, but swear they need a gun to protect themselves, I always wondered why they're so scared of...... Legit kids who have grown up in the nicest places never had a problem but they need like 5 guns to feel "safe"....... People like that worry me more than anyone else haha


----------



## bronco (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Correct I'm not for disarmament. I'm for finding a middle ground that enables enthusiasts, hunters, etc to have theirs while also decreasing the likelihood of it getting into a criminal's hands, or mentally unstable, etc. I never said to take away a law abiding citizen's rights to own guns away but you cannot parade around one set of "facts" without providing the full picture.
> 
> *And no, new or ammended gun measures don't mean guns will be taken out of the hands of civilians*. It's what the NRA and other extremists would have us believe though. Look at all the provisions and taxes and age requirements etc on smoking. When it was made law you couldn't smoke indoors in public anymore, did that get the cigarettes out of the hands of smokers? Just bc Starbucks for example doesn't want guns on their property doesn't mean you can't still have them. I haven't really looked at the new laws Obama is proposing so I can't really comment on them specifically but I'm talking in generalities.



Do you really believe that there are no libs in congress that would not like to see a total ban on weapons? Im not talking about confiscating guns we already own. I absolutley believe there is. What is feinstein talking about in this clip? "If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."... Even if she is only talking about ar-15 style rifles would that not be taking guns out of americans hands?


----------



## snake (Jan 6, 2016)

Can we all have a round of applause for DF who started all this!


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

On average 3.7 million break ins happen across the USA each yr. How many of them do you think have a knife or a gun? I can assure you if they get in they won't get out !!!


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> No, I'm saying you may feel it's needed if you live in an environment where bad things happen often. The "projects" comment was part smartass, part experience. it just so happens that the projects i'm aware of, are pretty rough, but nowhere near where I live now or where I frequent. I used to go to school in a rough part of town, my bus went through the public projects around here, a few of them, and picked up kids that went to my school. All jr high, all high school. Knowing that environment, from what I witnessed, it was a shitty neighborhood, drugs, guns, stolen cars, fights, abuse at home, etc. I'm just saying that maybe growing up right in the middle of that or living in the middle of that would change a persons perspective but outside of that, I have a hard time seeing it. What has you so fearful that you need to own a gun to protect yourself and your family? "Does "shit go down" often where you live?" would have been a better way to phrase my question I think.



Read above quote


----------



## BigGameHunter (Jan 6, 2016)

Ban all guns for Democrats and see how it goes.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

Guns give me a weird boner.


----------



## NbleSavage (Jan 6, 2016)

BigGameHunter said:


> Ban all guns for Democrats and see how it goes.



Legit LOL! This is spot-on.


----------



## tunafisherman (Jan 6, 2016)

On the plus side, I bought a bunch of S&W stock last night, sold it this morning.  12% profit, one day.  That's easy money.


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> Guns give me a weird boner.



That happens to me after I fire about 10 shots, thought it was only me turns out your the weird one , atleast I'm firing mine .


----------



## snake (Jan 6, 2016)

In a conversation with my wife about the second amendment a while back, she pointed out that in her mind there's no reason to own a gun if you don't hunt. Also that there's no reason for anyone to own an assault rifle and she didn't really care for the amendment.

I said as long as we were picking and choosing what amendments fit us personally, I propose repeal the 19th and then you don't have a voice in the matter. She had to look it up but let's just say Wally was on bread and water for a day or so.


----------



## bronco (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> See, that's what i've never bought into. I mean, that's one story, one family, out of how many millions of families and homes in this country? The odds just don't seem to make it worth it to me here. *So because of 1 news story,* i'm going to go out and spend $300 on a gun, I may never need to use, which immediately adds a dangerous item into my home which I have to monitor, protect, license, get training for, etc. All to protect myself and family from this one situation? It almost seems like deciding to never to get on a plane because you heard one crashed before. Hell no, you still fly. Why? Because you know the odds are really really low that it's going to be your plane that crashes. I guess it's the logic in me, the spreadsheet guy, running the odds. "What % of likelyhood is it that XYZ will happen to me?" sort of logic.
> 
> Good convo though.



trodizzle I know you have google you can look up a lot of these stories yourself. Many of which that are just as gruesome as what DF posted

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...qKGMMveVO1ksSNowA&sig2=RABn8Ci8N0QnTYRfTxCmSQ

For all I know this woman may have had a gun in the home and may even know how to use it, I don't know... My point is how does one protect them selves from a situation like this if someone comes in your home with a gun and you don't have one. 

I am in no way encouraging you or any one else to go out and buy a gun if you don't want one don't get one. You have a right to live your life how you see fit. But don't limit my rights to own whatever or how many firearms I want to own. Because frankly its none of no ones damn business......


----------



## bronco (Jan 6, 2016)

armedanddangerous said:


> *i am sssssooooooo staying out of this conversation hahahahahaha*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



really...... :32 (20):


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

we should convince all the anti-gun people to try it , just one shot youll never forget it and give them this !! LMAO

Or give this to all the H-dealers !!!!!


----------



## AjSam (Jan 6, 2016)

I cringe at the people who so easily say "who needs a gun" or "there's no reason for that much ammo". They are the first to want to take someone else's Rights away because they don't agree. Just like the recent college students who think the First Amendment should be limited because something is said that may hurt there feelings or makes them uncomfortable. I even see some of this behavior within this thread. Sad really!


----------



## stonetag (Jan 6, 2016)

I like guns. I have many. My state likes them too. Stone out.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> And you shouldn't be able to restrict how I protect myself and the people I love



Nope, not arguing with you at all. It's nothing but love for you Andy. I just play degil's advocate a lot lol. 

If I wanted to protect my family with a small pipe bomb would you be ok with that? And if you are, what if I want to use a larger bomb? What's to stop me from getting a small nuclear bomb, besides finding the money for one lol, all in the name of family protection? 

There of course has to be some restriction on where we draw the line, the arguing point is where that like should be drawn. I really don't see how a short waiting period, background checks for criminal records and a mental health check, firearm training, and maybe some other small concessions affects your ability to protect your family. You can argue the efficacy of these methods but I think you'd agree that you will still be able to protect your family just as effectively at the end of the day.

Yes certain restrictions might be a headache but like Spider-Man's uncle said, "with great power comes great responsibility". It is our right to drive yet we still need to pass a driver's test and some states require driver's ed I believe. We still need to register out cars, pay taxes every year, Insure them, etc yet interstate transportation is our right as well. Even though I don't agree with all these laws personally, I don't believe the government is out to take all our cars away either. 

I know your background and I know you're fine with a gun. I would trust my life in your hands with a gun. I know your family means the world to you. I am not trying to stop you from owning a gun in the least. I am trying though to find a way to stop, or slow, the flow of guns into a criminal's hands. Maybe there are other methods besides the typical gun control as we know it now that are more effective. I personally would be more than happy to explore those opportunities if anyone would care to present one. I've been on the business end of guns on more occasions than I'd care to remember and what I can tell you is it is not the place you want to be (but you already know that lol).


----------



## jojo58 (Jan 6, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Na, they'd have to ban smart-phones and McD's for that to happen.



Did you see what happened last year when the EBT cards didn't auto refill. people lost their shit! I'm glad they couldn't buy guns with the ebt card


----------



## bsw5 (Jan 6, 2016)

For all of you who say "who needs a gun" I have an idea for you. Tomorrow go buy the material and make a big sign saying "I DON'T OWN ANY GUNS". After all you don't need it anyway. Right?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

bronco said:


> Do you really believe that there are no libs in congress that would not like to see a total ban on weapons? Im not talking about confiscating guns we already own. I absolutley believe there is. What is feinstein talking about in this clip? "If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."... Even if she is only talking about ar-15 style rifles would that not be taking guns out of americans hands?



First off Fukk Feinstein lol. She can eat shit and choke on it. 

Second, there probably are people out there who would love a total ban on weapons. That is their opinion and they're entitled to holding it. It's also your right to bear arms. Just bc those people exist does not mean their opinions actually take effect. I would like nothing more than to see my pp in Abella Anderson but try as I might that's not going to happen anytime soon. I don't mean that as a dick either just thought it was a funny way to make the point. 

What's just as criminal if not more, in my opinion, is that Californians keep re-electing Feinstein....


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

snake said:


> In a conversation with my wife about the second amendment a while back, she pointed out that in her mind there's no reason to own a gun if you don't hunt. Also that there's no reason for anyone to own an assault rifle and she didn't really care for the amendment.
> 
> I said as long as we were picking and choosing what amendments fit us personally, I propose repeal the 19th and then you don't have a voice in the matter. She had to look it up but let's just say Wally was on bread and water for a day or so.



I'm surprised she didn't make you sleep outside hahahaha. Mrs. Snake was not happy at all.


----------



## jojo58 (Jan 6, 2016)

in hindsight I'm sure the savopolous family would not have minded owning some guns. they probably didn't because until about 2 years ago guns were banned in washington DC.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/us/washington-mansion-fire-slayings/


----------



## RISE (Jan 6, 2016)

I've been hearing the same shit for 8years.  FEMA camps, gun ban, police state, etc.  We are not any closer to any of those than we were 8 years ago.  

Btw, the earth is supposed to end feb 14th.  Again.


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

RISE said:


> I've been hearing the same shit for 8years.  FEMA camps, gun ban, police state, etc.  We are not any closer to any of those than we were 8 years ago.
> 
> Btw, the earth is supposed to end feb 14th.  Again.



Yes,  no need for the Valentine gift.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

Like Doc has so eloquently stated numerous times it's not the responsible, licensed, knowledgeable gun owners that need some type of control. I said before, I own 7 guns. I love hunting and shooting at the range. I have no problem with law abiding citizens who know how to shoot, maintain and store guns having as many as they want. That's cool and a right that we deserve.

It's the mentally unstable and criminally minded that need to find it hard to obtain firearms. I'm not sure the solution but stricter background checks, etc. is a start at least.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Nope, not arguing with you at all. It's nothing but love for you Andy. I just play degil's advocate a lot lol.
> 
> If I wanted to protect my family with a small pipe bomb would you be ok with that? And if you are, what if I want to use a larger bomb? What's to stop me from getting a small nuclear bomb, besides finding the money for one lol, all in the name of family protection?
> 
> ...



Doc you know I live in a state that has a shit ton of gun laws and checks, the checks don't bother me never have (well kind of) lol. But everyone thinking this is not about control is ludicrous......... They have tried passing antigun laws and when that doesn't work they try to restrict the amount of ammo and have you sign for it...........why?????why try to make people sign for the ammo you buy, it doesn't make sence.... Unless they want to know where the ammo is going

And restricting the amount of ammo you can buy, would only slow a person with bad intent

I know I kind of went sideways on that but it's the only thing that makes sense to me, the laws only affect the people who follow them in the first place


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

bronco said:


> really...... :32 (20):



Hahaha yeah I know.......I really was going to try to stay out of it


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Doc you know I live in a state that has a shit ton of gun laws and checks, the checks don't bother me never have (well kind of) lol. But everyone thinking this is not about control is ludicrous......... They have tried passing antigun laws and when that doesn't work they try to restrict the amount of ammo and have you sign for it...........why?????why try to make people sign for the ammo you buy, it doesn't make sence.... Unless they want to know where the ammo is going
> 
> And restricting the amount of ammo you can buy, would only slow a person with bad intent
> 
> I know I kind of went sideways on that but it's the only thing that makes sense to me, the laws only affect the people who follow them in the first place



The government has been playing the people like puppets for a long time and we've had guns the entire time. I think it safe to say that they don't need an unarmed population to control us. We've already given up control in way too many aspects to the point it really wouldn't matter to them if we were armed or not. At this point it's become a political agenda and nothing more. A way to get more votes for both sides.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> The government has been playing the people like puppets for a long time and we've had guns the entire time. I think it safe to say that they don't need an unarmed population to control us. We've already given up control in way too many aspects to the point it really wouldn't matter to them if we were armed or not. At this point it's become a political agenda and nothing more. A way to get more votes for both sides.



Good point brother, can't disagree with that


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Good point brother, can't disagree with that



So does that mean I can come over now and shoot some shit up with you and Red?


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

The control is the problem part with me.......we send guns and ammo to other countries to help a revolution, but try to restrict our guns and ammo

What happens when we finally say "fukk it, we have had enough of both sides bullshit"

Don't get me wrong I'm not that nutty guy that thinks this is going to happen and I only own a couple guns and probably only have 300 rounds total, but history proves world powers don't last forever and it usually is from politics and the people saying, we don't want to be told when and how to live are lives


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> So does that mean I can come over now and shoot some shit up with you and Red?



Anytime brother, you know that!!!!!


----------



## goodfella (Jan 6, 2016)

It's to stop these hybrid bastards from saving the world, duh! ****er had 6 and a half tonz of ammo!!! 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-alien-secret-agent-sent-save-human-race.html


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Is the gun in this video an pellet or a the real deal?



What difference does it make? Regardless of which it is, a responsible adult would have it unloaded and safe before using it as a movie prop. At that point it's no more dangerous than a baseball bat.


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Anytime brother, you know that!!!!!



Now your talking a language I understand lol


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> So does that mean I can come over now and shoot some shit up with you and Red?[/QUOTE
> 
> Only if we can blow up one of your bomb vest in a corn field


----------



## thqmas (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Sure but I must warm you I used to fall asleep in class a lot lol



It must be because they were teaching stuff you already knew.


----------



## thqmas (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> What difference does it make? Regardless of which it is, a responsible adult would have it unloaded and safe before using it as a movie prop. At that point it's no more dangerous than a baseball bat.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> See, that's what i've never bought into. I mean, that's one story, one family, out of how many millions of families and homes in this country? The odds just don't seem to make it worth it to me here. So because of 1 news story, i'm going to go out and spend $300 on a gun, I may never need to use, which immediately adds a dangerous item into my home which I have to monitor, protect, license, get training for, etc. All to protect myself and family from this one situation? It almost seems like deciding to never to get on a plane because you heard one crashed before. Hell no, you still fly. Why? Because you know the odds are really really low that it's going to be your plane that crashes. I guess it's the logic in me, the spreadsheet guy, running the odds. "What % of likelyhood is it that XYZ will happen to me?" sort of logic.
> 
> Good convo though.


So would you also not wear a helmet on a motorcycle? Statistically your chances of wrecking are pretty slim. And good helmets are expensive. 



bronco said:


> Do you really believe that there are no libs in congress that would not like to see a total ban on weapons? Im not talking about confiscating guns we already own. I absolutley believe there is. What is feinstein talking about in this clip? "If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."... Even if she is only talking about ar-15 style rifles would that not be taking guns out of americans hands?


She has a CCW and armed guards. 



AjSam said:


> I cringe at the people who so easily say "who needs a gun" or "there's no reason for that much ammo". They are the first to want to take someone else's Rights away because they don't agree. Just like the recent college students who think the First Amendment should be limited because something is said that may hurt there feelings or makes them uncomfortable. I even see some of this behavior within this thread. Sad really!


Exactly. People are entitled to their opinions but why the **** do you think you are to try and tell me what my rights should be. 



Armedanddangerous said:


> The control is the problem part with me.......we send guns and ammo to other countries to help a revolution, but try to restrict our guns and ammo
> 
> What happens when we finally say "fukk it, we have had enough of both sides bullshit"
> 
> Don't get me wrong I'm not that nutty guy that thinks this is going to happen and I only own a couple guns and probably only have 300 rounds total, but history proves world powers don't last forever and it usually is from politics and the people saying, we don't want to be told when and how to live are lives


IMO all this little stuff that idiot is passing is just baby steps towards complete gun registration. 
Do I think "they're coming for our guns" no. That would be foolish. 
BUT the ONLY purpose for registration is mapping out confiscation. I don't see why we need to give them the option.


----------



## BigGameHunter (Jan 6, 2016)

I love my gun and will be purchasing more, in the past I have had guns that anyone on here would be proud to have.  As someone that does not carry and that has been on the biz end of a few loaded weapons I can tell you I would never want that right taken away from the law abiding citizens.  It saddens me to see that as a product of hippie teaching in our schools some people referring to this as a privilege.  It is a right (your second amendment).  With those rights you also have responsibilities.

As an NRA member with a decades old membership I have to say, much of this is their fault.  The NRA has gone from a lobbying organization to something worse.  In my opinion, the NRA has whipped up good people into a frenzy in certain cases.  They are NOT our voice in preserving our second amendment.  They are a lobby that is paid to do the work for those that will not write to their Congressmen, Senators and elected officials.  With the passage of fairly recent laws that make it against the law for a leader to take a gift or trip (bribe) from a lobbyist and the teeth they (Congress at the demand of we the people) put into it,  the NRA and other lobbies do not have the power or funding they use to have.  Im not going to suggest that bribes dont happen still but with Jessie Jackson Jr, his wife and his top staffer wrapping up a federal prison sentences for taking a bribe, the price for this kind of influence has gone sky high.  The NRA knows it better than anyone. 

Responsible gun ownership and stewardship is more than having safety meetings.  The NRA dropped the ball when they did more than look the other way when since-able regulations were suggested to preform back ground checks for online and gun show purchases.  Fact is the NRAs higher dollar memberships has dropped severely for this and other reasons.  Here is an example of one of those reasons.  My father, a Vietnam vet that is suffering from PTSD was in treatment at the VA years ago was called by a solicitor  for the NRA on his cell phone.  He was asked do you own a firearm?  He replied, no and explained his situation and told them its best he doesnt have weapons around him at this time.  He was chastised by the sales rep for "giving up his guns".  Not once was he thanked for his service to this country.  This is not good stewardship.

I talk to people everyday about politics and guns always come up.  Similar stories of NRA using underhanded tactics to squeeze 35 dollars from someone are more common than you think.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

IMO the NAGR is a membership far better spent than the NRA.


----------



## RustyShackelford (Jan 6, 2016)

There has been a tremendous amount of opinion shared in this thread. 
I have always lived out in the country where you would think it is safe, unfortunately you are secluded away from others who could witness or hear something suspicious like a burglary by someone from the city who has driven out to steal your shit. This happens more than you think. My brother was a victim of this 3 years ago. 

I grew up hunting and shooting and own many guns, everything from an 1898 Spanish American war rifle to a decked out AR with night vision , plenty of ammo and high capacity magazines. I have had a CHL for 15 years and carry every day

All that said , this does not make me a threat to anyone other than the person who has intent on doing me or my family harm. There are bad people in this world who will do bad things with a gun or a knife or a hammer. These are simply tools chosen by the perpetrator. 

I pray that no one here is ever effected by gun violence and if you have I pray for strength and healing. 
Stay safe SI


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Nope, not arguing with you at all. It's nothing but love for you Andy. I just play degil's advocate a lot lol.
> 
> If I wanted to protect my family with a small pipe bomb would you be ok with that? And if you are, what if I want to use a larger bomb? What's to stop me from getting a small nuclear bomb, besides finding the money for one lol, all in the name of family protection?
> 
> ...



Honestly, it is my opinion that if you can afford a tank, you should be able to have one in your yard. I'm not some gun nut either.

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment - from reading it, and reading the federalist papers on it, is that it was put it place as a safeguard against our own government. It has nothing to do with hunting, or sport fishing. It is for self defense against criminals. And those criminals might even be from our own gov't someday.

Just my opinion. If the gov't wants to change or get rid of the second amendment, then they should go ahead and go through the process of trying to amend the US Constitution.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> The government has been playing the people like puppets for a long time and we've had guns the entire time. I think it safe to say that they don't need an unarmed population to control us. We've already given up control in way too many aspects to the point it really wouldn't matter to them if we were armed or not. At this point it's become a political agenda and nothing more. A way to get more votes for both sides.



hmmmmmmmmm....said this about 30 posts ago...peeps just love to argue...


----------



## Yaya (Jan 6, 2016)

We have a great country

Trump needs to be elected president

And we need to defeat isis quickly


Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life


----------



## Yaya (Jan 6, 2016)

"Guns don't kill people,  people who snort TNE do"


----------



## stonetag (Jan 6, 2016)

RustyShackelford said:


> There has been a tremendous amount of opinion shared in this thread.
> I have always lived out in the country where you would think it is safe, unfortunately you are secluded away from others who could witness or hear something suspicious like a burglary by someone from the city who has driven out to steal your shit. This happens more than you think. My brother was a victim of this 3 years ago.
> 
> I grew up hunting and shooting and own many guns, everything from an 1898 Spanish American war rifle to a decked out AR with night vision , plenty of ammo and high capacity magazines. I have had a CHL for 15 years and carry every day
> ...


Very much agree Rusty. I also live in the sticks, and people that have criminal intent on their mind will gravitate to isolated dwellings to do their work, I have had a toolbox stolen out of the back of my truck, and actually had hay stolen, WTF? People drop of animals constantly, which I think is a crime. I have and WILL use my guns at the drop of a hat, IF needed. I refuse to be out gunned by some asshole. I have also had livestock shot, which will still get you hung around here.


----------



## RustyShackelford (Jan 6, 2016)

stonetag said:


> Very much agree Rusty. I also live in the sticks, and people that have criminal intent on their mind will gravitate to isolated dwellings to do their work, I have had a toolbox stolen out of the back of my truck, and actually had hay stolen, WTF? People drop of animals constantly, which I think is a crime. I have and WILL use my guns at the drop of a hat, IF needed. I refuse to be out gunned by some asshole. I have also had livestock shot, which will still get you hung around here.



Living in the country isn't what it used to be. Well.....here anyway. 
I forgot to mention that the response time for a sherif deputy is around 45 min.
A lot can happen in 45 min!


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> Honestly, it is my opinion that if you can afford a tank, you should be able to have one in your yard. I'm not some gun nut either.
> 
> *My interpretation of the 2nd amendment - from reading it, and reading the federalist papers on it, is that it was put it place as a safeguard against our own government. It has nothing to do with hunting, or sport fishing. It is for self defense against criminals. And those criminals might even be from our own gov't someday.*
> 
> Just my opinion. If the gov't wants to change or get rid of the second amendment, then they should go ahead and go through the process of trying to amend the US Constitution.



BINGO BROTHER!!

The 2nd amendment was put in place by people that had JUST overthrown their corrupt government. A large part of the reason this law was put in place was to make sure that the people could do the same thing again if necessary. 
Grinds my gears when people say "the 2a was about muskets"
Bullshit. It was about the people having equal firepower to the government. Muskets were the best small arms available back then. 

Personally I don't understand why I can't have at least a burst fire weapon. 
On that note.. You ever shot a bump fire? It's pretty rowdy.


----------



## bronco (Jan 6, 2016)

stonetag said:


> Very much agree Rusty. I also live in the sticks, and people that have criminal intent on their mind will gravitate to isolated dwellings to do their work, I have had a toolbox stolen out of the back of my truck, and actually had hay stolen, WTF? People drop of animals constantly, which I think is a crime. I have and WILL use my guns at the drop of a hat, IF needed. I refuse to be out gunned by some asshole. I have also had livestock shot, which will still get you hung around here.



I would love to catch someone in the act of shooting an animal that I own, not saying I would kill them over it but I would try to hurt them really bad. 

I am also a hunter been doing it all my life and every animal I kill I have full intention on eating it


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> DocDePanda187123 said:
> 
> 
> > So does that mean I can come over now and shoot some shit up with you and Red?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Big Worm (Jan 6, 2016)

It's illegal to buy, sell, make, use, steroids but you are OK with it because it's something you participate in. 

If people want to kill, they will do it. You think these mass killers won't just build a bomb? No background or mental health check on that. 

Gun laws and restrictions do nothing but make everything harder for the regular guy who just wants to hunt, shoot, or just have a gun for no reason at all. 

I think a few too many of you weren't raised around guns and that's why you don't give a shit. It's not your thing, why do you care. That's what America has turned into, but not what it's supposed to be.  One day you might have a son, daughter, grandchild that has an interest in hunting or shooting and when you can't buy a gun because 10 years ago you didn't give a shit, you will be sorry.

Or I could tell you that you are a bunch of ****ing retards who don't know shit about guns and you believe everything the media tells you which makes you even more retarded. That more gun control isn't going to change anything, and all of the reasons why but you are still too ignorant to understand it or simply just don't give a **** about anyone but your sorry ass self. I'm not a tin foil hat guy, but if shit ever does hit the fan, I bet you cowards will all be hiding behind someone with a gun. Just like all of the politicians who want gun control already do.


----------



## DarksideSix (Jan 6, 2016)

If Obama really wants to do something positive for gun control then the best thing he can do is stop talking about it.  Obama and all the other gun grabbers have done more for gun sales in the last 7 years then any major organization ever could.  Gun's are not the problem, the society we are raising is.  

When I heard Obama's new proposal yesterday, for once I wasn't disgusted.  He never mentioned coming after every ones guns because he knows that is a shit storm he cannot win and I think he's finally excepted that.  Instead he proposed stricter back ground checks, however that is not the answer.  This whole "loophole" thing is bullshit.  I have bough many, many guns off the internet and never once did I NOT have to go through a background check.  The two biggest gun auction sites GunsAmerica.com & Gunbroker.com require the weapon to be sent to an FFL dealer who then has to run a background check before you can get the gun.  Sure, there are people on the dark web selling shit but they are hard core criminals and terrorists and these stricter background checks won't do shit for them anyways.  

I am one of those people who own close to 30+ guns with well over 10,000 rounds of ammo and I wouldn't consider myself either paranoid or a nut job.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Big Worm said:


> It's illegal to buy, sell, make, use, steroids but you are OK with it because it's something you participate in.
> 
> If people want to kill, they will do it. You think these mass killers won't just build a bomb? No background or mental health check on that.
> 
> ...



To be clear on my position.

1. Personally I have no need for a gun to protect myself and my family based on where I live and the culture I'm a part of. I don't have a fear of anything that warrants me needing this level of protection.
2. Personally I think it's fine for others to have guns, I don't think it's something we need to "take away" from anyone, big guns, small guns, whatever it's your choice not mine.
3. But with #2 also comes the risk of shit going wrong, kids shooting themselves with dad's gun, mass killings, mentally unstable people getting guns and going apeshit, etc. If something is available, it will be abused by some and respected by other (just like anything, drugs, alcohol, etc).
4. I'm socially liberal (let people do what they want) and fiscally conservative (don't waste money if you can avoid it). I don't consider myself a republican or a democrat.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> To be clear on my position.
> 
> 1. Personally I have no need for a gun to protect myself and my family based on where I live and the culture I'm a part of. I don't have a fear of anything that warrants me needing this level of protection.
> 2. Personally I think it's fine for others to have guns, I don't think it's something we need to "take away" from anyone, big guns, small guns, whatever it's your choice not mine.
> ...



I don't know if it's ignorance (again, I use that word to mean uneducated) or instigation, but you continually are making comments that make me want to pull my hair out. 
What we are fighting for is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. When firearms are owned and cared for RESPONSIBLY and with proper respect, things like what I put in bold CANNOT happen.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> I don't know if it's ignorance (again, I use that word to mean uneducated) or instigation, but you continually are making comments that make me want to pull my hair out.



Really? So just because YOU and others are so strong in your beliefs about more regulations, the person that doesn't CHOOSE to own guns but SUPPORTS folks that do is ignorant???? .............................................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

I own guns......

I don't care if you own guns....

I support TRYING to keep innocent people from getting killed.....

If we are all on the same page as # 3...what the fuuuuk is there to argue about and call folks that want more restrictions communists....really, that's ignorance....


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> I don't know if it's ignorance (again, I use that word to mean uneducated) or instigation, but you continually are making comments that make me want to pull my hair out.
> What we are fighting for is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. When firearms are owned and cared for RESPONSIBLY and with proper respect, things like what I put in bold CANNOT happen.



It's not my intent to instigate but not everyone will be responsible, fact of life. We see that in all aspects of society. There is no way to control that as we're all humans and some humans make dumb moves and mistakes while others do not. While you may be a responsible gun owner, unload your gun, keep it locked up, make sure there is zero chance your kid (or your kids friend) could get to it, others may not be as responsible as you and leave it unprotected, loaded and accessible. There is no way to guarantee everyone will be responsible and due to that, we just have to accept that some bad things may happen. It comes with the territory in my opinion.


----------



## Fsuphisig (Jan 6, 2016)

For people who say " if these mass murderers didn't have guns they'd build a bomb....." They're just so wrong. Half the reason these kids do it is because it's so easy with a gun and they're faces get plastered all over the news. Guns are so devastating, a kid with a knife and a kid with an assault rifle are two completely different animals. It blows my mind people can think that we would have the same amount dead guns or no guns. Go check out any other first world countries crime rates and murder rates. You'd be really suprised what your love of guns is doing......


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

As requested by Jol...


----------



## stonetag (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> To be clear on my position.
> 
> 1. Personally I have no need for a gun to protect myself and my family based on where I live and the culture I'm a part of. I don't have a fear of anything that warrants me needing this level of protection.
> 2. Personally I think it's fine for others to have guns, I don't think it's something we need to "take away" from anyone, big guns, small guns, whatever it's your choice not mine.
> ...


You keep mentioning that you don't frequent places, or based on where you live, or the culture, or the life that you lead basically, does not warrant having a level of protection as in owning a gun. Do you honestly think the people that are slaughtered at work, the mall, the movie theater, the parents of kids at a school, didn't think the same thing? What is the first thing a person says when interviewed by the media as to their thoughts on the violence that just occurred in their town? " I didn't think anything like this could happen here" Owning a weapon is obviously the choice of the individual. I wonder what the stats are on people that do go out and purchase a firearm after what should have never happened in my town, happens.


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 6, 2016)

Thanks df for starting this thread, df for instigator of the year.


#buymorehammers


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

stonetag said:


> You keep mentioning that you don't frequent places, or based on where you live, or the culture, or the life that you lead basically, does not warrant having a level of protection as in owning a gun. *Do you honestly think the people that are slaughtered at work, the mall, the movie theater, the parents of kids at a school, didn't think the same thing*? What is the first thing a person says when interviewed by the media as to their thoughts on the violence that just occurred in their town? " I didn't think anything like this could happen here" Owning a weapon is obviously the choice of the individual. I wonder what the stats are on people that do go out and purchase a firearm after what should have never happened in my town, happens.



Could it happen where I live? Sure. 

What's the likelihood of something happening? Very, very low.

 I would bet I have more of a risk dying in a plane crash vs. being involved in some sort of mass shooting.


----------



## stonetag (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Could it happen where I live? Sure.
> 
> What's the likelihood of something happening? Very, very low.
> 
> I would bet I have more of a risk dying in a plane crash vs. being involved in some sort of mass shooting.


 I guess that's just my point, it could happen!


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

stonetag said:


> I guess that's just my point, it could happen!



Yeah, and Russia/North Korea could invade at any time so I better get ready!


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 6, 2016)




----------



## Pinkbear (Jan 6, 2016)

I have a question to the people anti gun control.

What's the issue here?
What's wrong with more background checks ?
If you are a responsable gun owner...What's the issue?

I own no guns but I am also pro gun. I don't give a shit if you own 100 guns and 10000000 bullets, but the problem is guns falling into the wrong hands. And that's all the govt is trying to stop from happening. So what's all the crying about?


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 6, 2016)




----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Jenner said:


> Really? So just because YOU and others are so strong in your beliefs about more regulations, the person that doesn't CHOOSE to own guns but SUPPORTS folks that do is ignorant???? .............................................................................................................................................................................................................


Yes Jenner. Being ignorant means being uneducated on a given subject. It's not a derogatory term. 
The things he's saying show the he does not understand some of the things of which he tries to speak. 

It was not a slam or attack.


----------



## stonetag (Jan 6, 2016)

Fsuphisig said:


> For people who say " if these mass murderers didn't have guns they'd build a bomb....." They're just so wrong. Half the reason these kids do it is because it's so easy with a gun and they're faces get plastered all over the news. Guns are so devastating, a kid with a knife and a kid with an assault rifle are two completely different animals. It blows my mind people can think that we would have the same amount dead guns or no guns. Go check out any other first world countries crime rates and murder rates. You'd be really suprised what your love of guns is doing......


 Wow, really! I would really like to dig into this fuking statement, but I need to clean my gun that I love so dearly.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> It's not my intent to instigate but not everyone will be responsible, fact of life. We see that in all aspects of society. There is no way to control that as we're all humans and some humans make dumb moves and mistakes while others do not. While you may be a responsible gun owner, unload your gun, keep it locked up, make sure there is zero chance your kid (or your kids friend) could get to it, others may not be as responsible as you and leave it unprotected, loaded and accessible. There is no way to guarantee everyone will be responsible and due to that, we just have to accept that some bad things may happen. It comes with the territory in my opinion.



You're not wrong there. So why not, instead of putting more laws on top of the ones already not enforced, that money was spent on education programs and affordable training? 
Seems like a more reasonable use of OUR money.


----------



## stonetag (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Yeah, and Russia/North Korea could invade at any time so I better get ready!


Smartass...


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Yes Jenner. Being ignorant means being uneducated on a given subject. It's not a derogatory term.
> The things he's saying show the he does not understand some of the things of which he tries to speak.
> 
> It was not a slam or attack.



No, he understands them perfectly...he just doesn't agree...there's a difference


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> You're not wrong there. So why not, instead of putting more laws on top of the ones already not enforced, that money was spent on education programs and affordable training?
> Seems like a more reasonable use of OUR money.



I would support this. I think education is a good thing and seems like a wise use of money for sure.


----------



## Yaya (Jan 6, 2016)

Vote for donald trump and invest in hammers in 2016


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Fsuphisig said:


> For people who say " if these mass murderers didn't have guns they'd build a bomb....." They're just so wrong. Half the reason these kids do it is because it's so easy with a gun and they're faces get plastered all over the news. Guns are so devastating, a kid with a knife and a kid with an assault rifle are two completely different animals. It blows my mind people can think that we would have the same amount dead guns or no guns. Go check out any other first world countries crime rates and murder rates. You'd be really suprised what your love of guns is doing......


Do me a favor and pull up the info on the last time a kid used a currently legal assault weapon for an attack


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Jenner said:


> No, he understands them perfectly...he just doesn't agree...there's a difference


No, now you're being ignorant 
The two main comments were "kids running around with pellet guns" and "kids shooting themselves with daddy's gun"
If he understood what we're actually fighting for, and what being a responsible gun owner means, he wouldn't have said those things. 

A winky face isn't a free pass to say whatever the **** you want.


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

Pinkbear said:


> I have a question to the people anti gun control.
> 
> What's the issue here?
> What's wrong with more background checks ?
> ...



From what I am getting in this thread what Obama signed is already taking place.  To get a license you have to have a back ground check.  To buy a gun on the internet that gun goes to a licensed dealer who then does that background check & the buyer picks up the gun there.  It seems that it's just total grand standing to me by Obumma.  Unless I missed something.  All these checks did no good in the case of Sandy Hook because the Mother (gun owner) did not take steps to keep her guns out of the hands of her mentally ill son.  The back ground checks did nothing will do nothing ect.....


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

Pinkbear said:


> I have a question to the people anti gun control.
> 
> What's the issue here?
> What's wrong with more background checks ?
> ...



That's what I'm wondering too, asked the same question a while back.

My state already has some of the most ridiculous checks and it doesn't seem to bother anyone now that it's been in place.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> No, now you're being ignorant
> The two main comments were "kids running around with pellet guns" and "kids shooting themselves with daddy's gun"
> If he understood what we're actually fighting for, and what being a responsible gun owner means, he wouldn't have said those things.
> 
> A winky face isn't a free pass to say whatever the **** you want.



Oh, I can say whatever the fuuuk I want whether you like or agree with it...you expect folks to read and agree with what you say just as others do but it works both ways....and yea, that was a smartass wink...so is this one


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Pinkbear said:


> I have a question to the people anti gun control.
> 
> What's the issue here?
> What's wrong with more background checks ?
> ...



The problem is that putting more restrictions on legal firearm purchases has zero effect on illegal firearm purchases. It's a complete and utter waste of our tax dollars.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Jenner said:


> Oh, I can say whatever the fuuuk I want whether you like or agree with it...you expect folks to read and agree with what you say just as others do but it works both ways....and yea, that was a smartass wink...so is this one



You can disagree with opinions. You can't disagree with facts. There's a difference. 
Learn it.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> You can disagree with opinions. You can't disagree with facts. There's a difference.
> Learn it.



lol, I will say the same to you...


----------



## Pinkbear (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> The problem is that putting more restrictions on legal firearm purchases has zero effect on illegal firearm purchases. It's a complete and utter waste of our tax dollars.



a attempt at Saving people's lives is a waste of tax dollars?
Be cuz last time I check this issue started when people started killing people. Not be cuz someone wants to go ape shit at the range. Or snake hunting for winter


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

Pinkbear said:


> Saving people's lives is a waste of tax dollars?
> *Be cuz last time I check this issue started when people started killing people*. Not be cuz someone wants to go ape shit at the range. Or snake hunting for winter




So then it's been going on since Cain and Abel?


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> No, now you're being ignorant
> The two main comments were "kids running around with pellet guns" and "kids shooting themselves with daddy's gun"
> If he understood what we're actually fighting for, and what being a responsible gun owner means, he wouldn't have said those things.
> 
> A winky face isn't a free pass to say whatever the **** you want.



Oh no, I get it.

Kids have been shot before for running around with fake guns that look real due to the cops thinking it was the real deal. That's a fact.
Kids have shot themselves with their parents guns before for various reasons. That's a fact.

I'm not sure what you're fighting for to be exact. You want your guns, fine, keep them. I have zero problem with that. You want big ones, small ones, tons of ammo, cool with that too.

But I'm a realist and I have to recognize that if I'm okay with you having your gun, I have to be okay with your neighbor having his, and the guy down the block having his as well. Those guys may not be as responsible as you, they may not have the training you have, they may make a mistake one day that results in something bad happening but that's something they will have to own themselves as it's a choice they made.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Jenner said:


> lol, I will say the same to you...



For ****s sake jenn all you are doing is TRYING to argue. 
A responsible gun owner leaves zero change of a child getting ahold of a loaded weapon. That is a fact. 


Dizz understood what I was saying and explaine himself; you don't see him throwing a sarcastic tantrum.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

We could be having this exact same argument about personal privacy and NSA wiretapping/data collection.

The goal being fed to citizens is the same between gun control and what the NSA is doing; less deaths and acts of terror
We'd be split down the middle again.

There'd be the "I'm not doing anything wrong, who cares?" people.
There'd also be the "I'm not doing anything wrong so stay the hell out of my life." people.


Both the NSA and gun control will fail in their endeavors.


Lets not forget that some of the firearms used in mass killings were stolen from people who had gone through the process to obtain them legally.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Pinkbear said:


> a attempt at Saving people's lives is a waste of tax dollars?
> Be cuz last time I check this issue started when people started killing people. Not be cuz someone wants to go ape shit at the range. Or snake hunting for winter



Nothing they're doing will save a fraction of the lives that proper education would.


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 6, 2016)

Someone edited their post. Lolol


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 6, 2016)

Fuk guns, I'd rather eat bacon and put firecrackers in my ass Crack to see what happens.  #thuglife


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Oh no, I get it.
> 
> Kids have been shot before for running around with fake guns that look real due to the cops thinking it was the real deal. That's a fact.
> Kids have shot themselves with their parents guns before for various reasons. That's a fact.
> ...



My ex over 20 years ago, along with his friend almost got their heads blown off by cops because like dumbasses they were running around a neighbor hood shooting at each other with paint guns...adults do stupid shit

One of my brothers confessed as an adult that when we were kids, he showed his friends my dad's guns.....kids do stupid shit (and dad didn't lock them up) there is something else with this but I won't share it....

Until something bad happens to you or someone you love....a lot of folks turn a blind eye....this goes for and against more gun control


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Oh no, I get it.
> 
> Kids have been shot before for running around with fake guns that look real due to the cops thinking it was the real deal. That's a fact.
> Kids have shot themselves with their parents guns before for various reasons. That's a fact.
> ...



SO instead of reiterating current laws, why not do something that ACTUALLY stands a chance a preventing those things? Like proper education? 
This isn't that  hard.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> For ****s sake jenn all you are doing is TRYING to argue.
> A responsible gun owner leaves zero change of a child getting ahold of a loaded weapon. That is a fact.
> 
> 
> Dizz understood what I was saying and explaine himself; you don't see him throwing a sarcastic tantrum.



hahahahaha...I'm not arguing...I'm making statements...I don't need to argue because I'm ok with what I believe...just sticking up for my buddy


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

People who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Jenner said:


> hahahahaha...I'm not arguing...I'm making statements...I don't need to argue because I'm ok with what I believe...just sticking up for my buddy


Ah now it's semantics. Funny how people always turn to that when there's nowhere to go.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> People who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.



preach on brother!!


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Ah now it's semantics. Funny how people always turn to that when there's nowhere to go.



dude, I'm not the one busting a vain over this shit.....and yes, I will keep posting what I feel like posting..call it whatever makes you okay with it....


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> SO instead of reiterating current laws, why not do something that ACTUALLY stands a chance a preventing those things? Like proper education?
> This isn't that  hard.



I agree completely here. I'm a big fan of education.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> I agree completely here. I'm a big fan of education.



good thing as I can't handle dumbass kids....lol


----------



## Yaya (Jan 6, 2016)

Only mobsters, people who hunt or live in a neighborhood with a black person living in it should be able to have guns


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Jenner said:


> dude, I'm not the one busting a vain over this shit.....and yes, I will keep posting what I feel like posting..call it whatever makes you okay with it....


 All you're doing is posting without saying anything at all. 


trodizzle said:


> I agree completely here. I'm a big fan of education.


See Jen? Adults can disagree then come to resolutions. 


Dizzle: That is my answer. Education. More RESPONSIBLE gun owners. This country shove all forms of education down our throats yet nothing is done about respect for firearms.


----------



## Yaya (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> All you're doing is posting without saying anything at all.
> 
> See Jen? Adults can disagree then come to resolutions.
> 
> ...



Toosteel, leave jenner alone... completely nothing wrong with post whoring


----------



## Yaya (Jan 6, 2016)

#hammersarethebestweapons


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> All you're doing is posting without saying anything at all.



unfortunately I feel the same.......and again..I didn't disagree with anything that was said except that NO ONE IS GOING TO COMPLETELY BAN GUNS...just in case you couldn't see that....


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

Yaya said:


> Toosteel, leave jenner alone... completely nothing wrong with post whoring



you should know.... and thank you for the compliment!


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

Jenner said:


> unfortunately I feel the same.......and again..I didn't disagree with anything that was said except that NO ONE IS GOING TO COMPLETELY BAN GUNS...just in case you couldn't see that....



Hillary Clinton has already made suggestions as to a MANDATORY gun buy back , thats banning guns with a different ring to it !!!


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> For ****s sake jenn all you are doing is TRYING to argue.
> A responsible gun owner leaves zero change of a child getting ahold of a loaded weapon. That is a fact.
> 
> 
> Dizz understood what I was saying and explaine himself; you don't see him throwing a sarcastic tantrum.



What's also fact is that a woman is 500% more likely to die from gun violence when there is a gun in the house than not. Does that help protect one's family?  

Another fact is that 31 states allow misdemeanor stalkers to own guns and 41 states don't force convicted stalkers to relinquish there guns but 76% of women murdered and 81% of women injured by fun violence were also stalked the year before.


----------



## BigGameHunter (Jan 6, 2016)

DF said:


> From what I am getting in this thread what Obama signed is already taking place.  To get a license you have to have a back ground check.  To buy a gun on the internet that gun goes to a licensed dealer who then does that background check & the buyer picks up the gun there.  It seems that it's just total grand standing to me by Obumma.  Unless I missed something.  All these checks did no good in the case of Sandy Hook because the Mother (gun owner) did not take steps to keep her guns out of the hands of her mentally ill son.  The back ground checks did nothing will do nothing ect.....



Background checks at gunshows were not mandatory in many areas. This executive order changes that.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> We could be having this exact same argument about personal privacy and NSA wiretapping/data collection.
> 
> The goal being fed to citizens is the same between gun control and what the NSA is doing; less deaths and acts of terror
> We'd be split down the middle again.
> ...



There's a difference between the two. Your privacy is a guaranteed right so warrantless search and seizures via wiretapping are against the law. Your right to hear arms is another right but the constitution did not say that that right does not come with provisions.


----------



## DarksideSix (Jan 6, 2016)

I'll tell you why the back ground check is broken.  We have 38 states that submit less than 80% of their felony convictions to the universal back ground check system.  Until the fuking politicians mandate every state to comply 100% to that then it won't mean shit.  That is the issue the NRA has been bringing up for years.  We are all for back ground checks for every gun buyer, but it needs to be done correctly and not just spoken words to accommodate somebody's political agenda.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> What's also fact is that a woman is 500% more likely to die from gun violence when there is a gun in the house than not. Does that help protect one's family?
> 
> Another fact is that 31 states allow misdemeanor stalkers to own guns and 41 states don't force convicted stalkers to relinquish there guns but 76% of women murdered and 81% of women injured by fun violence were also stalked the year before.



Still not the guns fault


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> Hillary Clinton has already made suggestions as to a MANDATORY gun buy back , thats banning guns with a different ring to it !!!



Hillary Clinton Says A National Gun Buyback Program Is 'Worth Considering'

It's "worth considering" whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.

A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure to run into intense political opposition.

Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea.

"Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings" she said. "Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws."

*Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program of semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns was enacted after a shooter killed 35 people in 1996.* The country bought back more than 650,000 weapons. 

"The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns," Clinton said. "Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future."

Clinton said such a gun buyback program "would be worth considering" federally, "if that could be arranged." She compared it to President Barack Obama’s so-called "cash for clunkers" program, which bought back old cars with lower levels of energy efficiency in order to stimulate the economy and reduce pollution.

"I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly the *Australian example is worth looking at*," she added.

While voluntary gun buyback programs at the municipal or county level in the U.S. haven’t been found to contribute to a reduction in gun violence, they do appear to increase public awareness of gun violence and reduce the incidence of accidental shootings. 

The candidate has made gun control a central part of her campaign since the Oct. 1. mass shooting at a community college in Oregon renewed the national debate over how to address gun violence. She has promised to take executive action to close gun show and Internet sale loopholes and to make it more difficult for domestic abusers and stalkers to buy and own firearms. 

Clinton has pushed to repeal the law that allows gun manufacturers and dealers to have legal immunity from civil lawsuits -- a law her leading primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), voted for as a member of the House of Representatives. She has also called for "a national movement" to counteract the political power of the National Rifle Association, and for gun rights supporters to form an alternative organization that is willing to compromise.

The *NRA said* Friday in a press release that Clinton's comments reveal that *"the real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation"* -- *a sentiment various conservative websites echoed*.

---

Interesting how "worth considering" gets spun into "MANDATORY." I blame Fox News.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Still not the guns fault



Didn't say it was but those people were also responsible gun owners at one point.

Edit* it also puts a spin on who family members need real protection from in many cases


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> What's also fact is that a woman is 500% more likely to die from gun violence when there is a gun in the house than not. Does that help protect one's family?
> 
> Another fact is that 31 states allow misdemeanor stalkers to own guns and 41 states don't force convicted stalkers to relinquish there guns but 76% of women murdered and 81% of women injured by fun violence were also stalked the year before.



100% of gun crimes were committed with guns.

100% of abortions could be avoided if swallowing became the law. In fact, I think there should be more education and "swallow control regulations".

20% of the time, five guys makes me 30% fatter

100% of the time, I don't care and still get a quad pattie.

100% of the time, if you go out with Ace, you will never want to see him again


----------



## DarksideSix (Jan 6, 2016)

Fsuphisig said:


> For people who say " if these mass murderers didn't have guns they'd build a bomb....." They're just so wrong. Half the reason these kids do it is because it's so easy with a gun and they're faces get plastered all over the news. Guns are so devastating, a kid with a knife and a kid with an assault rifle are two completely different animals. It blows my mind people can think that we would have the same amount dead guns or no guns. Go check out any other first world countries crime rates and murder rates. You'd be really suprised what your love of guns is doing......




yeah, ok.  I'll take the pepsi challenge with that one.  Lets look at Australia and Great Britain.  Two countries that banned guns.  Australia saw an increase in violent crimes, assaults, rape of about 15% per year after their gun ban.  Great Britains is similar.  lets not forget the crazy fuker in China that killed 14 people with a knife on the subway.  

Now, lets look at Sweden.  Sweden has the most firearms per capita of any other country in the world outside the U.S.  It is actually a law in Sweden that every household must own a firearm.  Guess what else Sweden has?  by far the lowest crime rate per capita.  But yeah, guns are the problem.  

Nuff said.


----------



## bronco (Jan 6, 2016)

Pinkbear said:


> I have a question to the people anti gun control.
> 
> What's the issue here?
> What's wrong with more background checks ?
> ...



How can we have more background checks when we already have background checks?

Am I missing something here are there states out here that allow gun stores to sell firearms with out a background Check? Are there web sites out there where you can buy a gun from a dealer with out it being shipped to a FFL dealer? I'm confused


----------



## DarksideSix (Jan 6, 2016)

I'll tell you why the back ground check is broken. We have 38 states that submit less than 80% of their felony convictions to the universal back ground check system. Until the fuking politicians mandate every state to comply 100% to that then it won't mean shit. That is the issue the NRA has been bringing up for years. We are all for back ground checks for every gun buyer, but it needs to be done correctly and not just spoken words to accommodate somebody's political agenda.


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 6, 2016)

100% of the time it works almost every time.  Anchorman


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> 100% of gun crimes were committed with guns.
> 
> 100% of abortions could be avoided if swallowing became the law. In fact, I think there should be more education and "swallow control regulations".
> 
> ...



True talk right there.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> There's a difference between the two. Your privacy is a guaranteed right so warrantless search and seizures via wiretapping are against the law. Your right to hear arms is another right *but the constitution did not say that that right does not come with provisions*.



Ahhhh, yes it does. It's really the same thing.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, *the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed." 


It doesn't say "Shall not be infringed, except for these provisions."


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

bronco said:


> How can we have more background checks when we already have background checks?
> 
> Am I missing something here are there states out here that allow gun stores to sell firearms with out a background Check? Are there web sites out there where you can buy a gun from a dealer with out it being shipped to a FFL dealer? I'm confused



I'm sure it's not the same anymore but at one point banks were giving away free firearms when you open a CD account. "Bowling for Columbine" made this image popular. It certainly stands to reason that some states are a lot more relaxed about things even now.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> Hillary Clinton has already made suggestions as to a MANDATORY gun buy back , thats banning guns with a different ring to it !!!



well, when a complete ban happens.....I will eat my words


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

Wanna know something funny?

Ok, my state has a lengthy process when it comes to obtaining firearms including background/mental health checks and a interview with local PD.

But you can still buy a muzzle loading black powder rifle with no license or waiting period. 

Just walk right in and walk out with a gun.

I understand the capacity for loss of life isn't the same vs a semi auto but it's still an interesting observation.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Wanna know something funny?
> 
> Ok, my state has a lengthy process when it comes to obtaining firearms including background/mental health checks and a interview with local PD.
> 
> ...



You also can't stop technology, you can make anything you want(plastic printing, home CNC machines)


----------



## Joliver (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Arnold didn't need a gun...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mexicans....for god sakes...Mexicans....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...attacks-a-new-kind-of-terrorism-a6787036.html



Redrum1327 said:


> can i use your brain for about 4 yrs to get a college degree then ill return it ? i promise !!!!



It wont do you any good you non-opposable thumb having chimpanzee. 



trodizzle said:


> Yeah, and Russia/North Korea could invade at any time so I better get ready!



See, this is why we need guns....a darkie broke into that "secure" bunker.  



Yaya said:


> Only mobsters, people who hunt or live in a neighborhood with a black person living in it should be able to have guns



Yaya hit the nail on the head.  Blacks.  Blacks and coyotes.  The only reason to have guns.


On a more serious note: Guns are durable goods.  Gun control would take years to be effective.  Even then, you couldn't make it retroactive, so the criminals with bad intentions wouldn't turn in their guns.  I am a criminal, I take drugs.  I wouldn't turn mine in...

Take heart UG.  There is a solution.  Or as I like to call it a Jolution.  This would be the punishment for people who are convicted of a gun crime (including the helpless bullshit mothers who buy their kids guns, like Oregon or sandy hook--not that the sandy hook mom didn't get what she deserved for cultivating her own personal psychopath):


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

I just saw WAY too much dude-butt for today...


----------



## Joliver (Jan 6, 2016)

Page 20 reminder on the punishment for gun crimes.  I figured some people might have missed out....


----------



## Beedeezy (Jan 6, 2016)

Ooooouch!!!!


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

**** gun control! Guns for everyone! Retarded? Mentally ill? Felon? Who cares, come on down and grab your weapons. I mean, come on people, who needs any gun laws? There were only 2995 shootings in the city of Chicago in 2015. Can't they do better than that? Every city needs at least 3000 shootings.

I'm not worried about anyone taking my ****ing guns because I can pass a background check. End of ****ing story. All of my fellow Ironworkers told me over and over in 2008 that Obama was gonna take my guns. They were positive. Absolutely positive. Well, it's 2016 and I still have all my firearms and all my ammo. Nobody is coming to take my ****ing firearms. But, it is way to ****in easy for anyone to get a gun in this country and that has to change. I don't know what half of you guys are even arguing about. Do you want it to be easier to guy buy firearms? 

Jesus Christ it's not that ****in complicated.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> **** gun control! Guns for everyone! Retarded? Mentally ill? Felon? Who cares, come on down and grab your weapons. I mean, come on people, who needs any gun laws? There were only 2995 shootings in the city of Chicago in 2015. Can't they do better than that? Every city needs at least 3000 shootings.
> 
> I'm not worried about anyone taking my ****ing guns because I can pass a background check. End of ****ing story. All of my fellow Ironworkers told me over and over in 2008 that Obama was gonna take my guns. They were positive. Absolutely positive. Well, it's 2016 and I still have all my firearms and all my ammo. Nobody is coming to take my ****ing firearms. But, it is way to ****in easy for anyone to get a gun in this country and that has to change. I don't know what half of you guys are even arguing about. Do you want it to be easier to guy buy firearms?
> 
> Jesus Christ it's not that ****in complicated.



Maybe Chicago should pass some gun control laws.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> **** gun control! Guns for everyone! Retarded? Mentally ill? Felon? Who cares, come on down and grab your weapons. I mean, come on people, who needs any gun laws? There were only 2995 shootings in the city of Chicago in 2015. Can't they do better than that? Every city needs at least 3000 shootings.
> 
> I'm not worried about anyone taking my ****ing guns because I can pass a background check. End of ****ing story. All of my fellow Ironworkers told me over and over in 2008 that Obama was gonna take my guns. They were positive. Absolutely positive. Well, it's 2016 and I still have all my firearms and all my ammo. Nobody is coming to take my ****ing firearms. But, it is way to ****in easy for anyone to get a gun in this country and that has to change. I don't know what half of you guys are even arguing about. Do you want it to be easier to guy buy firearms?
> 
> Jesus Christ it's not that ****in complicated.



You're an Ironworker????


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> You're an Ironworker????



Half this board "works Iron"


----------



## DarksideSix (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> **** gun control! Guns for everyone! Retarded? Mentally ill? Felon? Who cares, come on down and grab your weapons. I mean, come on people, who needs any gun laws? There were only 2995 shootings in the city of Chicago in 2015. Can't they do better than that? Every city needs at least 3000 shootings.
> 
> I'm not worried about anyone taking my ****ing guns because I can pass a background check. End of ****ing story. All of my fellow Ironworkers told me over and over in 2008 that Obama was gonna take my guns. They were positive. Absolutely positive. Well, it's 2016 and I still have all my firearms and all my ammo. Nobody is coming to take my ****ing firearms. But, it is way to ****in easy for anyone to get a gun in this country and that has to change. I don't know what half of you guys are even arguing about. Do you want it to be easier to guy buy firearms?
> 
> Jesus Christ it's not that ****in complicated.



LOL,,,, yeah, Chicago also has some of the most strict gun laws.  look at states like Arizona and Texas that have are gun friendly.  not nearly as much crime there huh?  Wonder why.

Again, I'm all for background checks but the system is flawed as I pointed out earlier.  until the politicians start mandating every state to report every felon and person with severe mental illness to the universal back ground check system it won't mean a God damn thing.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Half this board "works Iron"



:32 (18)::32 (18):


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> 100% of gun crimes were committed with guns.
> 
> 100% of abortions could be avoided if swallowing became the law. In fact, I think there should be more education and "swallow control regulations".
> 
> ...



I'm working up to a quad pattie (at a triple now lol) but unfeotuantely none of this applies to the post you quoted.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

DarksideSix said:


> LOL,,,, yeah, Chicago also has some of the most strict gun laws.  look at states like Arizona and Texas that have are gun friendly.  not nearly as much crime there huh?  Wonder why.
> 
> Again, I'm all for background checks but the system is flawed as I pointed out earlier.  until the politicians start mandating every state to report every felon and person with severe mental illness to the universal back ground check system it won't mean a God damn thing.



The problem is the suburbs of Chicago don't have the same firearm laws. Neither does Indiana, which is a short drive away. So basically Chicago's gun laws are meaningless. You need to have the same laws across the board. If you live in Chicago, you can drive to a gun show 15 minutes away and basically get any gun you want. 

I completely agree with you on background and metal illness checks. It just seems a lot of people commenting on here want all gun laws abolished like there isn't a problem.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> You're an Ironworker????



I was for years. I'm now a retired Ironworker and a small business owner. Besides for getting up at 4:45 everyday, I loved every minute of it.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> Ahhhh, yes it does. It's really the same thing.
> 
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, *the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed."
> 
> ...



So basically you will put a gun in the hand of a criminal, a terrorist who happens to be a US citizen, a schizophrenic patient, etc. That's nice to know bc barring those people from owning a gun is a provision. The education Tool is promoting is an infringement in your eyes and so is being required to do a background check and getting a permit to own said weapon. Let's just give all the criminals guns bc if we don't we are "infringing" in their rights as US citizens.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> I'm working up to a quad pattie (at a triple now lol) but unfeotuantely none of this applies to the post you quoted.



I know I just wanted to post statistics that I know to be true.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> I know I just wanted to post statistics that I know to be true.



Woop! Makes two of us lol. I'll say this, the 5Guys stats hit too close to home. I are there way too much over my Christmas break. Doc has man boobs now


----------



## Joliver (Jan 6, 2016)

You guys are really missing out by not watching that spanking.


----------



## Yaya (Jan 6, 2016)

I'm calling for a campaign for doc to step down as mod


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> So basically you will put a gun in the hand of a criminal, a terrorist who happens to be a US citizen, a schizophrenic patient, etc. That's nice to know bc barring those people from owning a gun is a provision. The education Tool is promoting is an infringement in your eyes and so is being required to do a background check and getting a permit to own said weapon. Let's just give all the criminals guns bc if we don't we are "infringing" in their rights as US citizens.



No because once you've become one of those things you've listed, you've lost your rights as a contributing member of society.

I'm not against background checks. The problem with them has been outlined pretty clearly by Darkside though. Soooooo, rather then making new "gun laws" and executive actions, they should properly enforce the existing laws on the books and all would be fine.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> The problem is the suburbs of Chicago don't have the same firearm laws. Neither does Indiana, which is a short drive away. So basically Chicago's gun laws are meaningless. You need to have the same laws across the board. If you live in Chicago, you can drive to a gun show 15 minutes away and basically get any gun you want.
> 
> I completely agree with you on background and metal illness checks. It just seems a lot of people commenting on here want all gun laws abolished like there isn't a problem.



Not one person on here has said abolish all gun laws, I have a problem with restricing my rights because of criminals and terrorists that wouldn't follow the laws in the first place


----------



## mickems (Jan 6, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> Hillary Clinton has already made suggestions as to a MANDATORY gun buy back , thats banning guns with a different ring to it !!!



 Those gun buy backs are senseless. I was present at one in bmore (certainly not to turn in any of my guns) and, I was checking out all the guns that people were turning in. quite a few of them were black powder, one case- someone was turning it in because it used to belong to a deceased family member, and some of the ones that looked like they were worth keeping, were actually broken, some not even fixable. a lot were just old shotguns beat to hell, bent, missing parts and some people were turning them in because they didn't even work. It defeats the purpose, if the guns are useless and not a threat to begin with. .02


----------



## bronco (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Not one person on here has said abolish all gun laws, I have a problem with restricing my rights because of criminals and terrorists that wouldn't follow the laws in the first place



There are some I would like to see repealed though. Not having to pay an extra $200 for a suppresor or SBR would be a great start


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

bronco said:


> There are some I would like to see repealed though. Not having to pay an extra $200 for a suppresor or SBR would be a great start


Here here! I honestly do not understand why suppressors are so restricted.. You can't fire subsonic 300aac in an AR without one.


----------



## stonetag (Jan 6, 2016)

Whether anything was resolved in this thread or not, it has made for some damn fine entertainment. Thanks to all that have contributed. Nice DF!


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> No because *once you've become one of those things* you've listed, you've lost your rights as a contributing member of society.
> 
> I'm not against background checks. The problem with them has been outlined pretty clearly by Darkside though. Soooooo, rather then making new "gun laws" and executive actions, they should properly enforce the existing laws on the books and all would be fine.



I think the bolded text is key here. Every criminal and terrorist has a first time committing the acts that classify them as criminal or terrorist. So while this may keep guns out of the hands of those who have already done crimes of this nature, it still leaves them available to those who may commit crimes in the future. None of us can truly know what the next guy is thinking or planning or scheming to do. We just have to accept that "shit will happen" I think...


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

PLEASE watch at least the first 30 seconds :32 (18): :32 (18):


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> I think the bolded text is key here. Every criminal and terrorist has a first time committing the acts that classify them as criminal or terrorist. So while this may keep guns out of the hands of those who have already done crimes of this nature, it still leaves them available to those who may commit crimes in the future. None of us can truly know what the next guy is thinking or planning or scheming to do. We just have to accept that "shit will happen" I think...



Or figure out "the minority report" hahahaha that's why we should be able to protect ourselves from any enemy


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> I think the bolded text is key here. Every criminal and terrorist has a first time committing the acts that classify them as criminal or terrorist. So while this may keep guns out of the hands of those who have already done crimes of this nature, it still leaves them available to those who may commit crimes in the future. None of us can truly know what the next guy is thinking or planning or scheming to do. We just have to accept that "shit will happen" I think...



Wow. Really. Wow.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> Wow. Really. Wow.



Yeah really. Everyone is an upstanding citizen until they commit their first crime. I've asked Obama to keep a close eye on you specifically, I don't trust that hat in your avatar, you could be dangerous.


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Yeah really. Everyone is an upstanding citizen until they commit their first crime. I've asked Obama to keep a close eye on you specifically, I don't trust that hat in your avatar, you could be dangerous.



I'm thinking of a first time crime right now... What's your address again? :32 (18):

Red YOur driving!  Jol bring the mower!


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Yeah really. Everyone is an upstanding citizen until they commit their first crime. I've asked Obama to keep a close eye on you specifically, I don't trust that hat in your avatar, you could be dangerous.


Do you live in a ****ing bubble? You could be one bad day from slashing your wife with a butter knife but no one is doing a background check every time you get a set from Walmart. 

I cannot make any sense of your posts whatsoever. All I can gather is that you have no set stance, and don't care, but still wanna talk about it.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

Man, and I thought I was a tinfoil nutcase.

Dizz, it sounds like you'd be better off living in a locked cell. Not because you've done anything illegal per-se but because relieving you of all of your freedoms is the only way to make sure you're entirely safe. No guns, nobody besides yourself. You don't have to worry about anyone being a first time offender. Don't worry, Uncle Sam will regulate your life into safety.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Do you live in a ****ing bubble? You could be one bad day from slashing your wife with a butter knife but no one is doing a background check every time you get a set from Walmart.
> 
> I cannot make any sense of your posts whatsoever. All I can gather is that you have *no set stance*, and don't care, *but still wanna talk about it*.



That's pretty true, my stance can vary depending on what specific aspect we're talking about. The convo is good though, many different points of view.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Man, and I thought I was a tinfoil nutcase.
> 
> Dizz, it sounds like you'd be better off living in a locked cell. Not because you've done anything illegal per-se but because relieving you of all of your freedoms is the only way to make sure you're entirely safe. No guns, nobody besides yourself. You don't have to worry about anyone being a first time offender. Don't worry, Uncle Sam will regulate your life into safety.



Actually, as I stated before, I feel pretty darn safe here in America in general and don't feel I need protected from anything i'm not already protected from with existing laws.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

Yaya said:


> I'm calling for a campaign for doc to step down as mod



I'm the campaign treasurer and VP. DYS is in charge of marketing and recurring and Andy is in charge of the security detail.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Actually, as I stated before, I feel pretty darn safe here in America in general and don't feel I need protected from anything i'm not already protected from with existing laws.



Then what point were you trying to make about first time offenders?

This world is full of over 7 billion potential first time offenders. Everyone, including you has the capacity to do harm. To live a life without risk is not a life worth living.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

I think you put wayyy too much faith in statistics. 

If some nut job tries to rob you at gunpoint, are you going to show him a spreadsheet and say "see this? Statistically speaking, you aren't going to pull the trigger"


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Here here! I honestly do not understand why suppressors are so restricted.. You can't fire subsonic 300aac in an AR without one.



You really don't understand why silencers are restricted? You're not serious are you?


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> You really don't understand why silencers are restricted? You're not serious are you?



Username checks out. lol


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> You really don't understand why silencers are restricted? You're not serious are you?


It's a suppressor, not a silencer. And no, I do not. If I wanted to kill you quietly I'd use a CCI CB long.

Edit:
I am definitely interested in hearing
Your thoughts as to why they're so scary though.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> No because once you've become one of those things you've listed, you've lost your rights as a contributing member of society.
> 
> I'm not against background checks. The problem with them has been outlined pretty clearly by Darkside though. Soooooo, rather then making new "gun laws" and executive actions, they should properly enforce the existing laws on the books and all would be fine.



A schizophrenic, who hasn't committed a crime, has lost his/her rights as a contributing member of society? I'd agree with the criminal and terrorist ones but not to this one. Stil, your interpretation of the amendment wouldn't afford us the opportunity to take guns out the hands of criminals bc regardless of if they are contributing to society or not, ALL men have that right. To you a provision is an infringement. 

Better enforcement of current laws will def be a start in he right direction but some things that aren't law should be or at least be thought of. The statistics on the stalkers I posted before is one thing. If you're so incapable of controlling your emotions that you are stalking someone and convicted of stalking, should a gun really be in that person's hands? The stats say they're between crimanals and mentally ill in how much death they've caused. 31 states don't have this as law. Should it be? Shouldn't it be discussed at least?

I'm in complete agreement with you and DS6 about the failings of the background check system. Every state should be required to post their info in a timely manner.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Then what point were you trying to make about first time offenders?
> 
> This world is full of over 7 billion potential first time offenders. Everyone, including you has the capacity to do harm. To live a life without risk is not a life worth living.



The point was you have to accept the good with the bad. If you want guns to be legal and available to citizens, don't be surprised when those guns get in the hands of people who do evil with them. It comes with the territory and can't be prevented. That's all.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> I think you put wayyy too much faith in statistics.
> 
> If some nut job tries to rob you at gunpoint, are you going to show him a spreadsheet and say "see this? Statistically speaking, you aren't going to pull the trigger"



No, but the odds of that happening are extremely low so therefore I don't see why I should spend money or time worrying about it.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> I think you put wayyy too much faith in statistics.
> 
> If some nut job tries to rob you at gunpoint, are you going to show him a spreadsheet and say "see this? Statistically speaking, you aren't going to pull the trigger"



I didn't have a spreadsheet on me and I used different verbiage but yes, this is exactly what I have done twice now.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> It's a suppressor, not a silencer. And no, I do not. If I wanted to kill you quietly I'd use a CCI CB long.



From The Silencer Shop:

7. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUPPRESSOR AND A SILENCER?

There is no difference; these are just different words for the same thing.

The word “Silencer” is the legal term; but, either “sound suppressor”, or just “suppressor”, is more technically accurate since they don’t actually silence the firearm. You can use either term with us and we’ll promise not to care.



You could or you could just buy a silencer. Have you heard of animal poachers? You don't see how they could help poachers? Or murderers who have them.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> From The Silencer Shop:
> 
> 7. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUPPRESSOR AND A SILENCER?
> 
> ...


Ahhhh yes yes. Because animal poachers and murderers logically say to themselves "well shit, better not use my _silencer_, that would be illegal!"


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

As an added note: you got that from a manufacturer? Yeah id let you call it whatever the hell you wanted too as long as I got your money. Gun shops don't show people the door when they ask for a clip.


----------



## Big Worm (Jan 6, 2016)

Do any of you think that if there weren't those that jumped up and down and screamed the 2nd amendment that the government wouldn't take our guns?

No one has even brought up 80% lowers, not even Obama.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Big Worm said:


> Do any of you think that if there weren't those that jumped up and down and screamed the 2nd ammendment that the government wouldn't take our guns?
> 
> No one has even brought up 80% lowers, not even Obama.


SSSHHHHHHH!!!! 

Funny though. That is the absolute single biggest "loophole" if there ever was one. Yet no one says nil.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Ahhhh yes yes. Because animal poachers and murderers logically say to themselves "well shit, better not use my _silencer_, that would be illegal!"



By that logic nothing should be illegal then. Drunk drivers? Why have a law because they are just gonna do it anyway. Murderers, well **** it, make it legal, they are just gonna do it anyway.

Don't you think a law against selling them would make them harder to obtain. That's the whole ****in point!


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> If you're so incapable of controlling your emotions that you are stalking someone and convicted of stalking, should a gun really be in that person's hands? The stats say they're between crimanals and mentally ill in how much death they've caused. 31 states don't have this as law. Should it be? Shouldn't it be discussed at least?
> 
> I'm in complete agreement with you and DS6 about the failings of the background check system. Every state should be required to post their info in a timely manner.



Crimes of passion don't just happen to the mentally ill or criminals.

In the heat of the moment, would it matter if it's a gun or a big rock? If that person wanted another dead, that person is going to make an attempt on the others life regardless. 

Here's a fun fact; a buddy of mine, long term friend from high school.  Had a full time job, insurance, a nice house (not apartment), a car and a loving wife and two baby boys that he loved to death. This man owned firearms legally and kept them both trigger locked and put away in a safe in the attic. He took me shooting at a proper indoor regulated range a few times with his glock 9mm and a .357 revolver.

One day after a spat with his wive he barricades himself in his attic and blew the top of his head off. His wife and two children were screaming downstairs as he bled out for what seemed like hours on the floor above them. Firefighters couldn't break through his barricade in time to save him. It could have just as easily been a triple murder suicide if the cards fell just slightly differently.

My point in this story is that despite a full criminal and mental health background screening, interview with local PD and all that rigmarole, something snapped in his head in the heat of the moment and a loss of life occurred. 

The steps you're proposing were performed and I still lost a good friend and almost his entire family.

What possible regulation would have prevented that?


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> By that logic nothing should be illegal then. Drunk drivers? Why have a law because they are just gonna do it anyway. Murderers, well **** it, make it legal, they are just gonna do it anyway.
> 
> Don't you think a law against selling them would make them harder to obtain. That's the whole ****in point!


Wow you're quite the emotional rambler. 

Without searching the web, do you have any clue whatsoever as to what the current suppressor rules and restrictions are?


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Crimes of passion don't just happen to the mentally ill or criminals.
> 
> In the heat of the moment, would it matter if it's a gun or a big rock? If that person wanted another dead, that person is going to make an attempt on the others life regardless.
> 
> ...



There is no perfect solution to everything. The argument is to try and stop as many criminals and mentally ill individuals aspossible from owning a firearm. There's always extenuating circumstances. That will never end. But keeping a gun out of the hands of a convicted stalker is something that you can try and stop.

RIP to your friend. That's terrible to hear.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Wow you're quite the emotional rambler.
> 
> Without searching the web, do you have any clue whatsoever as to what the current suppressor rules and restrictions are?



Your logic was, they're going to use them anyway, so who cares. That's not a very sound rebuttal.

No I don't know the silencer laws and I don't care. There's no reason for a civilian to have one. You can't use them for hunting and you don't need them for home security.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> Your logic was, they're going to use them anyway, so who cares. That's not a very sound rebuttal.
> 
> No I don't know the silencer laws and I don't care. There's no reason for a civilian to have one. You can't use them for hunting and you don't need them for home security.



They would be EXTREMELY useful for home security. Go to a shooting range sometime and stand beside someone without ear protection. See how clearly you can think after a couple shots. It can be literally disorienting.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> The point was you have to accept the good with the bad. If you want guns to be legal and available to citizens, don't be surprised when those guns get in the hands of people who do evil with them. It comes with the territory and can't be prevented. That's all.



So then why restrict my rights to protect myself


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

Big Worm said:


> Do any of you think that if there weren't those that jumped up and down and screamed the 2nd ammendment that the government wouldn't take our guns?
> 
> No one has even brought up 80% lowers, not even Obama.



I totally agree but didn't want to get into it, a lot don't even know what you're talking about

I only touched on it a little talking about home cnc machines


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> There is no perfect solution to everything.



Agreed. 



Assassin32 said:


> RIP to your friend. That's terrible to hear.



Thank you my friend, I still drive around with a token of his friendship in my car with me even now 7 years later.
I miss him.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> So then why restrict my rights to protect myself



I don't want to, not sure where that impression came from.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> They would be EXTREMELY useful for home security. Go to a shooting range sometime and stand beside someone without ear protection. See how clearly you can think after a couple shots. It can be literally disorienting.



I go to the range all the time. But I wear ear protection because I'm not a ****in moron. Nope, they are not useful for home protection. Criminals are more likely to flee when they hear shots.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> I go to the range all the time. But I wear ear protection because I'm not a ****in moron. Nope, they are not useful for home protection. Criminals are more likely to flee when they hear shots.



I did this ONCE, on accident. I was at the shooting range with my wife, listening to our instructor tell my wife about some things, then forgot to put my ear protection back on until the first few shots were fired. I will never do that again...


----------



## bronco (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> Your logic was, they're going to use them anyway, so who cares. That's not a very sound rebuttal.
> 
> No I don't know the silencer laws and I don't care. There's no reason for a civilian to have one. You can't use them for hunting and you don't need them for home security.



Wrong. You can absolutely use them for hunting. In my state hogs are extremely over populated in certain areas. I know people who use a suppressor at night when hunting them for a couple reasons

1. If there are houses close by you won't have them calling the law on your ass 

2. The chances of killing more hogs is greater since you won't scare as many off when you shoot

Also there is really no need for ear protection when using one that helps out a lot as well

I'm not even going to get started on the things people NEED vs not need we could go on for days about that


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> I go to the range all the time. But I wear ear protection because I'm not a ****in moron. Nope, they are not useful for home protection. Criminals are more likely to flee when they hear shots.



If you're counting on a criminal fleeing from the sound of gunfire, you need to practice.


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> If you're counting on a criminal fleeing from the sound of gunfire, you need to practice.



LOL, good one!


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

bronco said:


> Wrong. You can absolutely use them for hunting. In my state hogs are extremely over populated in certain areas. I know people who use a suppressor at night when hunting them for a couple reasons
> 
> 1. If there are houses close by you won't have them calling the law on your ass
> 
> ...



That's cool. If you have a license to hunt with one that's fine. In my state the poaching of deer out of season is a huge problem. Silencers add to that problem. I just don't think anybody should be able to purchase one. If you show a license that deems you legal to hunt with one, I'm cool with that.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Crimes of passion don't just happen to the mentally ill or criminals.
> 
> In the heat of the moment, would it matter if it's a gun or a big rock? If that person wanted another dead, that person is going to make an attempt on the others life regardless.



Of course crimes of passion don't just happen to mentally ill or criminal. They were separate issues I was bringng up. 

I could be just as dead by a big rock as I could be by a gun but given the option Of the two, would you argue I have a much higher risk of getting away from a rock vs a bullet? Anything can be used as a weapon I know, but the more lethal, the higher the probabitu of fatality, etc the weapon is, the more we should look into the situation. A baton has a low chance of killing me on the first hit unless it's a perfect blow hence we don't really regulate it if at all. Knives are a little more dangerous hence some states have laws regarding what mind of knives can be carried around and what not. Guns a step up, hence more scrutiny. A nuclear bomb would higher than guns etc. It's a continuum. 



> Here's a fun fact; a buddy of mine, long term friend from high school.  Had a full time job, insurance, a nice house (not apartment), a car and a loving wife and two baby boys that he loved to death. This man owned firearms legally and kept them both trigger locked and put away in a safe in the attic. He took me shooting at a proper indoor regulated range a few times with his glock 9mm and a .357 revolver.
> 
> One day after a spat with his wive he barricades himself in his attic and blew the top of his head off. His wife and two children were screaming downstairs as he bled out for what seemed like hours on the floor above them. Firefighters couldn't break through his barricade in time to save him. It could have just as easily been a triple murder suicide if the cards fell just slightly differently.
> 
> ...



No regulation besides going way into unreasonable territory would prevented your friends tragedy and I'm sorry to hear about it. You mention his family also almost lost their lives. That begs a few questions, did he own the guns to protect his family or simply bc he was a hobbyist? If he did for family protection, then who did the family really need the protection from? (And I'm not trying to take digs at your friend, it's a serious matter). 

I have to check the actual statistics to verify, but they're awfully close considering....

One claim often cited is people want to protect their families. All well and good and noble But the statistics are very similar and show you're basically almost as likely to be injured or killed by a gun when you have one in your home as you are being the victim of a violent crime in your home. So who really are you protecting? The family in these situTions many times would have been better off without the gun. Yes they'd still have been victim to burglary or whatever crime was committed against them but their chances of survival are much greater. Being in possession of a gun automatically escalates the situation and most people aren't ready to handle that. 

If you really think you're protecting your family then I'm all for you owning a gun or a lot of them. Have your fill. But sit and think for one minute about the actual numbers and what they're saying, namely, in the name of "family protection" you just increased the likelihood of your family's pre-mature death.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> If you're counting on a criminal fleeing from the sound of gunfire, you need to practice.



Practice what? Do you really think a thief wants to get into a gunfight?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> If you're counting on a criminal fleeing from the sound of gunfire, you need to practice.



If you need to silence your fire from a criminal you need to practice just as much


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> If you need to silence your fire from a criminal you need to practice just as much



Right, that means you probably plan on missing him a bunch of times. lol


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> Practice what? Do you really think a thief wants to get into a gunfight?



Maybe you are a bad shot if the guy is fleeing your gun fire?  I thought it was funny


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> If you need to silence your fire from a criminal you need to practice just as much



Dammit Doc!


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> You mention his family also almost lost their lives. That begs a few questions, did he own the guns to protect his family or simply bc he was a hobbyist? If he did for family protection, then who did the family really need the protection from? (And I'm not trying to take digs at your friend, it's a serious matter).
> 
> I have to check the actual statistics to verify, but they're awfully close considering....
> 
> ...



No digs taken.

He owned his firearms before starting the family, it was a hobby for him that one could argue evolved into a useful tool for protection. They were not specifically purchased because of the concept of home protection. His children were 2, the other was just a few months shy of a year. While he had his own house, it was not in the best of areas. Drugs were (and still are) an enormous problem in that localized area. I'm talking worst in the city. There had been lethal stabbings and home break-ins several times a year on his street alone.

He had what I would consider a very healthy relationship with a firearms role in home defense. His family had a plan in place to get into the attic ASAP (where the firearms are located, only 1 entrance) and let whoever broke in do their thing on the floors below. Playing Rambo trying to stop an intruder was not an worth potentially having his children grow up without a father. Possessions can be replaced, people can't and he understood that very clearly. Lethal force was only an option if that person entering the home came upstairs into the attic after a verbal warning that he was armed. At that point it's pretty clear what the intent of the person entering the house is.

It's still a bit of a mystery why he did what he did.

There's no two ways about it, you're statistically more likely to suffer gun violence against you if you yourself own a firearm.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> I don't want to, not sure where that impression came from.



Because i don't live in projects I obviously don't need them lol


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Hillary Clinton Says A National Gun Buyback Program Is 'Worth Considering'
> 
> It's "worth considering" whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.
> 
> ...



Must be a democrat ^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

LeanHerm said:


>



What a bunch of crap , not even the KKK or back woods hillbillilies like Jol like Tobey Kieth


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

My lady at the range.  A much better shot than I.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

DF said:


> My lady at the range.  A much better shot than I.



I'm sure her eyes aren't as old as yours hahahaha


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> I'm sure her eyes aren't as old as yours hahahaha



Fukkin Andy !!! I was gonna say her eyes are 20 yrs younger , same difference lol


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> Practice what? Do you really think a thief wants to get into a gunfight?


You shouldn't be discharging a weapon at something you don't intend to kill. 
Therefore, if he's fleeing, you missed. 



DocDePanda187123 said:


> If you need to silence your fire from a criminal you need to practice just as much


No, see my earlier post. I don't have time to put in earplugs during a home invasion. Having a suppressor would be beneficial in any tactical decisions that need to be made after the initial shot. 





DF said:


> Maybe you are a bad shot if the guy is fleeing your gun fire?  I thought it was funny


Yay someone got it..


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> I'm sure her eyes aren't as old as yours hahahaha





Redrum1327 said:


> Fukkin Andy !!! I was gonna say her eyes are 20 yrs younger , same difference lol



You guys are just plain mean.  fuks!


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 6, 2016)

DF said:


> You guys are just plain mean.  fuks!



This wouldn't happen if Jol was around


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> No, see my earlier post. I don't have time to put in earplugs during a home invasion. Having a suppressor would be beneficial in any tactical decisions that need to be made after the initial shot.



But you have the time to go over to your gun safe which might be in another room, enter the combination or use the key or fingerprint to unlock the gun safe, and remove the trigger lock off your gun?


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> But you have the time to go over to your gun safe which might be in another room, enter the combination or use the key or fingerprint to unlock the gun safe, and remove the trigger lock off your gun?



A trigger lock on a home defense weapon THAT IS IN A SAFE is redundant. It's in a safe with a 4 button keypad that I can access in a matter of seconds. 

I understand you like playing devils advocate, but do so logically.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> You shouldn't be discharging a weapon at something you don't intend to kill.
> Therefore, if he's fleeing, you missed.
> 
> 
> ...



What was I thinking. Silencers for everybody. I don't know how I made it this far in life without them. I guess there is no conceivable reason why silencers shouldn't be sold everywhere. Let the poachers fire away and kill our deer population at will, they are going to do it anyway, right?

I was way off base. In the off chance that I ever have to shoot an intruder, my main concern will be hearing loss. I sure am glad to my hearing won't be compromised. Also, I didn't know so many tactical decisions could be made simply due to a silencer. Do the police know about this? How bout SWAT? You should e-mail them and let them know how valuable they are, you know tactical decision wise.


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> A trigger lock on a home defense weapon THAT IS IN A SAFE is redundant. It's in a safe with a 4 button keypad that I can access in a matter of seconds.
> 
> I understand you like playing devils advocate, but do so logically.



Yeah Doc, be logical. Sheesh. Think about hearing first, protecting you family second.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 6, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> Yeah Doc, be logical. Sheesh. Think about hearing first, protecting you family second.



Why don't you try adding useful input to the discussion, instead of just being a sarcastic asshole?


----------



## MS1605 (Jan 6, 2016)

LOl, thank god I missed this whole thread. Im not even getting started...


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 6, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Why don't you try adding useful input to the discussion, instead of just being a sarcastic asshole?



because honestly it seems if we aren't agreeing with what you are saying...we know nothing...and while that might be your opinion.....that's all it is...just like the rest of us....you want to go after me because I say dizz understands but disagrees while there are plenty of posts that go against what you are saying....hmmmmmm...pick on the chick...maybe on the internet.......and I'm not being a dick....just call it like I see it.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 6, 2016)

MS1605 said:


> LOl, thank god I missed this whole thread. Im not even getting started...



That's what I said lol


----------



## DF (Jan 6, 2016)

Jenner said:


> because honestly it seems if we aren't agreeing with what you are saying...we know nothing...and while that might be your opinion.....that's all it is...just like the rest of us....you want to go after me because I say dizz understands but disagrees while there are plenty of posts that go against what you are saying....hmmmmmm...pick on the chick...maybe on the internet.......and *I'm not being a dick*....just call it like I see it.



that's your opinion


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> that's your opinion



exactly................just as I said in that post...we all have them...and you of all people should know I could give two shits if someone thinks I'm a dick..or anything else for that matter


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

Jenner said:


> because honestly it seems if we aren't agreeing with what you are saying...we know nothing...and while that might be your opinion.....that's all it is...just like the rest of us....you want to go after me because I say dizz understands but disagrees while there are plenty of posts that go against what you are saying....hmmmmmm...pick on the chick...maybe on the internet.......and I'm not being a dick....just call it like I see it.


That's a reason for him to provide no actual input? Once again, banging your fingers on the keyboard for your post count. 

Dizz and I don't have a problem; drop it.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> That's a reason for him to provide no actual input? Once again, banging your fingers on the keyboard for your post count.
> 
> Dizz and I don't have a problem; drop it.



dude, get over yourself....It's cool if you want to think you are the shit...actually it's great that you think you are the shit!

and last time I checked...he can say whatever he wants, just like you...

and....and.....LMFAO about my post count!


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

Jenner said:


> dude, get over yourself....It's cool if you want to think you are the shit...actually it's great that you think you are the shit!
> 
> and last time I checked...he can say whatever he wants, just like you...
> 
> and....and.....LMFAO about my post count!



There is no rational thinking behind your posts. You're seemingly incapable of differentiating fact from opinion. 

I could tell you my car is black and you would try to argue that "that's just my opinion."
That's just how you are. You have brought nothing to the topic at hand, other than sticking your nose into other people's business. 
Dizz and I never had an issue. Stop trying to play mommy.


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> There is no rational thinking behind your posts. You're seemingly incapable of differentiating fact from opinion.
> 
> I could tell you my car is black and you would try to argue that "that's just my opinion."
> That's just how you are. You have brought nothing to the topic at hand, other than sticking your nose into other people's business.
> Dizz and I never had an issue. Stop trying to play mommy.



Don't go all Zeigler on us TS! Come back brother come back!


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> There is no rational thinking behind your posts. You're seemingly incapable of differentiating fact from opinion.
> 
> I could tell you my car is black and you would try to argue that "that's just my opinion."
> That's just how you are. You have brought nothing to the topic at hand, other than sticking your nose into other people's business.
> Dizz and I never had an issue. Stop trying to play mommy.



you are spinning your wheels...and couldn't be more wrong...save your twisting of words for folks that will believe it.....because I never will and nothing you call me or accuse me of will change that...


----------



## DF (Jan 7, 2016)

Tool just give up!  

I'd love to see Jenn & Doc have a good debate.  Wonder who would give up first?


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

and just an FYI.... backing members on this board when I see fit is part of being staff................as far as I'm concerned


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> Tool just give up!
> 
> I'd love to see Jenn & Doc have a good debate.  Wonder who would give up first?



OMG, that would be a marathon...but honestly I think he would break me.....love ya doc!


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> There is no rational thinking behind your posts. You're seemingly incapable of differentiating fact from opinion.
> 
> I could tell you my car is black and you would try to argue that "that's just my opinion."
> That's just how you are. You have brought nothing to the topic at hand, other than sticking your nose into other people's business.
> Dizz and I never had an issue. Stop trying to play mommy.



That's ****in rich . Coming from someone who thinks they know everything about every topic on this board. Like Jen said get over yourself dude. Aren't you the same guy who has about 500 posts arguing with Ziegler?


----------



## RISE (Jan 7, 2016)

Glad to see there is some diversity here and for the most part talk about it civilly.  When I first joined it seemed anything brought up political wise was so extreme far right I almost left this place.


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 7, 2016)

Doc was prolly on his high school debate team , no arguing with brainy fyks like him , they use big words and confuse the simpletons lol


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

RISE said:


> Glad to see there is some diversity here and for the most part talk about it civilly.  When I first joined it seemed anything brought up political wise was so extreme far right I almost left this place.



lol, you just gotta keep taking the beating and stand up for yourself


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> Doc was prolly on his high school debate team , no arguing with brainy fyks like him , they use big words and confuse the simpletons lol



and they don't sleep so they can keep going and going!


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 7, 2016)

I love every single one of you.


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 7, 2016)

You cannot deny there's a correlation between the Gun Laws in the USA and homicides caused by guns. 

Access to guns = will end up in the wrong hands = kill people with guns

Again, nobody is taking the guns away, what any responsible American should be doing is trying to minimize mass shootings, such as School shootings etc, by trying to find a way to do so through legislation. What actions can we take, considering it's a 'RIGHT' to bear guns?  Not much you can do but further intensify background checks.  I'm for a full psychiatric evaluation for anyone trying to buy a gun. That right away would separate the responsible gun owners from a madman.  

Maybe I dont get it since I lived in Germany for 16 years and didn't grow up with guns, but what I know is that Germany homicides by guns are rare.   Let's not even get into the Police debate. Shooting on first sight, 15 bullets.. What happened to shooting the leg(s) to handicap?     **** this shit.        You dont need guns, you think you do, but you dont.        We're not in the 18th century anymore.   

The facts are the the US has a high number of homicides per capita. That's a fact.   Try to argue that..


----------



## stonetag (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Why don't you try adding useful input to the discussion, instead of just being a sarcastic asshole?



Easy dude, being sarcastic is as much a part of a conversation as thinking one knows it all.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> A trigger lock on a home defense weapon THAT IS IN A SAFE is redundant. It's in a safe with a 4 button keypad that I can access in a matter of seconds.
> 
> I understand you like playing devils advocate, but do so logically.



Excuse me, is there a logical fallacy about redundancy?

So instead of answering the question you deflect. Fair enough; now it's safe to assume what exactly: you don't lock up your guns or you do but only have enough time to unlock the safe and not get the precious ear muffs?


----------



## MS1605 (Jan 7, 2016)

StoliFTW said:


> You cannot deny there's a correlation between the Gun Laws in the USA and homicides caused by guns.



This is the stupidest shit I have read all day. 

I say that respectfully.

Im from Chicago that has one of the top 3 strictest gun laws in America but in 2015 Chicago had the 21st highest gun gun related homocide in the US. There are over 3000 cities in the USA. So how is there ANY correlation between gun homicides and Gun laws with those facts?


GOD DAMNIT I SAID I WASNT GOING TO START POSTING IN HERE!

I'm done, Im sorry.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

Jenner said:


> and just an FYI.... backing members on this board when I see fit is part of being staff................as far as I'm concerned


this all started because you didn't know what the actual definition of the word ignorant was. Even after I clearly stated I wasn't using it in a derogatory way. 
There was no problem with dizz and I. There was nothing for you to "back"



Assassin32 said:


> That's ****in rich . Coming from someone who thinks they know everything about every topic on this board. Like Jen said get over yourself dude. Aren't you the same guy who has about 500 posts arguing with Ziegler?



Hooray another useless post. I'd appreciate if you could show me where I claimed to know everything about every topic? Thanks.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> There is no rational thinking behind your posts. You're seemingly incapable of differentiating fact from opinion.
> 
> I could tell you my car is black and you would try to argue that "that's just my opinion."
> That's just how you are. You have brought nothing to the topic at hand, other than sticking your nose into other people's business.
> Dizz and I never had an issue. Stop trying to play mommy.



If you want privacy a thread on a public forum is not the place. You don't want anyone else joining the convo you have PM, email, twitter, text messaging, and nude skyping as your options. 



DF said:


> Tool just give up!
> 
> I'd love to see Jenn & Doc have a good debate.  Wonder who would give up first?



I have less important things to do with my time so I'd probably last longer, but only by a smidge. 



Jenner said:


> OMG, that would be a marathon...but honestly I think he would break me.....love ya doc!



I would need a lot of test and tren to break you....lol



Redrum1327 said:


> Doc was prolly on his high school debate team , no arguing with brainy fyks like him , they use big words and confuse the simpletons lol



My HS was too small to have a debate team. My graduating class in was less than 100 kids. Plus they didn't like Arabs lol.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Excuse me, is there a logical fallacy about redundancy?
> 
> So instead of answering the question you deflect. Fair enough; now it's safe to assume what exactly: you don't lock up your guns or you do but only have enough time to unlock the safe and not get the precious ear muffs?


For ****s sake you don't even understand WHY I said a suppressor would be valuable. 
I was not deflecting. A combination safe is 100% adequate for keeping my home defense weapon out of my 1 year old daughter's hands. 
Going beyond 100% would be useless. And anything unnecessary that delays access to your weapon is asinine.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 7, 2016)

MS1605 said:


> This is the stupidest shit I have read all day.
> 
> I say that respectfully.
> 
> ...



This has been covered a few times by Assassin and myself MS. Yes Chicago has very strict gun laws but go 15min over to Cook's county or an hour to Indiana, or Mississippi, and you'll find much more favorable gun laws. In fact, most of the weapons confiscated by police in Chicago are from those 3 areas.


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 7, 2016)

I am generalizing, that's true.

Guns are accessible nationwide. You drive outside of Chicago and the laws are different, right? 

Availability and accessibility of guns are directly related to deaths by guns. I stand by that.

Edit:  would there be no guns, we wouldn't have gun homicides.. Moot point but it's as simple as that.


----------



## RISE (Jan 7, 2016)

Having access to guns has nothing to do with what's happening here in AMERICA.  ANYONE can get guns in any country, legally or illegally, yet we are the only country in the world (besides the batshit crazy Middle East and Africa) that has a problem with mass shootings and violence.  Problems spring up in every country, mostly drug and cartel related, but it's not an everyday event and they are not shooting up schools, movie theaters, daycares, etc.  There is something seriously wrong with a lot of citizens mental health.


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 7, 2016)

RISE said:


> Having access to guns has nothing to do with what's happening here in AMERICA.  ANYONE can get guns in any country, legally or illegally, yet we are the only country in the world (besides the batshit crazy Middle East and Africa) that has a problem with mass shootings and violence.  Problems spring up in every country, mostly drug and cartel related, but it's not an everyday event and they are not shooting up schools, movie theaters, daycares, etc.  There is something seriously wrong with a lot of citizens mental health.


That's true add the availability of guns and voila.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

StoliFTW said:


> That's true add the availability of guns and voila.



So you think all guns in America should be confiscated?


----------



## RISE (Jan 7, 2016)

There are countries in this world that allow citizens to get guns just as easily as ours, yet they do not have the same problems we have.  We may have to agree to disagree, but I think the problems stem WAY beyond the availability of guns.


----------



## DF (Jan 7, 2016)

We do have more than our fair share of bat shit crazy fuks.


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> So you think all guns in America should be confiscated?



No, i think we need to find a way to minimize innocent killings, by exploring all other options. 

Disarming citizens is not right. 

But tell me, what can be done to avoid guns getting into crazy people's hands? 

I don't have the answer, but I'm tired of seeing news of kids dying.  We're so used to this, that say ' well nothing you can do' crazy people will kill whether its with a gun or whatever, why try and stop it?!


----------



## RISE (Jan 7, 2016)

Just look at the prescription drug statistics.  We consume more than 60% of the worlds prescription drugs.  Let that sink in for a bit.  A country smaller than Brazil consumes that much drugs, and for what reason?


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Why don't you try adding useful input to the discussion, instead of just being a sarcastic asshole?



Bro, you're not cycling with any tren right now are you?


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> So you think all guns in America should be confiscated?



Wow, now that is a very valuable post. Great information. Keep up the solid work.


----------



## DF (Jan 7, 2016)

RISE said:


> Just look at the prescription drug statistics.  We consume more than 60% of the worlds prescription drugs.  Let that sink in for a bit.  A country smaller than Brazil consumes that much drugs, and for what reason?



Dammit!  Don't spoil my next thread!


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> For ****s sake you don't even understand WHY I said a suppressor would be valuable.
> I was not deflecting. A combination safe is 100% adequate for keeping my home defense weapon out of my 1 year old daughter's hands.
> Going beyond 100% would be useless. And anything unnecessary that delays access to your weapon is asinine.



I completely understand why you think a suppressor would be valuable but that's besides the point. 

Ok, so now you finally answered, the combination safe is enough protection from your daughter getting into the guns. Great. How long does it take you to enter the combination into the safe during the day? How about when you first wake up still groggy? How about when you're still groggy and think there's an intruder in your house and your cortisol and adrenaline are pumping? How about when the intruder is in the next room where your daughter is sleeping? Do you get the combination right the first time or does it take you a few times? Do you even waste time trying to unlock your gun bc after all, the guy is in the room with your daughter (in this hypothetical) NOW and he's not going to wait for you to make sure you're ready? 

All this has to process through your head now and you're complaining about the how many seconds (if that much) exactly it would take to put your ear muffs on? Do you ask the intruder to hold off on whatever he has in mind until you can finish processing all this information so you can react in the best possible way? Remember, your family is depending on you and the chances are pretty decent that you'd be the one hurting your family anyway. 

Furthermore, if you plan on shooting in your house you'll be making damned sure to do it from as close a distance as you can if the intruder is between you and your family....wouldn't want that statistically likely to happen stray round to hit someone you love would you? At such close distances any shot you take, without your suppressor or eat muffs, that disorients you will also disorient the intruder so you're on the same playing field you were to begin with. The situation hasn't drastically changed bc the intruder didn't bring ear muffs of his own.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Bro, you're not cycling with any tren right now are you?


 Maybe a little. And I may or may not have upped the dose last week. 
That's actually a good point dizz. Didn't think of that till now. I'm also stressed the **** out because the meet is in less than 2 weeks. 



Assassin32 said:


> Wow, now that is a very valuable post. Great information. Keep up the solid work.


That's better. Thanks.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 7, 2016)

RISE said:


> There are countries in this world that allow citizens to get guns just as easily as ours, yet they do not have the same problems we have.  We may have to agree to disagree, but I think the problems stem WAY beyond the availability of guns.



It's multi factorial for sure


----------



## RISE (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> Dammit!  Don't spoil my next thread!



Start it bro!  It seems like we're on a roll over here.


----------



## MS1605 (Jan 7, 2016)

Im ctrl+R'ing like a fiend right now...


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 7, 2016)

What other thread has gone on for 20+ pgs and gotten this amount of board participation that didn't involve noodz or a log? This is great lol.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> I completely understand why you think a suppressor would be valuable but that's besides the point.
> 
> Ok, so now you finally answered, the combination safe is enough protection from your daughter getting into the guns. Great. How long does it take you to enter the combination into the safe during the day? How about when you first wake up still groggy? How about when you're still groggy and think there's an intruder in your house and your cortisol and adrenaline are pumping? How about when the intruder is in the next room where your daughter is sleeping? Do you get the combination right the first time or does it take you a few times? Do you even waste time trying to unlock your gun bc after all, the guy is in the room with your daughter (in this hypothetical) NOW and he's not going to wait for you to make sure you're ready?
> 
> ...



I get what you're saying. But let's be clear I never said I needed ear muffs. I have shot in close quarters (a 3 wall shed at an outdoor range) without ear protection twice so that I know what to expect. 
I was simply saying that a suppressor would be nice in that it would eliminate that. It would also be nice for flash suppression, but I've also trained shooting with a blink right as I pull the trigger to alleviate that. I was taught this during training with a coworker who was a former police training instructor. 

What I am trying to say is yes I know there are tons of variables. But all I can do is be as prepared as possible, and eliminate as many variables as possible.


----------



## MS1605 (Jan 7, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> What other thread has gone on for 20+ pgs and gotten this amount of board participation that didn't involve noodz or a log? This is great lol.



If you want noodz ill post some with my SCAR right now just to keep it on topic...


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

StoliFTW said:


> No, i think we need to find a way to minimize innocent killings, by exploring all other options.
> 
> Disarming citizens is not right.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. Just so you know, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, it was just a question. 
As I've said before I think the most effective route is education. Firearms in the hands of responsible and prepared people may not stop attacks, but they could shorten them and/or lessen their impact.


----------



## bronco (Jan 7, 2016)

StoliFTW said:


> You cannot deny there's a correlation between the Gun Laws in the USA and homicides caused by guns.
> 
> Access to guns = will end up in the wrong hands = kill people with guns
> 
> ...



Never going to happen bud sorry... 

You know Ive often wondered what people outside of these boards would think of a guy who buys Illegal anabolic androgenic steroids from an online source, from someone they have never met, not knowing WTF they are injecting into their body, not knowing whether or not what they are putting in their body is even sanitary enough not to cause some type fuked up infection or possibly something even worse. Ive often wondered what those people would think about that. Would they label me/us a "madman". And if so why? My answer would be b/c they don't understand why we do what we do and it is none of their fuking business how I live my life.

Now my question to you is what is a said "madman"? How will a psychiatric evaluation determine who is fit or unfit to own a gun?


----------



## DF (Jan 7, 2016)

RISE said:


> Start it bro!  It seems like we're on a roll over here.



Once this has run its course.


----------



## BigGameHunter (Jan 7, 2016)

Hey Doc you make some good points. I shot at an intruder at my stripper girlfriends duplex.  We got blasted on hot damn upstairs and she went to shake that ass while I slept in the bed.  Back then I carried a .44 special with me (5 shot revolver).  While Im asleep I hear glass breaking and force myself to wake up.  I got my gun from the closet and had to stumble around to get the shells (wad cutters).  

Im naked, locked and loaded and trying to creap 250ish downstairs on this dope head that thinks he is going to steal my chopper from Honeys dining room.  Too much noise, and the glass breaking stops.  He is right down stairs going through the bathroom window which is a direct shot down the stairs.  I emptied that loud MF right there in the hall, through the wall into the bathroom.  Im fuking blind and deaf now.  I cant see shit.  The thief ran away wounded from glass not bullets.  Later app'd at the hospital.

If I would have had a suppressor, ear muffs and a 30 round clip it would have been a much better story.


----------



## DF (Jan 7, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> What other thread has gone on for 20+ pgs and gotten this amount of board participation that didn't involve noodz or a log? This is great lol.



Pretty respectful for the most part as well.  This thread on any other forum would have had death threats & the you wouldn't say that to my face.... BS.


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 7, 2016)

bronco said:


> Never going to happen bud sorry...
> 
> You know Ive often wondered what people outside of these boards would think of a guy who buys Illegal anabolic androgenic steroids from an online source, from someone they have never met, not knowing WTF they are injecting into their body, not knowing whether or not what they are putting in their body is even sanitary enough not to cause some type fuked up infection or possibly something even worse. Ive often wondered what those people would think about that. Would they label me/us a "madman". And if so why? My answer would be b/c they don't understand why we do what we do and it is none of their fuking business how I live my life.
> 
> Now my question to you is what is a said "madman"? How will a psychiatric evaluation determine who is fit or unfit to own a gun?


I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm sure a qualified doctor can up with a series of questions that can hint whether a person in mentally stable.

For example, (extreme example), 'what do you think of Muslims?'. Answer: they are all terrorists..  That would tell me the person has an IQ of one and shouldn't own a gun.

Edit: that wouldn't rule out regular people that snap due to losing a job, wife etc..   Which then brings us back to access/availability of guns..  

I guess it's not fixable. Just gotta accept the fact and buy two more shotguns.


----------



## bronco (Jan 7, 2016)

StoliFTW said:


> I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm sure a qualified doctor can up with a series of questions that can hint whether a person in mentally stable.
> 
> For example, (extreme example), 'what do you think of Muslims?'. Answer: they are all terrorists..  That would tell me the person has an IQ of one and shouldn't own a gun.



Lets say psychiatrist ask bronco. How do you feel about muslims bronco. Bronco answers "I love muslims". bronco gets permit to buy gun then proceeds to go kill muslims the next day... What have we accomplished? Nothing.


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 7, 2016)

bronco said:


> Lets say psychiatrist ask bronco. How do you feel about muslims bronco. Bronco answers "I love muslims". bronco gets permit to buy gun then proceeds to go kill muslims the next day... What have we accomplished? Nothing.


Series of questions. Like a 2h interview..   Again, you're probably right its nonsense..   But what, throw the towel and live with more mall and school shootings?


----------



## RISE (Jan 7, 2016)

Trying to put more restrictions on guns is like putting a band aid on gang green.  All you're doing is hoping it will stop the infection but you never addressed the real underlining problem.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 7, 2016)

BigGameHunter said:


> Hey Doc you make some good points. I shot at an intruder at my stripper girlfriends duplex.  We got blasted on hot damn upstairs and she went to shake that ass while I slept in the bed.  Back then I carried a .44 special with me (5 shot revolver).  While Im asleep I hear glass breaking and force myself to wake up.  I got my gun from the closet and had to stumble around to get the shells (wad cutters).
> 
> Im naked, locked and loaded and trying to creap 250ish downstairs on this dope head that thinks he is going to steal my chopper from Honeys dining room.  Too much noise, and the glass breaking stops.  He is right down stairs going through the bathroom window which is a direct shot down the stairs.  I emptied that loud MF right there in the hall, through the wall into the bathroom.  Im fuking blind and deaf now.  I cant see shit.  The thief ran away wounded from glass not bullets.  Later app'd at the hospital.
> 
> If I would have had a suppressor, ear muffs and a 30 round clip it would have been a much better story.



I think having full auto would be the frosting to that cake BGH.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

BigGameHunter said:


> Hey Doc you make some good points. I shot at an intruder at my stripper girlfriends duplex.  We got blasted on hot damn upstairs and she went to shake that ass while I slept in the bed.  Back then I carried a .44 special with me (5 shot revolver).  While Im asleep I hear glass breaking and force myself to wake up.  I got my gun from the closet and had to stumble around to get the shells (wad cutters).
> 
> Im naked, locked and loaded and trying to creap 250ish downstairs on this dope head that thinks he is going to steal my chopper from Honeys dining room.  Too much noise, and the glass breaking stops.  He is right down stairs going through the bathroom window which is a direct shot down the stairs.  I emptied that loud MF right there in the hall, through the wall into the bathroom.  Im fuking blind and deaf now.  I cant see shit.  The thief ran away wounded from glass not bullets.  Later app'd at the hospital.
> 
> If I would have had a suppressor, ear muffs and a 30 round clip it would have been a much better story.


Had me cheering for you till you said clip


----------



## BigGameHunter (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Had me cheering for you till you said clip



30 rd thingy


----------



## StoliFTW (Jan 7, 2016)

RISE said:


> Trying to put more restrictions on guns is like putting a band aid on gang green.  All you're doing is hoping it will stop the infection but you never addressed the real underlining problem.


I agree with this.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

BigGameHunter said:


> 30 rd thingy



Make it a hunnit


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> Pretty respectful for the most part as well.  This thread on any other forum would have had death threats & the you wouldn't say that to my face.... BS.



You wouldn't say that to my face DF.... But you did tell me how good Snake's meat was


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 7, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> You wouldn't say that to my face DF.... But you did tell me how good Snake's meat was



Just to let everyone know............I would say all of that to jizzles face hahahahahaha


----------



## DF (Jan 7, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> You wouldn't say that to my face DF.... But you did tell me how good Snake's meat was



That sounds dirty.



Armedanddangerous said:


> Just to let everyone know............I would say all of that to jizzles face hahahahahaha



Go ahead, ruin it!  Bully!


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> What other thread has gone on for 20+ pgs and gotten this amount of board participation that didn't involve noodz or a log? This is great lol.



lol, yes...yes it is...!!!


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> Pretty respectful for the most part as well.  This thread on any other forum would have had death threats & the you wouldn't say that to my face.... BS.



lmao, I might not be done.......actually I am...I'm bored


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 7, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> this all started because you didn't know what the actual definition of the word ignorant was. Even after I clearly stated I wasn't using it in a derogatory way.
> There was no problem with dizz and I. There was nothing for you to "back"



lol, you win...you got me all figured out....please move on from quoting my posts and wasting my time......


----------



## Joliver (Jan 7, 2016)

The average American is too stupid to own a firearm.  I'm all for gun control.  There is just no good way to phase them out...being durable goods and all. 

I ask a guy the other day "if the second amendment was so damn important, why wasn't it included in the bill of rights?"  The jack ass said, "I don't pretend to have the wisdom of the founding fathers." You God damn got that right.

In a perfect world, I would snap my fingers and they'd all be gone. Since that can't be done, I own them all...including a super bad SBR.  I need them to protect myself from those that would misuse them.  But for that reason, I wouldn't need them.

The other reason is to ward of a tyrannical government. But realistically few people know how the government works. They don't know  who their state rep/sen, U.S. Rep/Sen, governor, much less how to contact them. They don't ****ing vote. They don't know shit about shit.  They bitch and bemoan the government with a mouth full of government cheese and wash it down with WIC milk--swearing if the "gubamint man shows up to take his rifles, it'll be a bad day"...the government could kill him by not reloading his food stamps, because a hard days work never will. To hell with calling on the second amendment if you can't ****ing spell amendment.

Look at mass shooters--poor pathetic assholes that thought the world was owed them because they were taught they were a special flower that was guaranteed the American Dream of success.  They found out that life was tough and they were just another cog in the machine and embraced some ideology or anti-ideology.

San Bernardino shooters: religion
Oregon: mom was anti-government...stockpiled guns. Son was a virgin...social misfit...exile. Don't give that asshole a slingshot.
Sandy hook: mom placated a psychopath with weapons, got what she deserved in her sleep.
Colorado: joker was always told he was bright...found out he wasn't. Wanted to take it out on the world.
VaTech: hated religion.

There are many more. I can't remember them all. I don't care to try.

I was raised around guns, and am proficient with them. I am so proficient, I shoot them while drunk--regularly. I've jumped a den of spring season yotes with an AR with a beta mag and rained lead on those cute ****ers until there was only teeth and eyeballs left. I open carry every day. I carry concealed when I am forced to for whatever reason.

I am not some democrat pussy that doesn't like guns. I ****ing love them. But deep down, I know that it isn't right to have access to an ar-15 with a beta mag when you are in high school.  

These are my personal beliefs. They aren't influenced by anything other than my observation of society.


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 7, 2016)

Cornelius Bigsby Coanbread J. Oliver said:


> The average American is too stupid to own a firearm.  I'm all for gun control.  There is just no good way to phase them out...being durable goods and all.
> 
> I ask a guy the other day "if the second amendment was so damn important, why wasn't it included in the bill of rights?"  The jack ass said, "I don't pretend to have the wisdom of the founding fathers." You God damn got that right.
> 
> ...



Shut up Jol


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> Pretty respectful for the most part as well.  This thread on any other forum would have had death threats & the you wouldn't say that to my face.... BS.



You don't have the balls to say that to my face DF !!! Got a little carried away on that one .


----------



## BigGameHunter (Jan 7, 2016)

Cornelius Bigsby Coanbread J. Oliver said:


> The other reason is to ward of a tyrannical government. But realistically few people know how the government works. They don't know who their state rep/sen, U.S. Rep/Sen, governor, much less how to contact them. They don't ****ing vote. They don't know shit about shit. They bitch and bemoan the government with a mouth full of government cheese and wash it down with WIC milk--swearing if the "gubamint man shows up to take his rifles, it'll be a bad day"...the government could kill him by not reloading his food stamps, because a hard days work never will. To hell with calling on the second amendment if you can't ****ing spell amendment.



I like this analysis.  I may borrow the gob cheese and the work reference from time to time.


----------



## NbleSavage (Jan 7, 2016)

Cornelius Bigsby Coanbread J. Oliver said:


> The average American is too stupid to own a firearm.  I'm all for gun control.  There is just no good way to phase them out...being durable goods and all.
> 
> I ask a guy the other day "if the second amendment was so damn important, why wasn't it included in the bill of rights?"  The jack ass said, "I don't pretend to have the wisdom of the founding fathers." You God damn got that right.
> 
> ...



Fawkin' Aye. Excellent post.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 7, 2016)

This shit is still going? Damn you DF!


----------



## stonetag (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> Pretty respectful for the most part as well.  This thread on any other forum would have had death threats & the you wouldn't say that to my face.... BS.



"Give me your address fuker, I'll fly there right now and beat your ass" That kind of internet badassness? lolol


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> My lady at the range.  A much better shot than I.




I can vouch for this. My friend who was an NRA Nationally Ranked Match Pistol shooter taught DF and his lady friend to shoot and gave them the CCL course. The report I got was his GF is a natural and absolutely deadly, but poor DF couldn't hit the broad side of a barn...

Sorry to rat you out DF.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 7, 2016)

And just like that, the thread dies.


----------



## DF (Jan 7, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> I can vouch for this. My friend who was an NRA Nationally Ranked Match Pistol shooter taught DF and his lady friend to shoot and gave them the CCL course. The report I got was his GF is a natural and absolutely deadly, but poor DF couldn't hit the broad side of a barn...
> 
> Sorry to rat you out DF.



I'll just have to settle for a shotgun.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 7, 2016)

DF said:


> I'll just have to settle for a shotgun.



Street sweeper!


----------



## stonetag (Jan 8, 2016)

And that's a rap folks......Standing O. DF!


----------



## snake (Jan 8, 2016)

*You knew this was coming from me!*

A few interesting notes from last nights Presidential appeal:

There are 30,000 gun deaths in America, of which 2/3 are suicides. 
Now I’m not unsympathetic to anyone who loses a friend or family member to suicide but the only reason to group suicide into gun violence is to slant the numbers.

Obama never owned a gun but shoots a shotgun at clay birds for sport. 
95% of the guys/gals I know don’t shoot trap even occasionally. His statement was just made to sound like,” Look, I’m one of you guys”. 

The president’s main thrust is to control the sales of firearms at gun shows.
The facts as it was put last night stated 1% of crimes preformed with a gun are acquired at a gun show.

The current murder rate in the U.S. is at an all time low while the ownership of firearms is at an all time high.

Obama proposes that if you buy or sell “A lot” of guns, then you need to be registered. He wouldn’t quantify how much is a lot but said if you make a large profit off of the sales and (I’m not making this up) have business cards, you should have to be registered. 
To the best of my knowledge, criminals are not turning in a 1099 to the federal government nor do they hand out business cards with their name, address and cell number on a business card.

Smart guns that were being developed by Colt were snuffed out by the NRA.
This one I would really like some factual input one. Not saying the NRA didn’t do that, I just need more research.

The president pointed out that there are less traffic deaths because the federal government regulates many aspect of safety in the industry. 
Actually, that statement is not entirely true, as with gun ownership, it’s mandated from the state. But more importantly, there is no right to own a car in the construction, but there is a right to one a gun.

And the most dangerous statements came in two parts at two different times. He said, “We are not trying to take away the American people’s right to protect themselves”. Then sometime later stated that, “A firearm does not necessarily protect you in your home”. 
If you can say that a gun may not protect you in your home, is it a quantum leap to you don’t need a gun in your home? Maybe you don’t need a gun at all?


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 8, 2016)

snake said:


> A few interesting notes from last nights Presidential appeal:
> 
> There are 30,000 gun deaths in America, of which 2/3 are suicides.
> Now I’m not unsympathetic to anyone who loses a friend or family member to suicide but the only reason to group suicide into gun violence is to slant the numbers.
> ...


----------



## stonetag (Jan 8, 2016)

All right, sit the fuk back down, we're not done yet!..lol


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

trodizzle said:


>



Dizzy da fuk?  Of course he can't come out tomorrow & say gimme your guns.  It's gonna be a long haul process.  First it will be everyone has to register.  Second, you can't have this type of fire arm.  Third, you cant have this type of magazine.  Fourth, you can't have is type of ammo. Fifth........ you get the point.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

trodizzle said:


>



Jizz, do you really think if people were not fighting him on the other side he wouldn't of done it already?


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> Dizzy da fuk?  Of course he can't come out tomorrow & say gimme your guns.  It's gonna be a long haul process.  First it will be everyone has to register.  Second, you can't have this type of fire arm.  Third, you cant have this type of magazine.  Fourth, you can't have is type of ammo. Fifth........ you get the point.



Yeah, yeah, yeah. Been hearing the same shit every election cycle from wing-nut republicans and it has yet to pan out.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Jizz, do you really think if people were not fighting him on the other side he wouldn't of done it already?



Has he said he wants to take all the guns from everyone's possession? Unless he has I don't see how we know what anyone else is thinking unless they state their thoughts.


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Been hearing the same shit every election cycle from wing-nut republicans and it has yet to pan out.



Bullshit it hasn't.  Do you actually read my post?  All that shit has happend/happening.  I had my FID card back when I was 13.  That card was a 1 time fee & good for life.  Somewhere along the line those FID cards were trashed & made invalid (actually just found that out last year while taking my firearm class).  Now, I am a proud illegal gun owner.  I have owned a .22 rifle since I was 13.  The damn hippes know they can't get rid of guns tomorrow.  Chip away chip chip chip......


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Has he said he wants to take all the guns from everyone's possession? Unless he has I don't see how we know what anyone else is thinking unless they state their thoughts.



Oh yea Doc.  He's gonna say that... da fuk?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> Bullshit it hasn't.  Do you actually read my post?  All that shit has happend/happening.  I had my FID card back when I was 13.  That card was a 1 time fee & good for life.  Somewhere along the line those FID cards were trashed & made invalid (actually just found that out last year while taking my firearm class).  Now, I am a proud illegal gun owner.  I have owned a .22 rifle since I was 13.  The damn hippes know they can't get rid of guns tomorrow.  Chip away chip chip chip......



When cars were first invented there was no such thing as a speed limit. Now we get tickets for going over the posted limit. When cars first came out their was no need to register them nor yearly taxes on them. Now we need to register our vehicles and pay a sales tax and yearly tax on them. When cars first came out there was no licensing or training required to drive. Now we need to be a certain age, pass an aptitude test, and in some areas go to driver's ed. It's been over 100yrs since the Ford Motor company released it's first vehicle and there are still cars on the road today....


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> When cars were first invented there was no such thing as a speed limit. Now we get tickets for going over the posted limit. When cars first came out their was no need to register them nor yearly taxes on them. Now we need to register our vehicles and pay a sales tax and yearly tax on them. When cars first came out there was no licensing or training required to drive. Now we need to be a certain age, pass an aptitude test, and in some areas go to driver's ed. It's been over 100yrs since the Ford Motor company released it's first vehicle and there are still cars on the road today....



Where's the sited research Doc?


----------



## bronco (Jan 8, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Been hearing the same shit every election cycle from wing-nut republicans and it has yet to pan out.



What DF is saying is already happening on local and state levels, but since your not a gun guy I guess you didn't know that. I'm not sure what a wing nut republican is but there are quite a few dems who feel just as strongly about their gun rights as I do


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> Oh yea Doc.  He's gonna say that... da fuk?



Like Dizzle said, people have been claiming for years now guns will be removed from our hands. Is this going to happen before I'm eligible for senior citizen discounts? Paranoia does not make something so.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> Where's the sited research Doc?



Let's trade, cite the research that says guns will be confiscated and I'll mine


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> When cars were first invented there was no such thing as a speed limit. Now we get tickets for going over the posted limit. When cars first came out their was no need to register them nor yearly taxes on them. Now we need to register our vehicles and pay a sales tax and yearly tax on them. When cars first came out there was no licensing or training required to drive. Now we need to be a certain age, pass an aptitude test, and in some areas go to driver's ed. It's been over 100yrs since the Ford Motor company released it's first vehicle and there are still cars on the road today....



You just validated my chip chip chip away statement. Did you not?


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

Couldn't the POTUS just declare martial law if he wanted to take away firearms from private citizens?


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 8, 2016)

bronco said:


> What DF is saying is already happening on local and state levels, but since your not a gun guy I guess you didn't know that. I'm not sure what a wing nut republican is but there are quite a few dems who feel just as strongly about their gun rights as I do



I can go purchase a handgun at any time. I can get my conceal and carry license at any time. I really don't see the problem here.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> You just validated my chip chip chip away statement. Did you not?



The opposite. 

Cars, while regulated and with continuous changes to those regulations, are still available just like guns. CArs have been legislated for many decades since their inception. Are you claiming those legislation swede in an attempt to take your car from you?


----------



## trodizzle (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> You just validated my chip chip chip away statement. Did you not?



No, I don't think so. I think what he was saying is that we probably have more cars on the road now than we ever did before even though we've added regulations and rules around owning and driving one. Laws and requirements didn't chip away at the car market eventually killing it the same as adding rules and regulations around gun ownership hasn't killed that market. Unwarranted fears my friend, your guns aren't going anywhere.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 8, 2016)

Will everybody STFU and agree to disagree and end this thread.

No one is changing their minds based on this thread, so let it end.

Yes - I do believe, if given the chance, the gov't would take our guns. But they can't thanks to the "wing nuts" that keep them in check. I guess that's kind of the whole point of the second amendment.....the ability to defend yourself, and keep the gov't in check. Does anyone really think that if the gov't could take all private citizens guns without any push back that they wouldn't do it?

The founding fathers were "wing nuts". They would have had another revolution when FDR was in office, never mind what has happened since then. They would laugh at us and call us all a bunch of pussies.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

Rabble rabble rabble!


----------



## bronco (Jan 8, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> I can go purchase a handgun at any time. I can get my conceal and carry license at any time. I really don't see the problem here.



Go ask the people in Maryland how easy it is to get a concealed carry license. Reasearch obama's voting record on issuing concealed carry permits to American civilians. 

I see a big problem here


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> Will everybody STFU and agree to disagree and end this thread.
> 
> No one is changing their minds based on this thread, so let it end.
> 
> ...



If the government took all your guns away from you why would they care about push back? They'd have all the guns at that point.....I mean judging by some of the responses in this thread you'd think there's no way for a concerned citizen to take on the government without a gun.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> I mean judging by some of the responses in this thread you'd think there's no way for a concerned citizen to take on the government without a gun.



Revolution is synonymous with blood shed.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> If the government took all your guns away from you why would they care about push back? They'd have all the guns at that point.....I mean judging by some of the responses in this thread you'd think there's no way for a concerned citizen to take on the government without a gun.



By push back, I mean ATF agents showing up at peoples houses to confiscate guns but getting shot for trying. Basically, the gov't knows that if they tried door to door confiscation of guns, there would be a violent uprising. That is why they aren't doing it.

If they had someone who could talk like Hitler and get everyone to willfully and peacefully give up their weapons, they would do it in a second. 

That's my point.


----------



## bronco (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> When cars were first invented there was no such thing as a speed limit. Now we get tickets for going over the posted limit. When cars first came out their was no need to register them nor yearly taxes on them. Now we need to register our vehicles and pay a sales tax and yearly tax on them. When cars first came out there was no licensing or training required to drive. Now we need to be a certain age, pass an aptitude test, and in some areas go to driver's ed. It's been over 100yrs since the Ford Motor company released it's first vehicle and there are still cars on the road today....



Off topic 

I don't like speed limits and despise slow drivers

Taxation is just a legal way the govt can steal your hard earned money

In my state there is no real driver training you just need to be smart enough to pass a test, and drive a car around the block with out wrecking lol


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

Don't you think it's more of a mental health issue than a gun issue?


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> Don't you think it's more of a mental health issue than a gun issue?



Yep. The tools being used are getting the blame instead of the people using them.

Like was pointed out before, taking away the tools isn't going to stop anything. If someone wants others dead, they're going to find a way to make it happen.


----------



## LeanHerm (Jan 8, 2016)

Would you fuks shut up already Jesus!!! You guys are out doing me in the crybaby department.  I never thought that could be accomplished, I was wrong again.   Shut the he'll up and got buy some damn hammers already.

The government can have my guns bullets first. End of argument.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Yep. *The tools being used are getting the blame instead of the people using them.*
> 
> Like was pointed out before, taking away the tools isn't going to stop anything. If someone wants others dead, they're going to find a way to make it happen.



On a tangent, this absolutely outrages me when it comes to people suing arms manufacturers because their products were used in a shooting. 
I don't see how anyone who has a lick of common sense, dem/repub/lib/whatever, can say that that makes sense. 

You couldn't sue craftsman if I killed your wife with one of their wrenches.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Revolution is synonymous with blood shed.



1) Is a gun the only way you can shed blood?

And 

2) revolution is not synonymous with bloodshed. The Glorious Revolution in England aka the Bloodless Revolution, the 1986 revolution in the Phillipines, the 1989 revolution in Germany, the Soviet Revolution all were peaceful revolutions. If you want an example closer to home look to Hawaii which had two peaceful revolutions. 

A logical question would be does having revolution make an excuse to shed blood?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

bronco said:


> Off topic
> 
> I don't like speed limits and despise slow drivers



Agreed. I hate them as well and follow my own speed limit. You could say I'm having my own revolution without bloodshed. But this fact still doesn't change that the legislation didn't force you to give up owning a car. 



> Taxation is just a legal way the govt can steal your hard earned money



Agreed



> In my state there is no real driver training you just need to be smart enough to pass a test, and drive a car around the block with out wrecking lol



so that means something can be successfully legislated without also forcing you to give up your right to drive.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> By push back, I mean ATF agents showing up at peoples houses to confiscate guns but getting shot for trying. Basically, the gov't knows that if they tried door to door confiscation of guns, there would be a violent uprising. That is why they aren't doing it.
> 
> If they had someone who could talk like Hitler and get everyone to willfully and peacefully give up their weapons, they would do it in a second.
> 
> That's my point.



1) you're using guns to protect you from a tyrannical government. Since when does a tyrannical government care if citizens get shot?

2) the government could pass legislTion preventing gun sales tomorrow against everyone's will and they'd just need to wait out the people who stockpiled ammo until they ran out.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> 1) Is a gun the only way you can shed blood?
> 
> And
> 
> ...



When you're up against private military forces like Xe/Blackwater (now Academi), throwing rocks and slinging arrows ain't going to cut it. How do you propose to influence REAL change when you've got the barrel of a paid mercenaries assault rifle pointed in your face?

For the record, people still died in the "Bloodless" revolution you cited. They were few, yes. But there was still a body count at the end of the day.

Yes, yes it does. People kill people, always have always will. It is the fastest most impact way to influence change.


And now I'm on a watch list somewhere.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> 1) you're using guns to protect you from a tyrannical government. Since when does a tyrannical government care if citizens get shot?
> 
> 2) the government could pass legislTion preventing gun sales tomorrow against everyone's will and they'd just need to wait out the people who stockpiled ammo until they ran out.



Answer to question 1 - It doesn't. Where did I say they did? Their own people will get shot too, and there are a lot more gun owners in the country then federal agents who could possibly take the guns. Even if half the gun owners peacefully gave up their weapons, the other half would still outnumber the agents by an unknown, but huge number. Unless they want to break more laws and unleash the army on the streets of America, they don't have a chance. 

Answer to question 2 - sure they could, but because of the 2nd amendment, that law would be thrown out by the Supreme Court in a New York minute because it would be Unconstitutional. 

I really don't want to keep arguing over nonsense.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> When you're up against private military forces like Xe/Blackwater (now Academi), throwing rocks and slinging arrows ain't going to cut it. How do you propose to influence REAL change when you've got the barrel of a paid mercenaries assault rifle pointed in your face?
> 
> For the record, people still died in the "Bloodless" revolution you cited. They were few, yes. But there was still a body count at the end of the day.
> 
> ...



The Soviets and Germans didn't face the barrel of a gun during their respective revolutions? I'm not saying death won't happen in a revolution, just that saying it's synonymous is erroneous. Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi both found ways to avoid bloodshed at their hands in the face of armed resistance. I would say if they shot and miles people you're right, it would have been faster possibly but not more impactful. People to this day still talk of their accomplishments. 

I know Ron will be at the door with a howitzer should anyone try to revolt and steal his gym socks


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> I know Ron will be at the door with a howitzer should anyone try to revolt and steal his gym socks



They're family heirlooms by now. lol


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> Answer to question 1 - It doesn't. Where did I say they did? Their own people will get shot too, and there are a lot more gun owners in the country then federal agents who could possibly take the guns. Even if half the gun owners peacefully gave up their weapons, the other half would still outnumber the agents by an unknown, but huge number. Unless they want to break more laws and unleash the army on the streets of America, they don't have a chance.



I doubt the government cares about it's own people. They send them to their death in pointless conflicts regularly. 



> Answer to question 2 - sure they could, but because of the 2nd amendment, that law would be thrown out by the Supreme Court in a New York minute because it would be Unconstitutional.



You can't use the 2nd amendment in the ways you are. If the 2nd amendment can be used to overturn the government banning guns tomorrow then it can also be used to overturn the banning of guns chip by chip by chip as DF has said.  



> I really don't want to keep arguing over nonsense.



Fair enough, I respect the contributions you've made to this thread even if we don't see the same vision.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> They're family heirlooms by now. lol



I'm still waiting on my pair!


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> I doubt the government cares about it's own people. They send them to their death in pointless conflicts regularly.



Which is exactly why we shouldn't give a shit about them either.

Rabble rabble rabble!


----------



## DarksideSix (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> When you're up against private military forces like Xe/Blackwater (now Academi), throwing rocks and slinging arrows ain't going to cut it. How do you propose to influence REAL change when you've got the barrel of a paid mercenaries assault rifle pointed in your face?
> 
> For the record, people still died in the "Bloodless" revolution you cited. They were few, yes. But there was still a body count at the end of the day.
> 
> ...




Come on man, don't be throwing out the term "mercenaries" like that is going to matter.  I worked for Black Water /Xe for 4 years and it is by far way more passive then the fuking media portrays it to be.  95% of PMC's are either former military or law enforcement and we all took that oath so I highly doubt they are going to turn on the American people.  

IF, by some snowball chance in hell there was a gun ban and they actually tried to enforce a confiscation you can bet your left nut that 95% of LEO's out there would blatantly ignore that order.  it would be putting them in unnecessary danger.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Which is exactly why we shouldn't give a shit about them either.
> 
> Rabble rabble rabble!



Just bc the bully wants to get in the mud doesn't mean I have to also. I'm no fan of the government either but I'm only going to be forced into violence as a last resort bc my convictions are to do no harm. I'm pretty successful so far in that regard.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

DarksideSix said:


> Come on man, don't be throwing out the term "mercenaries" like that is going to matter.  I worked for Black Water /Xe for 4 years and it is by far way more passive then the fuking media portrays it to be.  95% of PMC's are either former military or law enforcement and we all took that oath so I highly doubt they are going to turn on the American people.
> 
> IF, by some snowball chance in hell there was a gun ban and they actually tried to enforce a confiscation you can bet your left nut that 95% of LEO's out there would blatantly ignore that order.  it would be putting them in unnecessary danger.



By definition, private militaries are mercenaries. It wasn't a word chosen for shock value.


----------



## DarksideSix (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> By definition, private militaries are mercenaries. It wasn't a word chosen for shock value.



What I ment was, don't act like just because they get paid for it, that they're all a bunch of heartless assholes that would turn on the people.


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

DarksideSix said:


> What I ment was, don't act like just because they get paid for it, that they're all a bunch of heartless assholes that would turn on the people.



It's never as black and white as all or none.

Money talks and I have no faith in people.

This is now way off topic.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Jan 8, 2016)

DarksideSix said:


> Come on man, don't be throwing out the term "mercenaries" like that is going to matter.  I worked for Black Water /Xe for 4 years and it is by far way more passive then the fuking media portrays it to be.  95% of PMC's are either former military or law enforcement and we all took that oath so I highly doubt they are going to turn on the American people.
> 
> IF, by some snowball chance in hell there was a gun ban and they actually tried to enforce a confiscation you can bet your left nut that 95% of LEO's out there would blatantly ignore that order.  it would be putting them in unnecessary danger.



Every LEO I know is a gun guy. They all say the same thing. If they were told to "Go take their guns", they would tell the boss to go take them themselves.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> When cars were first invented there was no such thing as a speed limit. Now we get tickets for going over the posted limit. When cars first came out their was no need to register them nor yearly taxes on them. Now we need to register our vehicles and pay a sales tax and yearly tax on them. When cars first came out there was no licensing or training required to drive. Now we need to be a certain age, pass an aptitude test, and in some areas go to driver's ed. It's been over 100yrs since the Ford Motor company released it's first vehicle and there are still cars on the road today....



Doc when cars were first invented they were slower than a man could run, and speeding tickets are only for the money 

Registration of cars is one of the biggest scams ever and goes against the Constitutional right of passage, so what is it for........money

Don't get me started on taxes and the misuse of the money going in and out

All of the little laws that they make lead up to it being almost impossible for someone to not break the law, and God forbid you should tell a cop what you think about it...............I'm rambling now and getting way off topic I'll stop now hahaha


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> Couldn't the POTUS just declare martial law if he wanted to take away firearms from private citizens?



He could try hahahaha


----------



## anewguy (Jan 8, 2016)

What a hot topic right now...  And meanwhile guns are flying off the shelf in stores.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

anewguy said:


> What a hot topic right now...  And meanwhile guns are flying off the shelf in stores.



The pres is the greatest gun salesman ever.........EVER hahaha


----------



## anewguy (Jan 8, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> The pres is the greatest gun salesman ever.........EVER hahaha



He is secretly placed there by the NRA I hear.. lol


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

500th post in this train-wreck thread!!


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> 500th post in this train-wreck thread!!



Someone please delete one of my posts so it looks like ron can't count hahahaha


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> 500th post in this train-wreck thread!!



This thread is the only reason Andy is here.


----------



## AlphaD (Jan 8, 2016)




----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> This thread is the only reason Andy is here.



And you sexy man!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## saltylifter (Jan 8, 2016)

Gun control is scary and will just lead to more mass shooting killing even more people. Can wait tell this election is done and over then Obama will be out of office. He should be impeached and Hillary should be in prison.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> 500th post in this train-wreck thread!!



My pump thread isn't gonna get anywhere near that amount. For my bday I want you, Andy and Red to post in that thread. Even if it's just noodz


----------



## Iron1 (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> My pump thread isn't gonna get anywhere near that amount. For my bday I want you, Andy and Red to post in that thread. Even if it's just noodz



just noods? JUST noods?!

Those are works of art to be cherished my friend. :32 (18):

Without giving too much away, expect something like this


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


> just noods? JUST noods?!
> 
> Those are works of art to be cherished my friend. :32 (18):
> 
> Without giving too much away, expect something like this



My boner could drill through a tank right now.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 8, 2016)

Iron1 said:


>



god damn she's hot love long legs and torso on a fit chick....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay hotter than short and stumpy!!


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

leanherm said:


> would you fuks shut up already jesus!!! You guys are out doing me in the crybaby department.  I never thought that could be accomplished, i was wrong again.   Shut the he'll up and got buy some damn hammers already.
> 
> The government can have my guns bullets first. End of argument.



Herm! Pickem!!!!!!!


----------



## RustyShackelford (Jan 8, 2016)

anewguy said:


> What a hot topic right now...  And meanwhile guns are flying off the shelf in stores.



This is no shit. I have a friend who manages a sporting goods store in the closest city to me. They said that they normally sell 2 guns per day in January...........they are averaging 25 a day since obamas address. 
And the ammo aisle was pretty bare also.


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

Why is it that guns can get blame when some nut job goes off & commits mass murder?  Then we have some mental fuk go drive a car into a bunch of pedestrians & we blame the person and car shares no blame?

Doc?


----------



## stonetag (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> Why is it that guns can get blame when some nut job goes off & commits mass murder?  Then we have some mental fuk go drive a car into a bunch of pedestrians & we blame the person and car shares no blame?
> 
> Doc?



Got to watch them god dam fords!


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> Why is it that guns can get blame when some nut job goes off & commits mass murder?  Then we have some mental fuk go drive a car into a bunch of pedestrians & we blame the person and car shares no blame?
> 
> Doc?



Because they take a test, are licensed, have them registered, inspected, and pay taxes on them......stop asking dumb shit DF hahahahahaha


----------



## snake (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> The opposite.
> 
> Cars, while regulated and with continuous changes to those regulations, are still available just like guns. CArs have been legislated for many decades since their inception. Are you claiming those legislation swede in an attempt to take your car from you?



Like I said in my earlier post, cars are not protected under the constitution as guns are.

You have the right to bear arms, you may not have the right to bear left.


----------



## Bullseye Forever (Jan 8, 2016)

snake said:


> Like I said in my earlier post, cars are not protected under the constitution as guns are.
> 
> You have the right to bear arms, you may not have the right to bear left.


Amen bud!!


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> Because they take a test, are licensed, have them registered, inspected, and pay taxes on them......stop asking dumb shit DF hahahahahaha



Dammit Andy!


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 8, 2016)

This is a perfect story for Jol's theory that most Americans are too stupid to own guns. A couple weeks ago in Fridley, MN a dude who had a conceal and carry license was in Target. He had his gun around his leg inside his pants. He reached down to adjust it and fired off a round that bounced off the floor and went through the ceiling above a checkout register. He then ran out of the store laughing with his girlfriend. Later, after he was found and arrested he said he apparently didn't have the safety on. These are the kind of ****in idiots that think they are gonna stop a mass shooting and really all they are doing is putting anyone around them in danger. 

Maybe Jol is right. Most Americans are too stupid to own guns. Is there any way to test IQ before issuing gun licenses? Here's the idiot running out of Target laughing after he accidentally fired off a round....


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

snake said:


> Like I said in my earlier post, cars are not protected under the constitution as guns are.
> 
> You have the right to bear arms, you may not have the right to bear left.



We also have the right of unrestricted interstate travel Snakeypoo


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

snake said:


> Like I said in my earlier post, cars are not protected under the constitution as guns are.
> 
> You have the right to bear arms, you may not have the right to bear left.





DF said:


> Dammit Andy!



Anything you can put your ass on and get somewhere is protected by the Constitution under the right of passage

And df that was  a joke, because its so fukking stupid........... I thought all would get it lol


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 8, 2016)

DF said:


> Why is it that guns can get blame when some nut job goes off & commits mass murder?  Then we have some mental fuk go drive a car into a bunch of pedestrians & we blame the person and car shares no blame?
> 
> Doc?



Cars already come wih significant restrictions DF (and when they decide to add more of them most aren't likely to complain as much as they do for guns nor will you think the government is out to confiscate your car). But also you can see a car coming at you bc it's pretty big and you can't hide it in your beltline. You also can't kill someone with a car from 40ft away. 

Should we also look at the statistics of total traffic accidents, total drivers on the road, number of fatal traffic accidents vs number of non fatal traffic accidents and then compare to number of gun accidents, total gun owners, number of fatal gun accidents vs number of non fatal accidents? Guess which statistic is more damaging?


----------



## DF (Jan 8, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> This is a perfect story for Jol's theory that most Americans are too stupid to own guns. A couple weeks ago in Fridley, MN a dude who had a conceal and carry license was in Target. He had his gun around his leg inside his pants. He reached down to adjust it and fired off a round that bounced off the floor and went through the ceiling above a checkout register. He then ran out of the store laughing with his girlfriend. Later, after he was found and arrested he said he apparently didn't have the safety on. These are the kind of ****in idiots that think they are gonna stop a mass shooting and really all they are doing is putting anyone around them in danger.
> 
> Maybe Jol is right. Most Americans are too stupid to own guns. Is there any way to test IQ before issuing gun licenses? Here's the idiot running out of Target laughing after he accidentally fired off a round....
> 
> Dont tell Jol,  but yes he is right.  We have a dumb Fuk epidemic in this country.


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 8, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Cars already come wih significant restrictions DF (and when they decide to add more of them most aren't likely to complain as much as they do for guns nor will you think the government is out to confiscate your car). But also you can see a car coming at you bc it's pretty big and you can't hide it in your beltline. You also can't kill someone with a car from 40ft away.
> 
> Should we also look at the statistics of total traffic accidents, total drivers on the road, number of fatal traffic accidents vs number of non fatal traffic accidents and then compare to number of gun accidents, total gun owners, number of fatal gun accidents vs number of non fatal accidents? Guess which statistic is more damaging?



You still don't hear anyone trying to restrict cars because "some" people are careless or 
hit people on purpose


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> You still don't hear anyone trying to restrict cars because "some" people are careless and hit people on purpose



Yea I do. They want to drop the speed limit on my road as a matter of fact. They also want to make it take longer to get your license as well as include mandatory road time with an instructor over here


----------



## DF (Jan 9, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Cars already come wih significant restrictions DF (and when they decide to add more of them most aren't likely to complain as much as they do for guns nor will you think the government is out to confiscate your car). But also you can see a car coming at you bc it's pretty big and you can't hide it in your beltline. You also can't kill someone with a car from 40ft away.
> 
> Should we also look at the statistics of total traffic accidents, total drivers on the road, number of fatal traffic accidents vs number of non fatal traffic accidents and then compare to number of gun accidents, total gun owners, number of fatal gun accidents vs number of non fatal accidents? Guess which statistic is more damaging?



Lol,  yes!!!! I wanna see stats!

The mother fukrs kept throwing the mandatory seatbelt shit at us until it passed.  Assholes!


----------



## anewguy (Jan 9, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Cars already come wih significant restrictions DF (and when they decide to add more of them most aren't likely to complain as much as they do for guns nor will you think the government is out to confiscate your car). But also you can see a car coming at you bc it's pretty big and you can't hide it in your beltline. You also can't kill someone with a car from 40ft away.
> 
> Should we also look at the statistics of total traffic accidents, total drivers on the road, number of fatal traffic accidents vs number of non fatal traffic accidents and then compare to number of gun accidents, total gun owners, number of fatal gun accidents vs number of non fatal accidents? Guess which statistic is more damaging?



I've heard many people spouting the 30,000 per year in America number lately.  they typically don't mention the fact that 2/3 of these are suicides. Not that 10,000 isn't a lot (if these numbers are even accurate) but I'm wondering how many of those remaining 10,000 are by LEO. 

I don't really know what the answer to this whole debate is but I do know that homicide was around long before firearms.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

DF said:


> Lol,  yes!!!! I wanna see your pp!!



DF! I don't know what to say but I'm flattered. I always thought you were a sexy fukk too <3


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

DF said:


> Lol,  yes!!!! I wanna see stats!
> 
> The mother fukrs kept throwing the mandatory seatbelt shit at us until it passed.  Assholes!





anewguy said:


> I've heard many people spouting the 30,000 per year in America number lately.  they typically don't mention the fact that 2/3 of these are suicides. Not that 10,000 isn't a lot (if these numbers are even accurate) but I'm wondering how many of those remaining 10,000 are by LEO.
> 
> I don't really know what the answer to this whole debate is but I do know that homicide was around long before firearms.



I'm 2013, latest year the figures I saw included, 23,197 males died in auto accidents and 9579 females died so say 33,000 (these include suicides mind you). That right there is just BARELY more than gun deaths of that 30,000 number you stated (which also includes suicides) and we know there are millions of more drivers on the road than there are fun owners. 

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.


----------



## DF (Jan 9, 2016)

32,719 deaths via mva in 2013.... Suck it Doc!  

Can't see your PP thru all the hair.

Fast bastard....


----------



## Armedanddangerous (Jan 9, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Yea I do. They want to drop the speed limit on my road as a matter of fact. They also want to make it take longer to get your license as well as include mandatory road time with an instructor over here



So the plan is to make more laws until you can't walk down the street without breaking one?


----------



## anewguy (Jan 9, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> I'm 2013, latest year the figures I saw included, 23,197 males died in auto accidents and 9579 females died so say 33,000 (these include suicides mind you). That right there is just BARELY more than gun deaths of that 30,000 number you stated (which also includes suicides) and we know there are millions of more drivers on the road than there are fun owners.
> 
> Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.



Yeah but I want to see the numbers without suicides. Suicides shouldn't count as gun violence IMO. If someone wants to end their life, they will.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

Armedanddangerous said:


> So the plan is to make more laws until you can't walk down the street without breaking one?



No but I'm not crying wolf about that either.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

anewguy said:


> Yeah but I want to see the numbers without suicides. Suicides shouldn't count as gun violence IMO. If someone wants to end their life, they will.



Suicides should count as automobile violence either even though my personal guess is it's more common with guns than cars. It'll take some time to dig through the stats and try to eliminate suicides unless somebody already did that.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

DF said:


> 32,719 deaths via mva in 2013.... Suck it Doc!
> 
> Can't see your PP thru all the hair.
> 
> Fast bastard....



If I part my pubes like the Red Sea you can see it In all it's 3in of glory!!!


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

And ironically enough, my cousin's husband wants to take me to the range the state police use for their practice for my bday soon. Doc's gonna be shooting shit up...but I'm going to leave my turban at home just in case.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 9, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Cars already come wih significant restrictions DF (and when they decide to add more of them most aren't likely to complain as much as they do for guns nor will you think the government is out to confiscate your car). But also you can see a car coming at you bc it's pretty big and you can't hide it in your beltline. You also can't kill someone with a car from 40ft away.
> 
> Should we also look at the statistics of total traffic accidents, total drivers on the road, number of fatal traffic accidents vs number of non fatal traffic accidents and then compare to number of gun accidents, total gun owners, number of fatal gun accidents vs number of non fatal accidents? Guess which statistic is more damaging?


So you're saying you think it's perfectly fine that a firearm manufacturer be sued because of how someone misuses their product?


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 9, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> I'm 2013, latest year the figures I saw included, 23,197 males died in auto accidents and 9579 females died so say 33,000 (these include suicides mind you). That right there is just BARELY more than gun deaths of that 30,000 number you stated (which also includes suicides) and we know there are millions of more drivers on the road than there are fun owners.
> 
> Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.



We KNOW this? For someone so set on statistics, you sure like mixing in generalizations.

With all due respect, I fail to see any intent or purpose behind your posts. What I mean by that is you have all these stats and facts, yet make no stand on what you believe. Just seems at times that your sole purpose is stirring the pot.


----------



## DF (Jan 9, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> And ironically enough, my cousin's husband wants to take me to the range the state police use for their practice for my bday soon. Doc's gonna be shooting shit up...but I'm going to leave my turban at home just in case.



Jeezus!  Sounds like a trap Doc!


----------



## DF (Jan 9, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> We KNOW this? For someone so set on statistics, you sure like mixing in generalizations.
> 
> With all due respect, I fail to see any intent or purpose behind your posts. What I mean by that is you have all these stats and facts, yet make no stand on what you believe. Just seems at times that your sole purpose is stirring the pot.



Doc lives for a debate.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 9, 2016)

DF said:


> Doc lives for a debate.



That's fine, I just wish he would clarify what point he's trying to make. His input has been far from worthless, yet he makes no clear end goal. Almost to the point that is seems intentional.


----------



## RISE (Jan 9, 2016)

Holy shit this is still going on?  Lol


----------



## bronco (Jan 9, 2016)

RISE said:


> Holy shit this is still going on?  Lol



I blame Snake for these last 7 pages... Fuk you Snake...:32 (1):

As for the rest of you fuks. Your all a bunch of fuking "wingnuts"


----------



## Assassin32 (Jan 9, 2016)

bronco said:


> I blame Snake for these last 7 pages... Fuk you Snake...:32 (1):
> 
> As for the rest of you fuks. Your all a bunch of fuking "wingnuts"



Don't blame Snake. He's old and confused.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> So you're saying you think it's perfectly fine that a firearm manufacturer be sued because of how someone misuses their product?



Happens all the time with other products too. If criminal negligence can be proven then of course. If there is no negligence then it depends on the context. 

The link between cancer and cigarettes has been know since the 1940s and 1950s, yet bc of the propaganda from manufacturers, this was swept under the rug for decades. 

Quoted from the Tob Control 2012;21:87-91 doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050338



> Cigarette manufacturers disputed this evidence, as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to salvage cigarette sales. Propagandising the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry measurements of the impact of denialist propaganda.



^^^ ironically enough, their actions are similar to those of the NRA 

Anyway back to the point of the story. In 1998 a class action suit was brought up against cigarette manufacturers bc of the deaths related to and caused by smoking. The plaintiffs won of course and the cigarette companies paid out $206 Billion dollars. That's $206,000,000,000. 

So yes, a company can be held liable for it's products. For guns, I think it's mainly strict liability which is usually very hard to get and a new way through risk-utility balancing. 

But don't lose sleep yet! The same  Congress you claim is out to take your guns also passed a law called  The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. What's this law do you ask? Well it gives gun manufacturers almost complete immunity from being prosecuted for negligence. So unlike ANY OTHER INDUSTRY, the gun manufacturers can not be charged with negligence except for some few exceptions. Wow, you mean to tell me the same Congress you say is clamoring to take your guns away helped gun manufacturers escape negligence? Say it ain't so....


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> We KNOW this? For someone so set on statistics, you sure like mixing in generalizations.



And when you take the time to post actual statistics you might be onto something but as it stands you haven't really done that have you? Why is the burden on me to be the one always to post them? If you haven't the time nor patience to go look for them yourself you should rethink calling me out on making a generalization THAT IS SO OBVIOUS A CHILD WOULD REALSIZE IT AND I WANTED TO SAVE THE TIME LOOKIMG FOR IT AND I THOUGHT NOBODY WOULD BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO CONTEST IT. pick your battles bc this generalization should be obvious to anyone old enough to own a gun. 

And just for shits and giggles:

PEW research estimates around 80,000,000 gun owners in the ENTIRE US
Statista estimates there are 81,000,000 registered drivers.... In 6 states. Do you want to get your calculator out so you can do the math yourself on the other 44 states?




> With all due respect, I fail to see any intent or purpose behind your posts. What I mean by that is you have all these stats and facts, yet make no stand on what you believe. Just seems at times that your sole purpose is stirring the pot.



I made my stance perfectly clear in my first few posts in this thread; whether or not you remember it idk. I'm for finding a way to eliminate guns in the hands of criminals, the mentally handicapped that cannot appreciate the dangers involved or are prone to violence or are not mentally stable, and reduce the senseless gun violence. Whether or not this involves gun control as we know it now or other methods I don't care since the crying wolf story of gun confiscation by the government holds little weight when thought about logically. And please don't try to twist my words into saying I want to rid the country of all guns or from people who use them for sport or self defense or any other legal reason. I think a legal, well educated and responsible owner should be able to have as many guns as they want and can afford and as much ammunition as they want. I'm not sure how I feel on high capacity magazines since you posted out you can have 40 loaded 15rd-magazines ready which doesn't defeat the purpose of limiting magazine capacity but still undermines it's effectiveness. Maybe allow them to people who pass certain qualifications? Idk. I also believe, if you are convicted of a crime and use a gun to commit the crime you should be charged twice: once for the crime and once for using the gun to commit it with the sentences to be served consecutively. This will create an economic incentive to criminals to try to avoid gun violence even though it's fool hardy to think it will stop all gun violence.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Jan 9, 2016)

Don't get personal you ****s... we don't do that here... carry on


----------



## DF (Jan 9, 2016)

So,  what are you trying to say exactly Doc?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

DF said:


> So,  what are you trying to say exactly Doc?



That this shit does your cause more harm than good







Parading around your weapons in an area of concentrated civilians to make a political point is not only reprehensible but makes it harder for those who fsvor gun control to empathize with you. Open carry is fine and dandy but this is not....Joliver excluded bc he's from Alabama. Not to mention if any of these fukks got shot they'd be the first to sue everybody including the gun manufacturer to get a payout. At least take the magazine out or something so that if some crazy asshole managed to get the gun away it'd only be usable as a club.


----------



## DF (Jan 9, 2016)

Post #522 already covered this Doc.


----------



## jennerrator (Jan 9, 2016)

DF said:


> Post #522 already covered this Doc.



we like photos DF!...........................................................

and what did I tell you...energizer bunny....kill it doc


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 9, 2016)

Doc: please understand that when I said "with all due respect" I actually meant it. I simply wanted you to bring your views together in a single post, so that I could better understand where you stand. I feel like you did that, so thank you. 
It just gets a little blurry when spread out over this many pages, and you alternatively post stats for both sides.


----------



## DF (Jan 9, 2016)

Jenner said:


> we like photos DF!...........................................................
> 
> and what did I tell you...energizer bunny....kill it doc



Doc can shovel out some bullshit & make it seem legit.  Doc do you do sales for a living?


----------



## RustyShackelford (Jan 9, 2016)

RISE said:


> Holy shit this is still going on?  Lol



Yup.       .


----------



## Joliver (Jan 9, 2016)

Assassin32 said:


> This is a perfect story for Jol's theory that most Americans are too stupid to own guns. A couple weeks ago in Fridley, MN a dude who had a conceal and carry license was in Target. He had his gun around his leg inside his pants. He reached down to adjust it and fired off a round that bounced off the floor and went through the ceiling above a checkout register. He then ran out of the store laughing with his girlfriend. Later, after he was found and arrested he said he apparently didn't have the safety on. These are the kind of ****in idiots that think they are gonna stop a mass shooting and really all they are doing is putting anyone around them in danger.
> 
> Maybe Jol is right. Most Americans are too stupid to own guns. Is there any way to test IQ before issuing gun licenses? Here's the idiot running out of Target laughing after he accidentally fired off a round....
> 
> View attachment 2346



YES!!!  But there is also another problem.  Stupid will always be a problem.  The target shooter was stupid.  He was ill prepared to use the tool he carried.  He was carrying for the cool factor (see hat cocked off to the side....I'm surprised it isn't straight billed).

The other reason is self absorption.  You all know this.  How many of you know people that post ever little detail of their lives--where they are, what they are doing, bowel regularity, food consumption, personal thoughts on life?  They have built their own personal fiefdom around themselves and have become the center of their own universe.  Look at all the god damn "open letters" that make the news: "Mom writes open letter to man who told her to keep her retarded 18 month old baby out of the movie theater"...."Woman writes open letter to fat shamers."  Holy shit man....keep your retarded baby out of the movie theater.  No brainer.  Some of you know I have an autistic son.  That boy can wreck shit when he decides the fun is over.  I would never feel as if it were a good idea to take him to a theater.  Plus at 18 months, is the kid getting anything out of a movie? No.  But still...she demands social justice--AND IT MAKES THE NEWS.  We create these monsters and wonder why they self destruct and kill. People do not understand that they are unimportant.  Back in the day, when you decided life wasn't worth living you shot yourself.  Now, they want to see how many they can take with them--like some macabre game that imparts permanent notoriety. 



DF said:


> Dont tell Jol,  but yes he is right.  We have a dumb Fuk epidemic in this country.



I no I am rite. you donot have to tell me that peeple are dum.  Evin in ur post you mispeled ****. tipical amurican shit their.



PillarofBalance said:


> Don't get personal you ****s... we don't do that here... carry on



Yeah!!! POB is right!!! You all better listen to the soulless ginger, or else.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Doc: please understand that when I said "with all due respect" I actually meant it. I simply wanted you to bring your views together in a single post, so that I could better understand where you stand. I feel like you did that, so thank you.
> It just gets a little blurry when spread out over this many pages, and you alternatively post stats for both sides.



Fair enough. After 37pgs the lines do get blurred.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 9, 2016)

DF said:


> Doc can shovel out some bullshit & make it seem legit.  Doc do you do sales for a living?



No sir. I have some minor sales experience from my teenaged years but nothing too significant. I don't like having to choose between making a commission and shoveling bullshit.


----------



## wallyd (Jan 10, 2016)

Flyingdragon said:


> Background checks are not done at gun shows.....IMO there is no need for anyone to own an assault weapon, a simple handgun is more than enough.  Also clips that can hold 15 or more rounds is simply only meant to kill as many as possible in a short period of time, again this type of clip is meant for the military.....What the military needs versus an American needs are completely different.  I do not own a gun and never will....



I don't know if it's different where you live but I have bought more than one gun from a gun show & I have had background checks done on EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION.


----------



## ToolSteel (Jan 10, 2016)

wallyd said:


> I don't know if it's different where you live but I have bought more than one gun from a gun show & I have had background checks done on EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION.


Don't bother.


----------



## TheLupinator (Jan 11, 2016)

Cornelius Bigsby Coanbread J. Oliver said:


> We create these monsters and wonder why they self destruct and kill. People do not understand that they are unimportant.  Back in the day, when you decided life wasn't worth living you shot yourself.  Now, they want to see how many they can take with them--like some macabre game that imparts permanent notoriety.





The long road of democratic liberal mentality and this is where we are. Now let's pass a law to fix it... Doesn't work that way.


----------



## GuerillaKilla (Jan 11, 2016)

I sometimes make love to my wife while shouldering an AR and holding 45 acps.


----------



## nissan11 (Jan 11, 2016)

Good read.


----------



## Big Worm (Jan 11, 2016)

GuerillaKilla said:


> I sometimes make love to my wife while shouldering an AR and holding 45 acps.



45 auto anal beads.


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 11, 2016)

trodizzle said:


> I can go purchase a handgun at any time. I can get my conceal and carry license at any time. I really don't see the problem here.



Do you own a gun or have you had and significant time target practicing or getting comfortable with your firearm ?


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 11, 2016)

wallyd said:


> I don't know if it's different where you live but I have bought more than one gun from a gun show & I have had background checks done on EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION.



Even if you buy a gun of the enet it has to get picked up at a liscensed gun dealer so they can run a back round check Obama is full of shit when he says " any felon or person can buy a gun off the enet with no BR check"


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 11, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> No sir. I have some minor sales experience from my teenaged years but nothing too significant. I don't like having to choose between making a commission and shoveling bullshit.



I wouldn't buy a car from Doc I be having a heart attack every time I put the keys in and turned it on .


----------



## mickems (Jan 11, 2016)

Post number 566 right here.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Jan 11, 2016)

Redrum1327 said:


> I wouldn't buy a car from Doc I be having a heart attack every time I put the keys in and turned it on .



The ignition is fine, just wait till you need to use your wipers....


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jan 11, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> The ignition is fine, just wait till you need to use your wipers....



Fukkers are getting crafty


----------



## snake (Jan 12, 2016)

Post number 569.
Only because I like having the last word on gun control. :32 (20):


----------



## Bikous (Apr 9, 2018)

Of course, that society should be disarmed, it will still have a different will than the government, and what then?
The bandit is a bandit because he does not comply with the law. Why does anyone expect that he will apply this law?


----------



## Iron1 (Apr 9, 2018)

Did you come here just to necro a messy thread that ended 3 months ago?


----------



## Bikous (Apr 9, 2018)

I'm sorry, I really did not have bad intentions. This thread appeared to me on the main page, I was sure that the thread is alive.


----------



## DF (Apr 9, 2018)

Jeezus! this thread was 2 years ago?


----------



## BigGameHunter (Apr 9, 2018)

DF said:


> Jeezus! this thread was 2 years ago?



LOL Its the gift that keeps on giving


----------



## PillarofBalance (Apr 9, 2018)

Oops did I accidentally lock this bitch up?


----------



## snake (Mar 7, 2019)

Thread bump! :32 (18):


----------



## ToolSteel (Mar 7, 2019)

Hawaii....


----------



## Rot-Iron66 (Mar 8, 2019)

Gun control, I practice it every SAT at the range...


----------



## Swiper. (Apr 9, 2021)

Flyingdragon said:


> Background checks are not done at gun shows.....IMO there is no need for anyone to own an assault weapon, a simple handgun is more than enough.  Also clips that can hold 15 or more rounds is simply only meant to kill as many as possible in a short period of time, again this type of clip is meant for the military.....What the military needs versus an American needs are completely different.  I do not own a gun and never will....




when people use the term clip it’s obvious they don’t own a firearm or have much knowledge about them.  so what is your definition of an assault weapon?  what are the characteristics of that firearm?  just curious to know what people think about guns while having little knowledge about them.


----------



## JackDMegalomaniac (Apr 9, 2021)

Swiper. said:


> when people use the term clip it’s obvious they don’t own a firearm or have much knowledge about them.  so what is your definition of an assault weapon?  what are the characteristics of that firearm?  just curious to know what people think about guns while having little knowledge about them.


A gun is just a machine, I dont understand why people see it as some magical boom boom stick. 

Imo a gun is the same as a blender or a back hoe, they are mechanical tools to be used. Its the user who is the problem


----------



## Iron1 (Apr 9, 2021)

Oh hey, it's this thread back from the dead again.


----------



## Dungeon Dweller (Apr 9, 2021)

Local conservative AM radio guy kinda calmed me some this morning when he said despite all the threats of Executive Orders the Biden and his stooges were talking about before the election have turned into Executive Orders on forming investigation committees because they realize they can't make any real rules that way, and that Pelosi and Schumer both are not wanting to get into it because they don't even have 100% support of their own caucuses on it.

He also said Trump's Executive Order on bump stocks was ruled unconstitutional? I guess I hadn't heard that, but also think bump stocks are a joke to begin with.


----------



## JackDMegalomaniac (Apr 9, 2021)

Dungeon Dweller said:


> Local conservative AM radio guy kinda calmed me some this morning when he said despite all the threats of Executive Orders the Biden and his stooges were talking about before the election have turned into Executive Orders on forming investigation committees because they realize they can't make any real rules that way, and that Pelosi and Schumer both are not wanting to get into it because they don't even have 100% support of their own caucuses on it.
> 
> He also said Trump's Executive Order on bump stocks was ruled unconstitutional? I guess I hadn't heard that, but also think bump stocks are a joke to begin with.


Biden has no political power to gain from enforcing these executive orders. He put on a show so that liberals will think hes getting shit done. 

While simultaneously conservatives will forget all about his failed executive orders when the next election cycle comes around. 

Thats why hes making such big waves in the first few months in office.


----------



## notsoswoleCPA (Apr 9, 2021)

My gun nut buddies are all up in arms over the brace being an SBR thing...  I already have two SBRs with the appropriate documentation, even though I was in the process of building a 300 AAC pistol.  I guess I will just use a pistol buffer on that one with no brace just to play it safe.

I totally expect challenges from red state attorney generals with aspirations at a higher political office as well as the manufacturers of the 80% complete hunks of plastic and alloy as this will effectively put them out of business.  

Here is the question that I always posed to my anti-gun friends.... If a gun is used in a crime, who really gives a shit about where it came from?  That is the difference between an 80% lower with no serial number and a gun with a serial number.  Granted, ultimately, I'm certain the authorities can figure out where either came from....  It's what happens AFTER the original sale that gets uncertain....  What if it was stolen?  Traded for drugs or sex?

If Biden is on his high horse about enacting gun laws, why isn't his son being prosecuted for lying on his 4473?  Either apply the laws equally or piss off...


----------



## Patriot1405 (Apr 9, 2021)

“Shall not be infringed”


----------



## j2048b (Apr 9, 2021)

notsoswoleCPA said:


> My gun nut buddies are all up in arms over the brace being an SBR thing...  I already have two SBRs with the appropriate documentation, even though I was in the process of building a 300 AAC pistol.  I guess I will just use a pistol buffer on that one with no brace just to play it safe.
> 
> I totally expect challenges from red state attorney generals with aspirations at a higher political office as well as the manufacturers of the 80% complete hunks of plastic and alloy as this will effectively put them out of business.
> 
> ...




they (the anti-gun, while still haven guns to protect THEMSELVES) think if they get rid of all the ghost guns with no serials and make u get them serialized, will actually help anything are out of their cotton picken minds.....they are what we call cotten headed ninnymuggins....

they have gone full re-hatard.....


----------



## Iron1 (Apr 9, 2021)

A war of attrition is a battle with two equally powerful forces, going toe to toe results in no forward progress from either side. To win a war of attrition with as little resistance as possible, you don't fight an enemy directly, you starve them until they don't have the resources to fight effectively. Attacking supply lines has been a very reliable method of winning battles for centuries.

Having said that, how's the ammo supply been?

This is where things get tricky. The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms but the legal definition of "arms" is "Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18."

https://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

You know what isn't covered in that definition or that amendment? Ammo.


----------



## Janoy Cresva (Apr 9, 2021)

j2048b said:


> they (the anti-gun, while still haven guns to protect THEMSELVES) think if they get rid of all the ghost guns with no serials and make u get them serialized, will actually help anything are out of their cotton picken minds.....they are what we call cotten headed ninnymuggins....
> 
> they have gone full re-hatard.....



It never was about actually solving anything. It's about more power, more bureaucracy and a slush fund for their friends.

Politicians want more power. Simple


----------



## The Tater (Apr 9, 2021)

Small rifle primers are hard to come by in my neck of the woods.


----------



## notsoswoleCPA (Apr 9, 2021)

Iron1 said:


> A war of attrition is a battle with two equally powerful forces, going toe to toe results in no forward progress from either side. To win a war of attrition with as little resistance as possible, you don't fight an enemy directly, you starve them until they don't have the resources to fight effectively. Attacking supply lines has been a very reliable method of winning battles for centuries.
> 
> Having said that, how's the ammo supply been?
> 
> ...



Want to hear something crazy?  I picked up a bunch of once fired brass, projectiles, and reloading dies for 9mm for literally nothing back in 2012 or so.  Over 1000 rounds of once fired brass and 900 barnes projectiles from a reloader who was going out of business who needed 2 hours of my time.  I was laughed at by one of my friends for acquiring those items, even for trading my accounting services for them, due to the fact that it wasn't worth it to reload 9mm...  Now it is.  

The only downside is finding small pistol primers as I usually only reloaded 45 ACP and have large pistol primers.  Don't get me wrong, I know where I can get them, but I don't want to trade off 5.56 ammo for primers....


----------



## Jin (Apr 9, 2021)

Dungeon Dweller said:


> He also said Trump's Executive Order on bump stocks was ruled unconstitutional? I guess I hadn't heard that, but also think bump stocks are a joke to begin with.



Can you elaborate? The Vegas shooter used bump stocks with devastating effect.


----------



## notsoswoleCPA (Apr 9, 2021)

Jin said:


> Can you elaborate? The Vegas shooter used bump stocks with devastating effect.



I'd bet good money that at least one of those rifles used in the shooting had a swift link in it, if it wasn't 100% illegally modified for full auto.  I say this because the rate of fire with bump stocks is usually not as consistent as it appeared to sound in the video footage taken when the shooting was going on.  It is also extremely hard to keep a sustained rate of fire with any degree of controllability with those things.


----------



## Jin (Apr 9, 2021)

notsoswoleCPA said:


> I'd bet good money that at least one of those rifles used in the shooting had a swift link in it, if it wasn't 100% illegally modified for full auto.  I say this because the rate of fire with bump stocks is usually not as consistent as it appeared to sound in the video footage taken when the shooting was going on.  It is also extremely hard to keep a sustained rate of fire with any degree of controllability with those things.



I’ll take your word for it.  Im not sure what a swift link is. 

You don’t need controllability whilst firing randomly into a large group of people. For the application of that mass shooting a bump stock certainly fits the bill, don’t you think?


----------



## Robdjents (Apr 9, 2021)

I'm just glad he's leaving bolt actions alone.
For now...


----------



## Jin (Apr 9, 2021)

Robdjents said:


> I'm just glad he's leaving bolt actions alone.
> For now...



I feel confident I’ll keep my barrel loaded musket armory.


----------



## mugzy (Apr 9, 2021)

Nobody is ever going to remove all of your guns nor do they want to. From what I’m reading I looks like they are attempting to enhance background checks and put them in place where they are not already. 

Too many people go over the edge when gun discussion comes up in a conversation. Seems people think that democrats want 100% of guns taken away and republicans want to give each person a pile of guns. Reality is it is neither of those.


----------



## Yaya (Apr 9, 2021)

I have a bag of throwing hammers I carry with me


----------



## Janoy Cresva (Apr 10, 2021)

A certain someone who will remain nameless used the stimulus to buy a glock 17 and 9mm hollowpoints. Don't be mad Biden!


----------



## Unnatural Nature (Apr 10, 2021)

We can make it as hard as we want for someone to acquire a legal gun. Still won’t stop someone from illegally 3-d printing a weapon or acquiring one illegally.
     When will we turn towards the true source here, the mind. We need to normalize speaking about mental health. We need to pay better attention to the mental state of those around us. That way we may cut the problem off at the source before it happens. It’s crazy what a laugh can do for someone.


----------



## Unnatural Nature (Apr 10, 2021)

mugzy said:


> Nobody is ever going to remove all of your guns nor do they want to. From what I’m reading I looks like they are attempting to enhance background checks and put them in place where they are not already.
> 
> How would we background check someone whom acquires a weapon illegally? It seems as though we are only making it more difficult for those that do things by the book to do things by the book. While someone can go buy a gun on the black market with no tracing whatsoever. If they were smart they would chip all the guns so we can track who’s got what where and when. That way even if it’s illegal it’s got a chip. That’s only work for new guns made from here on out though. Just seems like we’re beating around the bush until we talk about the mind, rather than regulations being the issue.


----------



## Texan69 (Apr 10, 2021)

notsoswoleCPA said:


> My gun nut buddies are all up in arms over the brace being an SBR thing...  I already have two SBRs with the appropriate documentation, even though I was in the process of building a 300 AAC pistol.  I guess I will just use a pistol buffer on that one with no brace just to play it safe.
> 
> I totally expect challenges from red state attorney generals with aspirations at a higher political office as well as the manufacturers of the 80% complete hunks of plastic and alloy as this will effectively put them out of business.
> 
> ...



I thought the brace still counts as a pistol... I know they were trying to change it but I never heard it became official. 
I have a 10.5 inch AR pistol with a brace I carry at work and have not been advised that I need any documentation yet. My LT follows this stuff closely too. I don’t lol.


----------



## Robdjents (Apr 10, 2021)

I don't build AR' so correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need a background check to buy a receiver and doesn't this receiver come with serial number? If so would kinda disprove this "ghost" gun theory or am I talking out of my ass? I'm curious for someone who builds to chime in


----------



## NbleSavage (Apr 10, 2021)

Texan69 said:


> I thought the brace still counts as a pistol... I know they were trying to change it but I never heard it became official.
> I have a 10.5 inch AR pistol with a brace I carry at work and have not been advised that I need any documentation yet. My LT follows this stuff closely too. I don’t lol.



I run a CMMG Banshee in 9mm that falls into the grey area due to the brace. 

I use the brace as a stock. The Lads at the firing range clutch the pearls over it but they don't say anything to me.

Its a tack driver inside of 100 meters and the short barrel and collapsible 'brace' make it well suited for CQB / urban engagement.


----------



## BrotherJ (Apr 10, 2021)

Robdjents said:


> I don't build AR' so correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need a background check to buy a receiver and doesn't this receiver come with serial number? If so would kinda disprove this "ghost" gun theory or am I talking out of my ass? I'm curious for someone who builds to chime in



I've built several but am no means an expert - you *can* buy an 80% lower and drill out the rest of the receiver which comes with no serial number. The point is you can't regulate an aluminum block and a drill press. Or a machine shop could just build an AR from scratch.


----------



## notsoswoleCPA (Apr 12, 2021)

Robdjents said:


> I don't build AR' so correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need a background check to buy a receiver and doesn't this receiver come with serial number? If so would kinda disprove this "ghost" gun theory or am I talking out of my ass? I'm curious for someone who builds to chime in



I assemble ARs but have never completed an 80% lower.  Too many things can go wrong in the construction process with an 80% lower...  Like having a drill bit snap inside the detent channel.  Then I would have to finish the lower so it wasn't just bare aluminum.

Getting back to the assembly process though...  I fill out a 4473 and undergo a background check for a "stripped receiver" just as if I am purchasing a firearm.  There is no way around this for a serialized part that constitutes a "firearm" under current law.


----------



## JackDMegalomaniac (Apr 12, 2021)

Jin said:


> Can you elaborate? The Vegas shooter used bump stocks with devastating effect.


Wow I forgot all about. What ever happened to that guy? I did 15 mins of research and nothing. 

Seems kind of weird


----------



## Iron1 (Apr 12, 2021)

JackDMegalomaniac said:


> Wow I forgot all about. What ever happened to that guy? I did 15 mins of research and nothing.
> 
> Seems kind of weird



He left the hotel in a bag.


----------



## BigSwolePump (Apr 12, 2021)

I think that over the years, gun enthusiast have become weakened to a point that they think that they need AR type rifles and combat style weapons.

I mean seriously, even Ralphie Parker knew at the age of 9 years old that all you really need is an official Red Ryder carbine action, 200 shot range model air rifle to take down any basic bad guy.

Bunch of sissys...


----------



## Joliver (Apr 12, 2021)

This thread will only serve to make people hate each other. Nobody is changing their mind in this thread, especially on this topic. No data will matter. Personal experiences mean nothing.


----------



## Iron1 (Apr 12, 2021)

BigSwolePump said:


> I think that over the years, gun enthusiast have become weakened to a point that they think that they need AR type rifles and combat style weapons.
> 
> I mean seriously, even Ralphie Parker knew at the age of 9 years old that all you really need is an official Red Ryder carbine action, 200 shot range model air rifle to take down any basic bad guy.
> 
> Bunch of sissys...



Check out what I picked up this weekend. 

1851 US Navy black powder revolver in .44cal. It's a replica, yes, but it shoots all the same.


----------



## BigSwolePump (Apr 12, 2021)

Iron1 said:


> Check out what I picked up this weekend.
> 
> 1851 US Navy black powder revolver in .44cal. It's a replica, yes, but it shoots all the same.



But will it shoot an eye out?


----------



## JackDMegalomaniac (Apr 12, 2021)

Iron1 said:


> He left the hotel in a bag.


motives? 10 char


----------



## Jin (Apr 12, 2021)

JackDMegalomaniac said:


> motives? 10 char



Unknown. 

That’s what makes it so ****ed up. No way to identify or stop a threat the way he posed it without massive human losses.


----------



## heavydeads83 (Apr 12, 2021)

Patriot1405 said:


> “Shall not be infringed”



Amen, brother..


----------



## notsoswoleCPA (Apr 14, 2021)

BigSwolePump said:


> I think that over the years, gun enthusiast have become weakened to a point that they think that they need AR type rifles and combat style weapons.
> 
> I mean seriously, even Ralphie Parker knew at the age of 9 years old that all you really need is an official Red Ryder carbine action, 200 shot range model air rifle to take down any basic bad guy.
> 
> Bunch of sissys...



The irony here is I only ever wanted them because the government and media outlets DID NOT want me to have them....  I remember a time when showing up at the range with an AR or AK gave you strange looks.  Now, nobody bats an eye.


----------



## Janoy Cresva (Apr 14, 2021)

notsoswoleCPA said:


> The irony here is I only ever wanted them because the government and media outlets DID NOT want me to have them....  I remember a time when showing up at the range with an AR or AK gave you strange looks.  Now, nobody bats an eye.



Same lulz.


----------



## nicocujo (Dec 22, 2021)

BrotherJ said:


> I've built several but am no means an expert - you *can* buy an 80% lower and drill out the rest of the receiver which comes with no serial number. The point is you can't regulate an aluminum block and a drill press. Or a machine shop could just build an AR from scratch.




Agreed. I've built them. I also have binary triggers in mine.


----------

