Gun control? Here's your gun control. (drugs, stats, suspect, Canada)

[freightshaker]

[wildflower82]

This Israeli girl might have the answer new concept to concealed weapon..........

Bikini-clad, gun-toting Israeli woman becomes an Internet sensation* - NY Daily News

[Mac_Muz]

Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds

This Israeli girl might have the answer new concept to concealed weapon..........

Bikini-clad, gun-toting Israeli woman becomes an Internet sensation* - NY Daily News

That won't fly in sheeple USA.. But it is very likey the woman in the photo is military.

I do see some people around in Az and NH in open carry and in these 2 states no one freaks out, unless of course they are from 'away'.

Once the cops came to investigate me! LOL I looked like this, and was riding that horse with my trade gun instead of the partisian, right up Rt 16 near Mt Washington NH to a event.
before the cops came 3 different individuals complained.

The simple answer is the cops forgot there was any event. The best part was I had done nothing wrong, or ilegal.....

[All American NYC]

Originally Posted by dv1033

Only a complete moron would seriously suggest that. Or at least that individual fails to grasps apples to apples comparisons.

Sorry!

Banning guns does not work.

Bombs are banned yet they are still being used by psycho's.

[Mac_Muz]

Oh we have troubles now, as of yesterday in DC.....
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

snakes

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by MrClose

mohawkx .. chucksnee seems to be having a male crisis problem at the moment?

Just tell him that your rifle is smaller than his rifle and he'll be okay.

Originally Posted by MrClose

I know, I know .. Your d!ck is much bigger than mine.
No one was debating weapons registration on bases and I was pointing out base gun control.

The controlling aspect depends on what base you are on and what the Base Commander has set as policy (for his base).

(Notice how .. I LOVE typing Base! )

There are indeed bases where 'carrying' is NOT permitted and Fort Hood is (or was) one of them at the time of the shooting!

#ell there are bases where having an 'unloaded' weapon IN YOUR AUTO, on base is NOT allowed and you WILL be cited!

The same applied to Bragg when I was there!

You can rest now .. you definitely own the larger penis.

2 really pathetic answers......

You brought up that you were a ranger.......before I ever said anything about being military. You thought (I know, that even hard for me to believe) if you threw the word ranger out their, it would say your smarter than everyone else about guns and you were called on it.....and now your pissed, just look at your responses.

Just continue with your life, thinking that old worn out ranger tattoo on your shoulder really means something, it does not, no matter what you say.

[MrClose]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

2 really pathetic answers......

You brought up that you were a ranger.......before I ever said anything about being military. You thought (I know, that even hard for me to believe) if you threw the word ranger out their, it would say your smarter than everyone else about guns and you were called on it.....and now your pissed, just look at your responses.

Just continue with your life, thinking that old worn out ranger tattoo on your shoulder really means something, it does not, no matter what you say.

I see that you are still having 'issues'!?

I said Ranger .. yes I did but, I didn't choose to rant and rave about my two tours in Southeast Asia.

I answered your rant by telling you that Fort Bragg .. as well as Fort Hood were well regulated as far as gun control and that you ARE NOT allowed to carry on base.

You chose to make this some kind of p!$$!ng war.

Now go and measure your $t!ck .. one more time.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by MrClose

I see that you are still having 'issues'!?

I said Ranger .. yes I did but, I didn't choose to rant and rave about my two tours in Southeast Asia.

I answered your rant by telling you that Fort Bragg .. as well as Fort Hood were well regulated as far as gun control and that you ARE NOT allowed to carry on base.

You chose to make this some kind of p!$$!ng war.

Now go and measure your $t!ck .. one more time.

So then why did you mention it? Is it because you think you're better than everyone else? And now you bring up Asia?

You threw out ranger.....i'm bigger and badder cause I'm a ranger....haha....you threw the d!ck sizing out when you mentioned ranger and you cannot stand that someone called you on it!

So, go look in the mirror, flex the old ratty @ss ranger tattoo, and think your better than everyone cause your a ranger......

[wildflower82]

Originally Posted by Mac_Muz

That won't fly in sheeple USA.. But it is very likey the woman in the photo is military.

I do see some people around in Az and NH in open carry and in these 2 states no one freaks out, unless of course they are from 'away'.

Once the cops came to investigate me! LOL I looked like this, and was riding that horse with my trade gun instead of the partisian, right up Rt 16 near Mt Washington NH to a event.
before the cops came 3 different individuals complained.

The simple answer is the cops forgot there was any event. The best part was I had done nothing wrong, or ilegal.....

No it wouldn't fly, but looked pretty good.......it's nothing here in Idaho to carry, I see mostly men and it's just part of their attire. Nobody pays much attention, for the most part you never know who will have a concealede weapon, it's a good thing.

The pic is priceless............some people probably thought some crazy guy off of he's meds

[Konraden]

Jesus Christ, where to start...

Originally Posted by dv1033

Of course not. But why are people allowed to purchase ARs?

You might see them as unneccessary or illogical. I view pickup trucks, hummers, sports-cars, supers, exotics, business jet-liners, and personal water craft as unnecessary and illogical too.

And those things kill people all the time. There are between 30-40 thousand automobile fatalities per year.

Excluding suicides, there are about 9,000 gun homicides each year. Cars are four times more dangerous than guns.

Originally Posted by Frugality

Since when does control equal ban? Isn't almost every product in our nation controlled? It's not just guns. I challenge anyone to name a few products that are not regulated.

Someone else already mentioned it, but come up with sensible regulation, and we can talk. Airbags make sense in cars. They save lives. Unless someone starts calling for the ban on the number of passengers a vehicle can hold, I'll continue to rebuke any bans on magazine capacities. Unless someone starts banning black and dark colored cars, I'll rebuke any bans on "black guns" and "assault weapons."

Originally Posted by mohawkx

I'm a liberal independant by the way.

It's enjoyable not being a drone.

Originally Posted by Frugality

Like I said, regulating a product does not mean banning it. Why does everything have to be black and white? It doesn't have to be either no regulation or complete ban. There is a middle ground. I suppose we could de-regulate driving and allow 12 year olds to drive

We license drivers due to the complexity of driving and its operation on public roads. You can teach your 12 year old how to drive all day long on you own property. A 12 year old can (and some do) drive a vehicle on public roads under their own volition.

Clearly we should ban cars. I mean, "regulate" cars until all we have are Model T's with Airbags.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Banning ARs isn't a reasonable restriction?

No. I am under the impression you couldn't reasonably argue why an AR model should be banned.

Originally Posted by mohawkx

Not in my book. But some states have done so. Romney proposed, lobbied and signed an assault weapons ban for Massachusetts when he was governor. New jersey only allows 10 round magazines and California does not allow rifles with detachable magazines. These are all considered reasonable restrictions and are already in place where the citizens want them.
But you guys don't seem to get it. It's a state by state issue not a federal issue. The right to own and possess firearms is settled law on the federal level. Reasonable restrictions is a state by state proposition. You will never win if you try to restrict it on the federal level. You can win on the local level and state level.

I'd really prefer a federal regulation on states preventing them from draconian bans on "types" of firearms.

Originally Posted by claudhopper

I used to think it was reasonable to restrict types of guns, the big ugly scary ones, but I have changed my tune. Liberals are never reasonable, and if we give an inch, it's the camels nose under the tent. We now know that our gov't no longer supports this nations sovereignty, and looks to the UN for global guidance. We also know that the Small Arms Treaty, among others, is in the works. We also know what Fast n Furious was all about, the Second Amendment. At some point, our law enforcement or military personell will be charged with disarming us. We need to be able to match force with force, when that day comes.
That was my point.

Conspiracy theories abound, this is wild and unsupported speculation.

Originally Posted by 70Ford

My dad has owned a gun/rifle for 54 years. And has never shot anyone.
Wish there was a test for "crazy' when you bought a gun, though.

It would be nice to have a "crazy" test and predict the future. Alas, we must put up with a little uncertainty to enjoy freedom, right?

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

For the same reason they are "allowed" to buy Fords and Toyotas.

(You know, don't you, that cars kill a lot more innocent people than guns, right?)

30-40 thousand, according the CDC. About 11k are alcohol\DUI related.

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Yep.

The nutjob in Colorado didn't kill anywhere near as many people as I could have with absolutely legal non-guns means.

George Russell Weller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This guy killed 10 on ACCIDENT.

Imagine what the joker guy could have done with a 24foot rental truck with a couple open top 55 gallon drums of gasoline in back and some flares had he plowed into the hundreds of people waiting in-line before the show?

Heck, you just have to look through the news to see bad accidents for inspiration.

I've heard of terrorist plots involving the theft of fuel trucks some flares and driving them into the stands at a popular HS football game with 5,000 people there.

It's sad.

Wasn't there a bomb in Times Square a few months (or was that a few years? Time flies) ago? Imagine the damage that did. Explosives are trivial to manufacture. I was in Detroit a few weeks ago for a Tiger's game, and the hundreds of people milling about on the street walking to and from the game? Steets often weren't block off, and it would be simple to just hop the curb and plow over dozens of people. How many will be killed there? How many injured severely?

Originally Posted by dv1033

I don't care what the constitution says,

Wrong answer.

that was the late 18th century. Check your calendar because it's 2012.. The second amendment was thought up during a time of revolution. Not to mention Native Americans still controlled and occupied most of continental America. Not to mention the Spanish and French held vast interests. Not to mention law enforcement paled in comparison. I don't think our founding fathers would view our modern day need for firearms for the same.

You don't have the unbiased thought to be making claims about fore-fathers, especially considering your prior statement about not actually caring about the documents they wrote.

But I guess the internet doesn't need to be free, nor the mass media, or telephones, or any form of speech technology that has been released in the past two hundred years, because our fore-fathers would think differently about it. While we're at it, X-Ray scanners don't violate your privacy, nor do drug-sniffing dogs. After all, these didn't exist 200 years ago either. Neither did most of the states in our union, so they don't benefit from the 10th amendment.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Sure I do. I care if you are planning to go rob a bank or commit terrorist acts.

Because we are talking about weapons. Not candy, not cars, not electronics. Weapons. The thing people defend and kill each other with.

Automobiles are four times more deadly than firearms. There are as many autos in the United States as there are firearms. Care to explain why lethal cars should have absolutely no bans on their type or manufacture, their seating capacity or accessories, but **** all when it comes to guns that make you pee your pants?

Originally Posted by dv1033

So we need to constantly arms ourselves with more lethal firearms.... Yes that sounds like great public policy.

Possibly tyrannical government? LOL.

This is 2012 folks. So unless civilians are allowed to have their own aircraft carriers, drones, nukes, attack helicopters, etc., there ain't sh*t you can really do besides become guerrilla fighters.

If you have enough money, you can buy all of these. There is no federal restriction stopping people from owning an Aircraft Carrier. There is no federal restriction banning the ownership of drones or attack helicopters or military tanks, IFVs, military transports, artillery, or other military hardware, like fighter jets. In fact, I can own my own armored car, and drive that ***** on the highway, for less than the cost of a full-size sedan.

So yes, civilians are allowed to own military hardware. The sole exception in your pithy list is nuclear weapons, which are currently beyond the scope of self-defense, militia, and sporting use. But, of course, your entire list of a fallacy of strawmen. The difference between a 60-Ton Main Battle Tank like the M1 Abrams, and a rifle of any design is that the latter can (and are) operated by single people. You need a crew of four to operate a tank.

But we're still totally allowed to buy tanks.

And what % of violent crimes are random? Most of them are committed by someone you know.

You ask a question, but completely fail to support the answer you give. How many are most? What percentage of violent crimes are acts of random violence? I think you'll be surprised by what you dig up.

Of course. How do you think these criminals got the guns in the first place?

I'm pro sensible gun laws. I just don't see any legitmate reason to be able to purchase ARs. It isn't a right to be able to shoot any gun.

Simply put, I don't give a **** what you think is "legitmate reason" [sic] for purchasing a type of firearm. I think it's silly people buy $200,000 super cars just to drive around town and show off their little dicks, but I'm not running around saying they should be banned either.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Only a complete moron would seriously suggest that. Or at least that individual fails to grasps apples to apples comparisons.

I think you fail to understand how destructive automobiles are.

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Because mass produced guns out of south and central america like the Chinese copy of the AK47 are all over and thus cheap. AR-15's are also mass produced.

I recently saw a Norinco copy of the SVD Dragunov. (NDB-86). $4000. Wasn't the real thing and way over-priced, but buy did I want that.

Originally Posted by MrClose

Well .. Yeah.
As your master said: "You bring a knife We bring a Gun!"

See above.
THAT was your government speaking.

Allowed to have?

I'm just guessing here but I would imagine that if I were able to afford them, I could have my own aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, nukes etc. etc. and If I were wealthy enough to own them .. it'd be interesting to see the government try to dis-allow my right to own them.

You'd be right, MrClose. You can legally own military hardware. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of surplus dealers around the county and around the world. The only thing you can't legally own is a nuclear weapon as a destructive device, and it has a lot to do with the regulation of fissile materials--and that the nations of the world frown upon the possession and use of nuclear weapons.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

So should citizens also have access to?:

tanks
stealth bombers
destructive grenades
land mines
biological weapons
mortars

Originally Posted by Magritte25

I was hoping for a more serious answer.

It was a serious answer. I cover it already, but civilians already have access to all of those, with the exception of Biological weapons I believe, as those are also banned for nation-states to possess as well.

Originally Posted by GregW

I still prefer an M-1 rifle for reaching out and touching things. Without the long magazine you can get really close to the ground or other cover and it does not take that long to reload.

If they ever "take away all the guns" a semi skilled machinest can make a flintlock pistol out of a car axle and some bar stock. Cap locks and cartridge firearms are harder with the primers being the most difficult to make. Guns will be around forever so we might as well have the best available. If we don't the criminals on both sides of the law will.

Forget flintlocks, it's simple enough to create a simple bolt-action weapon, and there are enough hand-loaders around here to make ammo, I don't think you'd have any problem if guns were to suddenly disappear over night.

Of course, you'd have to imprison every gun manufacturer in the country. Imagine if they released their design documents on the internet? Anyone with a metal file could make a gun at that point.