The Gun Issue thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morden

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morden

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrG

Seems your rhetorical overkill about "....everyone form the POTUS on down..." has contradicted itself in the same rant. Pretty much cancels your argument out. Well done.

---

Not seeing your point. My point was that a) due to a lack of respect for "Rule of Law", honest citizens are living in dangerous times, and b) the Police who interface the most with criminals and their crimes, have already adopted a "shoot first and repeatedly" mentality in order to deal with criminals, and that honest citizens need to do the same.

Many states now have "stand your ground " laws and "make my day" laws which make it legal for an honest citizen to use deadly force to protect themselves and their families.

What part of my "rant" did you not understand? If necessary, I will spell it out in even simpler phrases.

RickThai

---

So, perhaps you would argue that when the Boston police shot up a whole neighbourhood, the local people should have fired back.

---

The incident that comes to my mind, was in NYC, but to answer your question. If one or more police officers opened fire (either trying to shoot a suspected criminal or not) on a crowd of innocent people, then YES, any armed citizen should have the right to legally shoot the out-of-control officer(s).

In Vietnam, occasionally different military units would accidentally get into a firefight with each other. Bottom line, when someone is shooting at you or other innocent people, you should shoot back. It's called self-defense.

Just my opinion of course.

RickThai

---

The police shot up a neighbourhood when the target is two youths in the street. The neighbours who were under fire, you say, could have fired back at the police? Who the hell survives something like that, other than the original targets perhaps? That is just crazy. The cops would kill the whole darned street.

The military example to which you refer suggests that someone doesn't know how to run an army.

There was also the matter of 'friendly fire', another euphemism, in Bosnia. US troops kept shooting British soldiers in the back. You don't get much time to respond, other than to fall down dead.

I know what 'self-defence' is. In the case of the Boston incident, getting to a safe place in, under or behind your house would be self-defence. Shooting at a SWAT team would be suicide. Those guys were on a shooting rampage because one of their own was taken down. They lost control. If that happens within the law enforcement agencies, then poorly legislated and enforced gun laws for civilians who seem not to have much training looks even more stupid.

---

Hiding is not self-defense, its self-preservation. Defense is fighting back. Out-of-control cops who open up on a crowd of innocent people deserve to have the crowd start shooting back at them IMO. That's just one more example of how the US society has different laws for different groups.

Anyone should have the right to shoot back when they are getting shot at. That transcends any man-made law IMO.

But I am not, and have never been a sheep.

RickThai

^
This gal certainly isn't a sheep either Rick.

And knowing how to use a rifle or handgun properly and safely is the prime requisite:

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/38571-1/AR15wood_0642.jpg

Here's another shot of this rather fetching gal:

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

Apparently living in "gun free" England is not as safe as some people believe. What a shame that a young, patriotic man is killed and beheaded on a busy street by a couple of immigrant, Islamic thugs with knives.

GUNS WHEN A KNIFE JUST WON'T DO!

RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
This gal certainly isn't a sheep either Rick.

And knowing how to use a rifle or handgun properly and safely is the prime requisite:

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/38571-1/AR15wood_0642.jpg

Here's another shot of this rather fetching gal:

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

---

She is definitely not a sheep. Even a wolf (or grizzley) would have second thoughts about messing with this girl.

RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Apparently living in "gun free" England is not as safe as some people believe. What a shame that a young, patriotic man is killed and beheaded on a busy street by a couple of immigrant, Islamic thugs with knives.

GUNS WHEN A KNIFE JUST WON'T DO!

RickThai

---

Not many Britons would swap to live in the gun crazy US. Nowhere on earth is free from violence and few countries are free from the risk of terrorist violence.

Here's some helpful advice from Mother Jones on HOW TO BUILD YOUR OWN UNTRACEABLE AK-47.

Pretty cool...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morden

Not many Britons would swap to live in the gun crazy US. Nowhere on earth is free from violence and few countries are free from the risk of terrorist violence.

---

I'd wager many Brits would like a choice, rather have the government decide for them.

Also characterizing the entire USA as "gun crazy" is simply rather disingenuous rhetoric.

The vast majority of firearms owners are responsible. Accidents and tragic incidents do happen when handling anything that is potentially dangerous. be it firearms automobile, motorcycles, whatever.


The point I continue to maintain is about promoting personal responsibility and handing responsibility to the government has proved to diminish the responsibility of the individual.
Taking the focus off the individual and looking at the object which is mishandled and causes injury is the wrong approach and actually reduces individual competence.
That's the honest way to look at this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The point I continue to maintain is about promoting personal responsibility and handing responsibility to the government has proved to diminish the responsibility of the individual.

---

That logic goes right over these 'usual suspects' heads as they are firmly attached to the notion of The Nanny State. In other words, Big Government Statists who regard personal responsibility as a minor element in the grand scheme of things.

Recall that left-wing moonbat talking head on MSNBC who came out with the notion that everyone's kids belong to the Collective?

Heh...Sarah Palin shot right back and asked her if my kids belong to you then your kids are OK with me taking them hunting in my big pick-me-up-truck after Church on Sunday?

Chirping crickets followed that!:rofl:

Who's more credible in the Assault Weapon debate? 4-star General Stanley McChrystal or Booners pal Ted Nugent?

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.” ~ Ret. Gen Stanley McChrystal

^actually if you knew anything the Nato 7.62x51 ammo is much more effective for knocking things down. Even the AK-47 7.62x39 ammo is more effective than the 5.56x45.
But the ammo of choice for old timers is the 7.62x63 (30-06), by far the most effective choice.

Be responsible and be informed so you might bleat a little less ignorance.:rolleyes:

When Republicans say Hitler loved gun control they are lying.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

A small minority of gun fetishists have a disproportionately loud voice in the current debate. These are well-paid lobbyists for the gun-manufacturing industry (Wayne LaPierre), media figures whose radicalism attracts far more attention than their talent (Ted Nugent, Alex Jones), or everyday folks like Trailer Trash Booners who have become convinced by fear-mongering lobbyists and media extremists that imaginary roving bands of criminals are at their doorstep.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/05/2719.jpg

Machine guns are illegal in the US. If its OK to ban machine guns, why isn't it OK to ban military-style assault rifles?
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Source: Guns, knives, ammo and gear: Adam Lanza's arsenal, item by item - U.S. News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Machine guns are illegal in the US. If its OK to ban machine guns, why isn't it OK to ban military-style assault rifles?

---

You enjoy displaying your ignorance on the gun issue don't ya!

Actually you can legally own a fully automatic rifle if you want. You must apply for a class 3 license, cost used to be $300 a year to have the license.

http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Class-3-Firearms-License

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Machine guns are illegal in the US. If its OK to ban machine guns, why isn't it OK to ban military-style assault rifles?

---

You enjoy displaying your ignorance on the gun issue don't ya!

Actually you can legally own a fully automatic rifle if you want. You must apply for a class 3 license, cost used to be $300 a year to have the license.

How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License: 10 Steps - wikiHow

---

You're right Earl, it is possible to obtain a machine gun legally in the US, but the sale, ownership and transportation of automatic weapons has been strictly controlled by the government since the 1930s.

Among other things, federal law:
1. requires all machine guns, except antique firearms, not in the U.S. government's possession to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);
2. bars private individuals from transferring or acquiring machine guns except those lawfully possessed and registered before May 19, 1986;
3. requires anyone transferring or manufacturing machine guns to get prior ATF approval and register the firearms;
4. with very limited exceptions, imposes a $200 excise tax whenever a machine gun is transferred;

5. bars interstate transport of machine guns without ATF approval; and
6. imposes harsh penalties for machine gun violations, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for possessing an unregistered machine gun.



Why are the gun nuts so opposed to having the same common sense controls and restrictions placed on assault weapons?

I would argue that it has nothing to do with protecting the 2nd amendment and everything to do with gun sales. The NRA and Wayne Lapierre represent the gun industry and will say whatever it takes to keep the gun trade flourishing.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/05/2744.jpg

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

The assault weapons ban, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994 helped reduce gun violence, but the law expired in 2004 and Republicans have repeatedly blocked its renewal.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

when will the next mass shooting with a semi automatic rifle take place?

5.....4.....3....2....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

when will the next mass shooting with a semi automatic rifle take place?

5.....4.....3....2....

---

Exactly! All the fine detail posted earlier is irrelevant when kids can lie dead in their school, at least one of them apparently having eleven holes in him, each the size of a baseball.

The NRA's Perverted View of America

"Universal access to firearms is indistinguishable from Emancipation." - Glenn Beck at the 2013 NRA Convention
Responding to the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Houston earlier this month, Connecticut's freshman Senator Chris Murphy noted, "The NRA kind of announced this weekend they're morphing into a paramilitary group, that essentially they're going to be advocating for armed resistance to the U.S. government." Law professor Stanley Fish mused, "The more militant members of the NRA and most of its leaders may be un-American ... [John Wilkes] Booth's modern successors are saying that a house in the hands of tyrants does not deserve to stand and they are ready to bring it down with their constitutionally protected guns." They weren't exaggerating.
The NRA didn't just throw down the gauntlet to our government in Houston. It also articulated a vision of America and its ideals that is the antithesis of what our Founders intended, and which would mean the abolition of our Constitution.
There can longer be any doubt that the NRA's leadership views our government as a dangerous enemy that must be defeated with violence and force of arms. The rhetoric at their convention was consistently apocalyptic.

Complete article: Josh Horwitz: The NRA's Perverted View of America

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

The NRA's Perverted View of America

"Universal access to firearms is indistinguishable from Emancipation." - Glenn Beck at the 2013 NRA Convention
Responding to the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Houston earlier this month, Connecticut's freshman Senator Chris Murphy noted, "The NRA kind of announced this weekend they're morphing into a paramilitary group, that essentially they're going to be advocating for armed resistance to the U.S. government." Law professor Stanley Fish mused, "The more militant members of the NRA and most of its leaders may be un-American ... [John Wilkes] Booth's modern successors are saying that a house in the hands of tyrants does not deserve to stand and they are ready to bring it down with their constitutionally protected guns." They weren't exaggerating.
The NRA didn't just throw down the gauntlet to our government in Houston. It also articulated a vision of America and its ideals that is the antithesis of what our Founders intended, and which would mean the abolition of our Constitution.
There can longer be any doubt that the NRA's leadership views our government as a dangerous enemy that must be defeated with violence and force of arms. The rhetoric at their convention was consistently apocalyptic.

Complete article: Josh Horwitz: The NRA's Perverted View of America

---

An organisation that has the sole aim of supporting the gun trade and has in it's pockets right wing politicians that don't like having a black President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morden

An organization that has the sole aim of supporting the gun trade and has in it's pockets right wing politicians that don't like having a black President.

---

Anything is fair game for the libtard except addressing the issue of personal responsibility.

It's difficult to attribute any form of responsibility to civilian gun owners. They are not professionals and don't carry/train with firearms for a living.

This however does not negate their belief that they are proficient in weapon handling even when they win a lethal barrelled weapon in a raffle at a gun exhibition, hosted/sponsored none other than by the NRA, who themselves harp on about personal responsibilty whilst supporting the issue of firearms to all and sundry without the necessity of a background check. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

whilst supporting the issue of firearms to all and sundry without the necessity of a background check.

---

I might remind you there already exists a BATF background check form required to all gun purchases.

The problem is there is no current enforcement. When a felon is caught trying to buy a firearm nothing is done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

whilst supporting the issue of firearms to all and sundry without the necessity of a background check.

---

I might remind you there already exists a BATF background check form required to all gun purchases.

The problem is there is no current enforcement. When a felon is caught trying to buy a firearm nothing is done.

---

And there's me thinking that guns can be bought privately without a background check. All of those US citizens that explained that gaping whole in the system must have been wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

whilst supporting the issue of firearms to all and sundry without the necessity of a background check.

---

I might remind you there already exists a BATF background check form required to all gun purchases.

The problem is there is no current enforcement. When a felon is caught trying to buy a firearm nothing is done.

---

Sorry mate, you need to check your facts. There are plenty of ways to obtain guns in the US without going through a background check.

Fact: There Is No Federal Background Check Requirement For Private Transactions

Fact: Private Sales Without A Background Check Are Extremely Common, Including At Gun Shows And Online

Fact: Supreme Court Has Stated That Background Checks Do Not Violate The Second Amendment

Fact: Background Checks Prevented The Sale Almost 2 Million Firearms In System's First 15 Years, Largely To Criminals And The Mentally Ill ([NBCNews.com, 4/10/13])





Summary: Background checks are legal and effective. The problem is, it's still far too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get around background checks by purchasing guns online and at gun shows.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/05/2811.jpg