SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd Amendment

[Pinepig]

Easy way out of no argument right there.

I'm done wasting my time on you, not worth the energy it takes to find facts for you two douchebags, feel free to put all the VPC propaganda in this thread you like. It still come down to the fact that the SC affirmed that the second is an individual right.

[joshh]

I'm done wasting my time on you, not worth the energy it takes to find facts for you two douchebags, feel free to put all the VPC propaganda in this thread you like. It still come down to the fact that the SC affirmed that the second is an individual right.

And that's a great thing. But you're too busy not thinking and only stereo typing to use any fucking logic here. Enjoy the darkness of space you have behind your forehead.
I'm pro gun...

[CorvallisBMW]

Really, the handgun ban came into being in 1977,

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

There ya go spouting bullshit again.

Those are not the numbers that I had seen. Perhaps perhaps I had seen something else? I don't know, those look legit. If I made a mistake, sorry.

See, a real man owns up to his errors, he doesn't just go around calling people 'fuckstick'

[E30 Cabrio]

So us people who play by the rules should suffer because of the folks who aren't following laws anyway by passing more laws that they aren't going to follow.

Just fucking brilliant.

Read John Lott, More guns, less crime. He was an anti who set out to find the truth, look at the title of his book.

Yep, John Lott was an anti-gun type who did the largest, most accurate study on guns and crime and came away with the realization that More Guns = Less Crime.

Unlike Kellerman, he didn't just use stats from a couple of high crime inner city neighborhoods and extrapolate the numbers, he used the numbers from every county in the US for his study, which is far more accurate then the BS Kellerman is pushing.

If someone doesn't want to own a gun, that's fine but do not infringe upon my Constitutional right to own one, or several.

[E30 Cabrio]

Really, the handgun ban came into being in 1977,

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

There ya go spouting bullshit again.

I would say that those numbers have more to do with rises in drug use, such as the influx of cheap Heroin in the late 60's, the Crack cocaine epedemic of the mid to late 80's, and the rise of cheap drugs like Meth which was popular a few years ago.

Regardless, the gun ban in DC has been a farce and has only benefited one group, and those are the people that prey on others.

[joshh]

Those are not the numbers that I had seen. Perhaps perhaps I had seen something else? I don't know, those look legit. If I made a mistake, sorry.

See, a real man owns up to his errors, he doesn't just go around calling people 'fuckstick'

I wouldn't go as far as to say you're wrong. Even if he scrounged up some stats, there's no saying what other influences effected those stats.

More guns into a society is a good thing imo, as long as you can also slow the guns to criminals at the same time.
Anytime we try to keep guns out of criminals hands the far right comes up with a lame ass reason as to why it somehow takes their right to bear arm away from them.

[Ryan Stewart]

hey i was listening to talk radio 3 or 4 days ago and some minnesota lawyer was on and said in minnesota you can walk down the street with a gun on your person if it is fully exposed and holstered. he said very few minnesotans know this fact. he was a lobbyist for the gun cause and sounded legit. perhaps he meant if you have a CCW permit but that was never brought up. he also said if there is a sign posted "no guns" you couldnt enter duh. but im wondering if we as minnesotans can carry a weapon without a CCW. not that i would but im curious

This is the case regarding most state law as hunting requires the ability to open carry.

However, most municipal statues have multiple angles for busting you for brandishing a firearm or inciting a public panic.

[Ryan Stewart]

More guns into a society is a good thing imo, as long as you can also slow the guns to criminals at the same time.
Anytime we try to keep guns out of criminals hands the far right comes up with a lame ass reason as to why it somehow takes their right to bear arm away from them.

Im sure the arguments are lame but the best argument against gun control is they have little to know impact on violent crimes and those involving guns. These people are criminals, by definition they dont have much concern for the law.


Automatic rifles and body armor were under a civillian ban during that incredible heist attempt in California using modified assult rifles and body armor.

Both Coumbine and Virginia Tech are "gun free zones" meaning the penalties are not only higher on the local level but carry minimum federal penalties.

Most municipalities have restrictions on possesion of firearms in buildings such as banks, government buildings and child care centers. There have been plenty of shootings in those types of buildings.

High capacity magazines were banned for civillians for a better part of my life but for some reason I was able to get them for every version of a double stack pistol I have ever owned, in multiples and with ease (and I am not even a real criminal).



Gun LAWS dont do much to motivate the LAWLESS from owning guns.

[CorvallisBMW]

I agree with many of your points, that restricting gun ownership does more to hinder lawful citizens than the unlawful ones. After all, it's kind of a given that criminals will disobey the law and that honest citizens will not.

But what I do take an opposition to is those to advocate for the elimination of all basic safety, registration and background checks for those that want to purchase guns. A background check does not hinder your freedom, right, or ability to purchase a gun. Neither does a waiting period, or registration, or even a mandatory safety & training class. Non of those things prevent you from buying or owning a gun, and therefor do not infringe upon your constitutional right to bear arms. Any one of us here (bearing you aren't a convicted felon or mentaly disabled) could go out buy a gun today and would have no problem doing so, even if all of those laws were in place. So do they really infringe upon your right to own a gun? I don't think so.

People do not bitch and complain about driver's licences, or speed limites, saying that 'well they only apply to law-abiding citizens, not to criminals. So we should get rid of licensing and speed limits because criminals will just ignore them anyway. You're infringing on my right to drive unlicensed at 120mph' So what is it about guns that gets people all crazy and radical?

[joshh]

Im sure the arguments are lame but the best argument against gun control is they have little to know impact on violent crimes and those involving guns. These people are criminals, by definition they dont have much concern for the law.


Automatic rifles and body armor were under a civillian ban during that incredible heist attempt in California using modified assult rifles and body armor.

Both Coumbine and Virginia Tech are "gun free zones" meaning the penalties are not only higher on the local level but carry minimum federal penalties.

Most municipalities have restrictions on possesion of firearms in buildings such as banks, government buildings and child care centers. There have been plenty of shootings in those types of buildings.

High capacity magazines were banned for civillians for a better part of my life but for some reason I was able to get them for every version of a double stack pistol I have ever owned, in multiples and with ease (and I am not even a real criminal).



Gun LAWS dont do much to motivate the LAWLESS from owning guns.

"Gun control" is a very very broad term.
That's because the laws they do pass for the most part are pointless.
10 round magazines GMAFB. Not only can you find larger capacity magazines but you still have 10 rounds to use. 100% pointless law.
Laws against automatic rifles, again totally useless. Specially since I could very very easily convert my SA 93 into an automatic.
The laws passed (for the most part) don't try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Anti gun zones are also pointless for the most part because they allow the criminal to know that if he brought a gun into the area, the only people that will have them are cops. And there are not many of them around.

All of those exampes are the far left being retards and just doing anything they can to fuck over gun owners and people that have a right in owning a firearm.

Perfect example of "gun control"....
If the law required a person to take a two day course on safety, cleaning, storage, shooting and assembly/disassembly of your new firearm before you were allowed to take it home, the far right would have a hissy fit. Yet most people that own a firearm don't know shit about the weapon or how to fire it and have less of an idea of what safety is for a firearm. Unless they grew up around them and the parents are responsible adults.
Many people that have owned firearms for years are still unsafe with how they handle them (I used to see it all the time).
I have no problem whatsoever with a person that has the right to own a firearm to own one. But to have many people own them and not know wtf they are doing with them is asking for trouble. Which is also a reason why criminals get their hands on stolen guns. And a reason why kids shoot themselves with them on occasion.

Smart gun laws wouldn't stop the right of citizens that have the right to own a fire arm to own one. They would simply make it harder for the criminal to get them.
But our laws also don't require the owner of a handgun to be a responsible one.

[Ryan Stewart]

Problem is most of the laws brought forth with any seriousness anymore are those that are simply restrictions or bans.

Even still those "responsible" gun laws will primarily effect those who were responsible in the first place. Still wont do a thing to curtail criminals. Criminals are not getting their guns through the proper channels so your idea of making gun buyers take a safety course will have no effect on a criminal.

Im all for a safety course but dont put it under the guise of controlling access to criminals. Its controlling access to morons and nothing more.

[joshh]

Problem is most of the laws brought forth with any seriousness anymore are those that are simply restrictions or bans.

Even still those "responsible" gun laws will primarily effect those who were responsible in the first place. Still wont do a thing to curtail criminals. Criminals are not getting their guns through the proper channels so your idea of making gun buyers take a safety course will have no effect on a criminal.

Im all for a safety course but dont put it under the guise of controlling access to criminals. Its controlling access to morons and nothing more.

Having your gun stolen from your house was being responsible? Or from your person?
Unfortunately most that own guns I would never consider being responsible. The right to own a gun doesn't make someone responsible. Nor does simply owning one. Specially considering many criminals buy guns with a friends record I.E. Straw purchase.
Just because a person has a clean record has no relevance as to whether they are responsible gun owners.

It was only one example. And it would help teach people how to store their firearms so they don't get stolen, or at least lower the chance of theft.

You're saying there is no solution to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

[Vedubin01]

for the record I.E. Straw purchase is illegal as hell! But I'm sure some of you know that.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Here is a repost I posted on another forum:

Any of you familiar with "The Wichita Horror"?

It didn't get much national air or ink, probably because the victims were white and the perpetrators were black.

Here's an article, but be warned, it's horrible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

That is the tame version of events. This one goes more into detail:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/carr_brothers/index.html

Then there is this terrible story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom_murder

Another article:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0507/0301_channon_christian.html.html

I wonder how people can do these things to one another. It's almost like watching a preview of one of those "48Hour Mysteries" or "I Survived" shows.

[CorvallisBMW]

Problem is most of the laws brought forth with any seriousness anymore are those that are simply restrictions or bans.

Even still those "responsible" gun laws will primarily effect those who were responsible in the first place. Still wont do a thing to curtail criminals. Criminals are not getting their guns through the proper channels so your idea of making gun buyers take a safety course will have no effect on a criminal.

Im all for a safety course but dont put it under the guise of controlling access to criminals. Its controlling access to morons and nothing more.

True. And safety laws would help tremendously, just look at the number of accidental shootings that happen every day in this country. This one happened just miles from my house the other day. A man, showing off and playing around, accidently shot his friend in the head:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/22726484.html

If he had been through a safety training class, there is a good chance (though no guarantee) that his friend would still be alive today. I know some very smart, very responsible gun owners. They take safety seriously and would never, ever do stuff like this. But I also know so gun owners who are idiots, who like to get drunk and then go shooting in the woods or play with guns in their house. Those are the kinds of people who give guns such a bad name.