Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LoL, it is my experience that Americans are the most conformist people in the world; especially after the McCarthy era with their lists of people being un-American.
Quote:
I think these people deserve to live College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader - News Story - WSB Atlanta and I dont care about your country, how it works or how its people think.
Which makes you ignorant.
Quote:
Now I reckon its time to ignore you a little. You bore me.
Funny, I never get bored with ignorant people saying the same thing over and over again, they only use other words.
So my answer is also the same: Look at what is causing the crime.
I now understand why so many American gun fetishists are also American Christians; their reasoning is exactly the same.
American Christians believe that 'Christians' who commit sins can't be true Christians, which is the same nonsense as American gun fetishists who believe that only criminals injure innocents with their guns. I guess American gun fetishists are Christians who don't care that much about collateral damage (read: innocent victims caused by the gun fetishist's actions)?
First, "AW" lets the ban-types use emotions rather than facts. Assault=Bad. Weapon=Bad. Bad. Bad.
There are several good reasons to not ban AWs.
The most important one is that the AW-banners have included just about all firearms, other than a blunderbuss, in their little secret list of "assault weapons."
What sounds like it could be good, emotionally, is factually a blanket ban on the right to self defense.
AWs are hardly ever used in crimes. They are mostly used by sport shooters. PDs also use them for SWAT and other specialty units.
Banning the classic AWs such as an AK47 or an AR15 or derivitives would mean about as much vs. crime as your sending five bucks to the feds asking them to apply it to the deficit.
AWs used to be called battle rifles, but AW makes for a better bogeyman-name. Criminal types usually use semi-auto pistols. Easier to hide, easier to buy, just easier.
So in a nutshell, an AW "ban" would include .22s, 30-30s, 30-06s, and anything that people like chuckie schumer didn't like...which means you can't defend yourself but he will have armed guards.
Given the advances that organized drug-crime gangs from Mexico are making, and given that a cop will NOT be at your house when something happens (unless your're a cop), but WILL investigate and tag your family's dead bodies, a free society demands responsibilities. One of them is protecting hearth and home.
Just suppose, just suppose that a perfect storm happened in the US. Say a combination of "24," "Jericho," and a couple of plague flicks occurred.
Maybe throw in a banking collapse, feed animal plagues, and crop failures.
It IS possible that central government and lawful order could break down. It IS possible that cities, towns, counties, and other areas could become responsible for their own well being.
Some AR15s or AK47s amongst the self-defense force would be far more useful vs. roving bands of thugs--and you can bet that that would be one of the first outcomes, it would not be friendly folks dropping off food baskets--than gramps' one-shot .22 or a snubbie .38.
The bad guys operate without rules, and you need read just a little history to understand that many people can be very ugly when unrestrained by laws, cops, national guard, and other forms of civilized control.
They say there are no atheists in foxholes. It would be amazing to see how quickly gun-ban liberals became self-defense-advocating conservatives given lengthy major riots, terror cell activities, civil unrest, or activated foreign cell activities.
In 1941, when Japan had the US reeling following Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto had no interest in testing the US citizens' cajones on the continental US.
"A rifle behind every blade of grass," was his logic in not putting troops on the ground in California.
If you think there are no radical, armed terror cells in the US today, I wish you were right.
Open borders and lots of land mean Russian, Chinese, MI13, al quaida, crips and bloods, motorcycle gangs, and every other violent group DOES have an armed organization inside the US.
If you will take a good look at what has happened to England, you won't have to re-read "1984." It's there.
To summarize:
In the micro, AW bans are feelgood concepts that would have an effect on crime. It would increase, because criminals are opportunists and cowards and preying on the unarmed would suddenly become open season.
They would have an effect on Constitutional America, on honest people having the right to defend themselves and their families.
In the macro, given a worst-case scenario, an AW ban could make the difference between good or evil triumphing. Given the absence of military or law enforcement support, it is decent, honest citizens coming together who can insure their own survival.
It's the same reason we have a few thousand nuke-armed ICBMs. In a worst case scenario, it would be terrible if we had to use them.
It would be far more terrible if we had none, and our enemies did.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Civilization is a thin membrane.
The world is a dangerous place, humans are the most dangerous species.
Exactly! It's like getting rid of cars, because some people cause accidents because they are bad or insane drivers.
I wonder if Tricky D and jtur88 notice how badly they are outnumbered in this discussion, just as they are in the Country its self. The vast majority of people recognize and support the right to own firearms. This is why no politician will run on an anti-gun platform.
funny too that Trollie thinks it ignorant to be glad a group of young people are alive because they stood up for themselves.
The truth is he is simply a racist that hates white people, Christians & Americans & is predictable enough that you dont even need to read his posts to know their content.
The truth is he is simply a racist that hates white people, Christians & Americans & is predictable enough that you dont even need to read his posts to know their content.
So ya finally looked into a mirror and came outta the closet?
I wonder if Tricky D and jtur88 notice how badly they are outnumbered in this discussion, just as they are in the Country its self. The vast majority of people recognize and support the right to own firearms. This is why no politician will run on an anti-gun platform.
Mark Twain said "When I find that I am in the majority, I rethink my position". Since I recognize and support the right to own firearms, maybe it is time to rethink my position.
People opposed to private gun ownership (I'm not one of them) are not "badly" outnumbered by a "vast" majority at all. It is a simple majority, and among women, a fairly small one. If there are only two people on this forum thought to represent the minority view (one of them falsely) , it demonstrates how wildly out of whack with real life the posters here are.
Perhaps Jeepejeep would like to explain why he thinks I am opposed to Americans having the right to own firearms. Should I PM jeepejeep my password, so he can post opinions on my behalf on all topics?
A gun fetishist posting here that American citizen will never give up their right to own a gun is the same as a Muslim terrorist shouting that Allah is the Supreme Being.
They both only shout their opinion, but want the world to believe this as an indisputable fact.
I mean what, 50 years ago, it was regarded impossible for a black American to become the president of the US. Yet now you have 1.
True to form, your posts always fall out of topic, and into the realm of crass insult and irrelevancies.. The term 'fetishist' makes me grit my teeth as much as 'gun nut'. It is comparable to me using terms like 'filthy hippie' 'pinko', etc to describe ALL those who lean in difference to my view of firearms rights. Such rhetoric is testament to a lack of intelligence in discussing hot issues. There are so many sides to this debate that it boggles the mind. Terms such as 'sporting purposes' 'need' etc get used a lot by the anti firearms groups, with no regard to the many areas of the shooting sports that go beyond hunting and plinking at the local dump. Mere configuration of a certain type of firearm makes it 'evil' ,by default, and if one defends legitimate uses for said weapons that makes one a 'fetishist' or a 'gun nut'. I refer back to my earlier post regarding the pig and the mud.
Would a gun free USA be possible for the USA or just a ideal of pacifists, and religous types or would this mark the US becoming a moral and decent society if this were to occur
Now, discuss this topic and leave all other comments about other issues and other users aside. This is the topic, now stick with it. If you cannot, do not post on this thread anymore. It is as simple as that.
And in response to the OP, I say it is an impossibility. That is, in our world anyway. A gun free US will not take the guns away from the rest of the world or the criminals at home. And, a gun free world would have to mean a gun free military and police force as well, or else you have just handed yourself over to slavery. And even if there was a way to rid the entire world of existing guns and weaponry, there are always people ready to make more. The need of the few to control the many will always exist, just as the need to feel secure and protected in your home will always exist. Guns have been invented, so it's too late to do anything about it. Anyone can make a rudimentary firearm with only the most rudimentary tools and materials. It is impossible to unmake what we have become, all we can do is teach responsibility and try to stop the crazy people before they go to far. But as far as actually removing American rights to arms and making this a gun-free country, it will never happen.
In the narrow scope of your OP, this is like asking if we can live without electricity or trigonometry or bridges. Unless you're talking about forgetting how to make pyramids, a culture learns how to live without things it already possesses only through development of something more advanced that can do the same things better. We could live without horseshoes only by developing a practical use for tires. We can live withut guns only by developing a more efficient way to intimidate or control or eliminate people who are sanding some distance away from us.
Man, Tricky D, I wished to God I'd read your post before I went to the sporting goods store today. I picked up a rifle, brought it home, and fifteen minutes later as I got out of the shower, there was that rifle floating ten feet in front of me, loaded, cocked, and pointed right at my head. Luckily I am pretty fast and I dodged all of its attempts to perpetrate the crime that it had so coldly premeditated. Finally, its magazine was empty. I seized it, and marched it right back down to the sporting goods store. The counter person told me I should have known better and that guns more often than not cause crimes. He then exchanged the gun for a baseball bat, which he assured me is far less likely to be a criminal--bats only cause crime occasionally. As I walked back out to my car, I was surprised to see it surrounded by SWAT officers. It turns out my car had been a mass murderer before I bought it. It had caused several dozen deaths and had been dodging police for months.
Is that the sort of world you live in, Tricky? Or do people cause crimes in your world like they do in the real world?
As for the original question: I don't really think there would be a need to be 'gun-free' if we began to address the real cause of the problem. It's like banning forks and spoons to keep people from eating too much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LoL, it is my experience that Americans are the most conformist people in the world; especially after the McCarthy era with their lists of people being un-American. 
Which makes you ignorant.
Funny, I never get bored with ignorant people saying the same thing over and over again, they only use other words.
I guess American gun fetishists are Christians who don't care that much about collateral damage (read: innocent victims caused by the gun fetishist's actions)?
A gun fetishist posting here that American citizen will never give up their right to own a gun is the same as a Muslim terrorist shouting that Allah is the Supreme Being.
Yet now you have 1.
. The term 'fetishist' makes me grit my teeth as much as 'gun nut'. It is comparable to me using terms like 'filthy hippie' 'pinko', etc to describe ALL those who lean in difference to my view of firearms rights. Such rhetoric is testament to a lack of intelligence in discussing hot issues. There are so many sides to this debate that it boggles the mind. Terms such as 'sporting purposes' 'need' etc get used a lot by the anti firearms groups, with no regard to the many areas of the shooting sports that go beyond hunting and plinking at the local dump. Mere configuration of a certain type of firearm makes it 'evil' ,by default, and if one defends legitimate uses for said weapons that makes one a 'fetishist' or a 'gun nut'.
OK everyone, a little reminder
Luckily I am pretty fast and I dodged all of its attempts to perpetrate the crime that it had so coldly premeditated. Finally, its magazine was empty. I seized it, and marched it right back down to the sporting goods store. The counter person told me I should have known better and that guns more often than not cause crimes. 
He then exchanged the gun for a baseball bat, which he assured me is far less likely to be a criminal--bats only cause crime occasionally. 
It had caused several dozen deaths and had been dodging police for months. 
