100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: This is part of gun safety? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and people actually want to ease gun control restrictions. just what we need, more people like this looney packing. so much for, 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' outlaws have guns now and always will no matter how many or few laws are on the books but an outlaw did not point that particular gun. so if "outlaws will always have guns" then what does it matter? are you saying we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves from the outlaws? that really makes no sense. people cannot relly on the police all the time, and i am glad i can carry my gun with me. said nothing of the sort. you're obviously free to defend yourself any way you lawfully can. but to answer your first question, no, it doesn't much matter how many gun laws are in place that protect the bulk of society precisely because laws will not stop outlaws from having guns. so what's wrong with laws that protect children in the home? what's wrong with laws restricting automatic weapons? You just answered your own question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually the question was rhetorical. i knew the answer all along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and people actually want to ease gun control restrictions. just what we need, more people like this looney packing. so much for, 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' outlaws have guns now and always will no matter how many or few laws are on the books but an outlaw did not point that particular gun. so if "outlaws will always have guns" then what does it matter? are you saying we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves from the outlaws? that really makes no sense. people cannot relly on the police all the time, and i am glad i can carry my gun with me. said nothing of the sort. you're obviously free to defend yourself any way you lawfully can. but to answer your first question, no, it doesn't much matter how many gun laws are in place that protect the bulk of society precisely because laws will not stop outlaws from having guns. so what's wrong with laws that protect children in the home? what's wrong with laws restricting automatic weapons? nobody is saying you cannot have a firearm. i'm certainly not anyway. but just because you think you're safer with a gun in the home does not make it so. i've no doubt whatsoever that having a gun in a home, especially homes with young children, puts the family far more at risk of an accidental death or injury than there is a risk of a home invasion. perhaps you know of several people who might have protected themselves or did protect themselves by having a gun available but i've lived sixty two years and know nobody personally whose ever even had a burglary. yes, a stolen car or two but how does a gun prevent that happening in a walmart parking lot? fact is, as gun laws have become more prevalent, violent crimb has been in a steady decline over the last three decades. does that necessarily mean that the surge in gun laws and restrictions has had a causual effect? no, of course not. but it also doesn't follow that more guns will make us all safer. the way i see it, someone stealing you car in the parking lot does not put your life in danger, neither does a burglary when your not home. there is no need to shoot someone for trying to steal something. i think that guns are for self defense or protecting someone elses life only, not to play police and stop a burglary... Normally you can take someone down who's stealing, almost always they just want to get away. I deal with it on a daily basis at work. I usually catch and put in cuffs on average 3 a day. I have NEVER had to use any type of weapon to accomplish this. If you are that worried about it, or can not defend yourself or take someone out with your bare hands, just goto www.taser.com and get a civilian use C2 Taser. You can drop just about anyone with one of those and can use them if someone is breaking into your house. Now if they are breaking in to your house with more serious intentions or have a weapon then of course shoot to kill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i have never been against guns actually in some cases i wish people did have guns besides the ones who shouldn't,like the Virginia Tech incident just to name one.In most circumstances i'd rather it be them and not me who gets shot. and if 5 of the 11 that were shot had a gun, would he still have shot 11 people? i'm guessing no... he was that brave and got as far as he did because he knew no one had a gun... I believe he was mind controlled myself, like some others who have acted out in public in such a way, but I will agree that if you take away people's rights to defend themselves with a firearm, you will increase crime because those that are determined to do harm are gonna still do it, if not more so when they know the people they are trying to harm have no means to fight back. All gun control does is punish the responsible. actually, i have been wondering about this mind control thing for a while now... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. well, nothing prevents federal, state amd municipal governments from inacting gun laws and restrictions. it's not about letting them in. it's about there's nothing can prevent it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lpdon
on
Thu 07/14/11 03:13 PM
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. well, nothing prevents federal, state amd municipal governments from inacting gun laws and restrictions. it's not about letting them in. it's about there's nothing can prevent it. Then screw the non Law Enforcement people who actually need automatic weapons? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i have never been against guns actually in some cases i wish people did have guns besides the ones who shouldn't,like the Virginia Tech incident just to name one.In most circumstances i'd rather it be them and not me who gets shot. and if 5 of the 11 that were shot had a gun, would he still have shot 11 people? i'm guessing no... he was that brave and got as far as he did because he knew no one had a gun... I believe he was mind controlled myself, like some others who have acted out in public in such a way, but I will agree that if you take away people's rights to defend themselves with a firearm, you will increase crime because those that are determined to do harm are gonna still do it, if not more so when they know the people they are trying to harm have no means to fight back. All gun control does is punish the responsible. actually, i have been wondering about this mind control thing for a while now... Oh, care to elaborate a bit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. well, nothing prevents federal, state amd municipal governments from inacting gun laws and restrictions. it's not about letting them in. it's about there's nothing can prevent it. That's the entire problem though in a nutshell, we've given all the power over to them, instead of saying no. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and people actually want to ease gun control restrictions. just what we need, more people like this looney packing. so much for, 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' outlaws have guns now and always will no matter how many or few laws are on the books but an outlaw did not point that particular gun. so if "outlaws will always have guns" then what does it matter? are you saying we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves from the outlaws? that really makes no sense. people cannot relly on the police all the time, and i am glad i can carry my gun with me. said nothing of the sort. you're obviously free to defend yourself any way you lawfully can. but to answer your first question, no, it doesn't much matter how many gun laws are in place that protect the bulk of society precisely because laws will not stop outlaws from having guns. so what's wrong with laws that protect children in the home? what's wrong with laws restricting automatic weapons? nobody is saying you cannot have a firearm. i'm certainly not anyway. but just because you think you're safer with a gun in the home does not make it so. i've no doubt whatsoever that having a gun in a home, especially homes with young children, puts the family far more at risk of an accidental death or injury than there is a risk of a home invasion. perhaps you know of several people who might have protected themselves or did protect themselves by having a gun available but i've lived sixty two years and know nobody personally whose ever even had a burglary. yes, a stolen car or two but how does a gun prevent that happening in a walmart parking lot? fact is, as gun laws have become more prevalent, violent crimb has been in a steady decline over the last three decades. does that necessarily mean that the surge in gun laws and restrictions has had a causual effect? no, of course not. but it also doesn't follow that more guns will make us all safer. the way i see it, someone stealing you car in the parking lot does not put your life in danger, neither does a burglary when your not home. there is no need to shoot someone for trying to steal something. i think that guns are for self defense or protecting someone elses life only, not to play police and stop a burglary... of course. but as i see it there is more danger of an accident with a gun in a home than there is danger that will require self defense or the need to protect someone with that gun. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and people actually want to ease gun control restrictions. just what we need, more people like this looney packing. so much for, 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' outlaws have guns now and always will no matter how many or few laws are on the books but an outlaw did not point that particular gun. so if "outlaws will always have guns" then what does it matter? are you saying we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves from the outlaws? that really makes no sense. people cannot relly on the police all the time, and i am glad i can carry my gun with me. said nothing of the sort. you're obviously free to defend yourself any way you lawfully can. but to answer your first question, no, it doesn't much matter how many gun laws are in place that protect the bulk of society precisely because laws will not stop outlaws from having guns. so what's wrong with laws that protect children in the home? what's wrong with laws restricting automatic weapons? nobody is saying you cannot have a firearm. i'm certainly not anyway. but just because you think you're safer with a gun in the home does not make it so. i've no doubt whatsoever that having a gun in a home, especially homes with young children, puts the family far more at risk of an accidental death or injury than there is a risk of a home invasion. perhaps you know of several people who might have protected themselves or did protect themselves by having a gun available but i've lived sixty two years and know nobody personally whose ever even had a burglary. yes, a stolen car or two but how does a gun prevent that happening in a walmart parking lot? fact is, as gun laws have become more prevalent, violent crimb has been in a steady decline over the last three decades. does that necessarily mean that the surge in gun laws and restrictions has had a causual effect? no, of course not. but it also doesn't follow that more guns will make us all safer. the way i see it, someone stealing you car in the parking lot does not put your life in danger, neither does a burglary when your not home. there is no need to shoot someone for trying to steal something. i think that guns are for self defense or protecting someone elses life only, not to play police and stop a burglary... of course. but as i see it there is more danger of an accident with a gun in a home than there is danger that will require self defense or the need to protect someone with that gun. Not if you know how to use one and your safe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Thu 07/14/11 03:16 PM
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. well, nothing prevents federal, state amd municipal governments from inacting gun laws and restrictions. it's not about letting them in. it's about there's nothing can prevent it. That's the entire problem though in a nutshell, we've given all the power over to them, instead of saying no. you're problem in a nutshell. not mine. and 'we the people' gave the power to them in 1789. nothing new here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and people actually want to ease gun control restrictions. just what we need, more people like this looney packing. so much for, 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' outlaws have guns now and always will no matter how many or few laws are on the books but an outlaw did not point that particular gun. so if "outlaws will always have guns" then what does it matter? are you saying we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves from the outlaws? that really makes no sense. people cannot relly on the police all the time, and i am glad i can carry my gun with me. said nothing of the sort. you're obviously free to defend yourself any way you lawfully can. but to answer your first question, no, it doesn't much matter how many gun laws are in place that protect the bulk of society precisely because laws will not stop outlaws from having guns. so what's wrong with laws that protect children in the home? what's wrong with laws restricting automatic weapons? nobody is saying you cannot have a firearm. i'm certainly not anyway. but just because you think you're safer with a gun in the home does not make it so. i've no doubt whatsoever that having a gun in a home, especially homes with young children, puts the family far more at risk of an accidental death or injury than there is a risk of a home invasion. perhaps you know of several people who might have protected themselves or did protect themselves by having a gun available but i've lived sixty two years and know nobody personally whose ever even had a burglary. yes, a stolen car or two but how does a gun prevent that happening in a walmart parking lot? fact is, as gun laws have become more prevalent, violent crimb has been in a steady decline over the last three decades. does that necessarily mean that the surge in gun laws and restrictions has had a causual effect? no, of course not. but it also doesn't follow that more guns will make us all safer. the way i see it, someone stealing you car in the parking lot does not put your life in danger, neither does a burglary when your not home. there is no need to shoot someone for trying to steal something. i think that guns are for self defense or protecting someone elses life only, not to play police and stop a burglary... of course. but as i see it there is more danger of an accident with a gun in a home than there is danger that will require self defense or the need to protect someone with that gun. Not if you know how to use one and your safe. we simply disagree |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Thu 07/14/11 03:21 PM
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. well, nothing prevents federal, state amd municipal governments from inacting gun laws and restrictions. it's not about letting them in. it's about there's nothing can prevent it. That's the entire problem though in a nutshell, we've given all the power over to them, instead of saying no. you're problem in a nutshell. not mine. and 'we the people' gave the power to them in 1789. nothing new here. No it's everyone's problem, because if they control me they control you too. We're all under the same laws. None of us are immune. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banning automatic weapons would totally screw people who are Bail Enforcement Agents, Military contractors(since they are civilian and not Law Enforcement or Military), Body Guards, Security Officers, former Military members, Armored Money Transport Services, Personal and Property Protective Services and people who own property or live on the border to Mexico are just some of the Non Law Enforcement people who would have a need and use for automatic weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and people actually want to ease gun control restrictions. just what we need, more people like this looney packing. so much for, 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' outlaws have guns now and always will no matter how many or few laws are on the books but an outlaw did not point that particular gun. so if "outlaws will always have guns" then what does it matter? are you saying we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves from the outlaws? that really makes no sense. people cannot relly on the police all the time, and i am glad i can carry my gun with me. said nothing of the sort. you're obviously free to defend yourself any way you lawfully can. but to answer your first question, no, it doesn't much matter how many gun laws are in place that protect the bulk of society precisely because laws will not stop outlaws from having guns. so what's wrong with laws that protect children in the home? what's wrong with laws restricting automatic weapons? nobody is saying you cannot have a firearm. i'm certainly not anyway. but just because you think you're safer with a gun in the home does not make it so. i've no doubt whatsoever that having a gun in a home, especially homes with young children, puts the family far more at risk of an accidental death or injury than there is a risk of a home invasion. perhaps you know of several people who might have protected themselves or did protect themselves by having a gun available but i've lived sixty two years and know nobody personally whose ever even had a burglary. yes, a stolen car or two but how does a gun prevent that happening in a walmart parking lot? fact is, as gun laws have become more prevalent, violent crimb has been in a steady decline over the last three decades. does that necessarily mean that the surge in gun laws and restrictions has had a causual effect? no, of course not. but it also doesn't follow that more guns will make us all safer. the way i see it, someone stealing you car in the parking lot does not put your life in danger, neither does a burglary when your not home. there is no need to shoot someone for trying to steal something. i think that guns are for self defense or protecting someone elses life only, not to play police and stop a burglary... of course. but as i see it there is more danger of an accident with a gun in a home than there is danger that will require self defense or the need to protect someone with that gun. Not if you know how to use one and your safe. we simply disagree Yea we do, I have been in live threatening situations and VERY dangerous situations where I wish I was armed at the time. I have had a gun pulled on me, I have been stabbed, cut and sliced(over 20 stitches), jumped, hit with objests(I am actually off work recovering from an injury, I had 8 liquor bottles broken on my nuts damaging one of the testicle tubes), almost ran over. Once your in situations like that you will realise that what your thinking is completely wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. well, nothing prevents federal, state amd municipal governments from inacting gun laws and restrictions. it's not about letting them in. it's about there's nothing can prevent it. That's the entire problem though in a nutshell, we've given all the power over to them, instead of saying no. you're problem in a nutshell. not mine. and 'we the people' gave the power to them in 1789. nothing new here. No it's everyone's problem, because if they control me they control you too. We're all under the same laws. None of us are immune. no, none of us is immune. when you choose to live under u.s. jurisdiction you are subject to u.s. law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. well, nothing prevents federal, state amd municipal governments from inacting gun laws and restrictions. it's not about letting them in. it's about there's nothing can prevent it. That's the entire problem though in a nutshell, we've given all the power over to them, instead of saying no. you're problem in a nutshell. not mine. and 'we the people' gave the power to them in 1789. nothing new here. No it's everyone's problem, because if they control me they control you too. We're all under the same laws. None of us are immune. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i have never been against guns actually in some cases i wish people did have guns besides the ones who shouldn't,like the Virginia Tech incident just to name one.In most circumstances i'd rather it be them and not me who gets shot. and if 5 of the 11 that were shot had a gun, would he still have shot 11 people? i'm guessing no... he was that brave and got as far as he did because he knew no one had a gun... I believe he was mind controlled myself, like some others who have acted out in public in such a way, but I will agree that if you take away people's rights to defend themselves with a firearm, you will increase crime because those that are determined to do harm are gonna still do it, if not more so when they know the people they are trying to harm have no means to fight back. All gun control does is punish the responsible. actually, i have been wondering about this mind control thing for a while now... Oh, care to elaborate a bit? just seeming coincidences, like the shooter at fort hood went to the same school, did almost the same thing, just a few months apart... people just doing crazy **** all the time nowadays... a woman in Dallas cut off her childs arms, a random stranger goes and stabs 2 teenage girls in broad daylight for no apparent reason, a guy throws his wife off a bridge in rush hour traffic... are people that sic or is there something else going on? http://www.sott.net/articles/show/227120-More-gibberish-US-TV-personality-Judge-Judy-hospitalized-as-weird-speech-affliction-strikes-again http://www.hourofthetime.com/mindcont.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only certain Automatic Weapons should be restricted. There are people who arn't in Law Enforcement who do have a use and serious need for them. My problem is, once you let them in a little bit, they will take more and more and more. The slow invasion on our right to privacy since 9-11 is proof of that. well, nothing prevents federal, state amd municipal governments from inacting gun laws and restrictions. it's not about letting them in. it's about there's nothing can prevent it. Then screw the non Law Enforcement people who actually need automatic weapons? why does anyone "need" an automatic weapon? |
|
|
|
|
