You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It Begins. Holder Announces Plan To Ban Semi-Auto Guns
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Quote from DmanX:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but mace, pepper spray, knives over 4" and batons (especially retractable ones) are illegal in many cities. As well as stun guns.
Last week, a 40 something woman was beaten and robbed in Central Park while out walking her dog. People tend to train their dogs to be social otherwise they become a liability.
When was the last time you heard of someone (woman) who learned martial arts at one of those store front posh studios ever actually using it to defend themselves? Truth is, you knee a man in the balls, you'll stun him yes, but unless you can incapacitate him, you'll likely as has happened piss him off further which leads to a worse situation.
There were a rash of home invasions last year on Long Island. A few killings resulted in them also. In one case, the invasion was thwarted by an armed home owner who was able to acquire his firearm quickly. In another case, a man was not able to get to his gun which was in a locked box. He was shot and killed.
Now I'm not saying this to advocate waton gun ownership. I'm just pointing out that you really can't protect yourself all that well in liberal dominated regions, since liberal lawmakers tend to strip away all lines of reasonable defense. Some of their arguments against have merit, yes.
Most do not.
And what's more, they seem more please with making laws than enforcing, or more importantly, reinforcing the one's on the books. Also, it would pay if they would educate themselves about guns. Though many times, their ignorance is actually a boon to those who want to own certain types of guns.
C. McCarthy (D), who lost her husband on the LIRR when he was shot by C. Ferguson is understandably anti-gun. However, if only she understood the facts of the case that Ferguson's background would have prevented him from ever legally owning a gun. His background check failed to reveal pertinent info about his past mental health.
Making laws that encumber or restrict law abiding citizen's right to reasonably defend themselves is counter productive since the grand majority of gun violence is committed by persons with criminal pasts. Sure, every now and again we get a law abiding citizen that goes rogue and commits and act of gun violence. Or we get cases where irresponsible parents allow access to firearms to emotionally disturb children. But there are ways to induce parents to be more responsible. Nothing can be done about the rogue.
Lastly, did you know that in the UK where it is very difficult to acquire firearms that they have been having a rash of knife violence?
For the fucking last time:
1)Guns create more crime
2)This effect is camouflaged by a high standard of living and an effecting police force.
Can't you people read. US experience with gun control is predicated on the continued assumptions that "law abiding citizens" need guns to protect from thugs who will have them anyway.
In a gun control country an average thug does NOT get access to a gun while in the US everyone and their dog does. This simple issue by itself makes it much harder for police to do its job. When most people are content are police size is adequate this arrangement seems to work adequately. Wait till the average "white law abiding" citizen becomes a thug.
When I drive around in Orlando I am keenly aware of the possibilities of some kiddie trying to carjack me. That kiddie would never in a million years have access to gun in a country like UK. Yes UK has a knife problem but there are no drive by knifings and no mass school knifings either. And robbing any store with just a knife is asking to be punched in the face hard.
The mass proliferation of guns allows for just about every shady character (and many troubled individuals)to get access to serious firepower.
Do you people get that some high school drop out can easily pack heat in the US? Is it a good outcome?
Quote from Mag Light:
from across the big pond.....
"Gun-crime statistics for the first five years following the gun ban proved very different from that which was forecast. Gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled, and the incidence of murder with firearms rose 65 percent. Robberies and muggings also increased dramatically. It is reported that England alone has nearly 400,000 robberies each year, a rate nearly one-quarter higher per capita than that of the United States."
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3280
libtards have to be, without exception, the most dense illogical dumbasses on the face of the planet. the statistics go against everything they preach, but preach they do.
NO way, you referenced an NRA website. Good job. Ok, here is an explanation. The article is from NRA which is hardly impartial. Second it cutely references "for the first five years following" the ban(that would be 2003?).
Transitions are tricky business. When you transition from communism to a market economy the first five years will be more than awful, but that does not mean market economy is bad. Initiailly, you have a stockpile of guns that criminals collected and obviously refused to fork over for the deadline. Over long term, with less guns being produced(and produced under strict control) and existing guns wearing out, you will see a serious decline.
Screw 2003, nobody claims UK has more crime with firearms in recent times than US does(but they do have a knife problem). Btw, UK's knife problem is attributable by an influx of third worlders.
Quote from Mag Light:
welcome to the world if liberalism!!!!
i previously posed a very real life scenario depicting a negrow breaking into a white families home, raping and then killing the children, the husband comes into the home and kills the perpetrator as he was about to kill the wife. i specificly used negrow as an example because, it gets the liberals worked up in a tizzy, and two, this is how it always goes down in the end; justifiably shoot a white breaking into your home, you get a pat on the back. all else being the same except the perpetrator is negrow, and the shooter instantly becomes the oppressor and the killer a victim. the husband is then questioned incessantly about why there was a gun in the house, if it was registered, and if you even so much as whispered the word 'nigger' it automatically becomes a hate crime. the libtards couldn't argue against my posting on merit, so they complained and had it deleted. liberals are cowards. there is no other explanation to defend their actions.
under the above conditions, police should not have the right to question why the gun was in the house or whether or not it is even registered. waving a gun around in a movie theatre is one thing, protecting your family during a vicious attack within your own home is quite another. as stated before, the only thing 911 is good for is to send someone out to draw a chalk line around the carcus.
And example similiar to this in 2006 on Long Island. Mr. White (a Black man), shot and killed a white youth with an unlicensed firearm at the end of his driveway after a group of white youths wanted to speak to his son comments he made at a party they were all at concerning his desire to rape the white youth's (who was shot) sister.
The defense (for Mr white, the black man) claimed that the white youth were acting like a "lynch mob." While Mr. White never called the police and the white youth never tried to enter the home but stayed in the street in front of the house. When asked why Mr. White didn't call the police, he said, "I doubted that the police would come to a Black man's home so I had to defend my family."
Really? Mr. White went out of his house and to the end of the driveway with an illegal firearm and shot an unarmed white teenager.
His sentence amounted to a slap on the wrist. Judge was a liberal.
Obviously, if this were reversed, we'd all know the outcome. It would be a sensible one.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
For the fucking last time:
1)Guns create more crime
2)This effect is camouflaged by a high standard of living and an effecting police force.
Can't you people read. US experience with gun control is predicated on the continued assumptions that "law abiding citizens" need guns to protect from thugs who will have them anyway.
In a gun control country an average thug does NOT get access to a gun while in the US everyone and their dog does. This simple issue by itself makes it much harder for police to do its job. When most people are content are police size is adequate this arrangement seems to work adequately. Wait till the average "white law abiding" citizen becomes a thug.
When I drive around in Orlando I am keenly aware of the possibilities of some kiddie trying to carjack me. That kiddie would never in a million years have access to gun in a country like UK. Yes UK has a knife problem but there are no drive by knifings and no mass school knifings either. And robbing any store with just a knife is asking to be punched in the face hard.
The mass proliferation of guns allows for just about every shady character (and many troubled individuals)to get access to serious firepower.
Do you people get that some high school drop out can easily pack heat in the US? Is it a good outcome?
Take a breath. Learn about the guns laws in this country (they differ from state to state - some with reciprocating rights). Then let's talk about the flaws in the laws and lack of enforcement.
As a gun owner, I'll have you know that I support reasonable arms laws.
Quote from Mag Light:
only to the brainwashed sheeple and negrow apologists who are ignorant to crime statistics.
reminds me of the oj trial. you had two people nearly decapitated by a savage murderer, and what did the media focus on? a police officer used the word 'nigger.'!!!!
I see. Well, I'd still be more mindful against using such terms. But I agree, the double standard is silly. It fosters inequallity.
Here is what giving guns to "Whites" accomplishes - an armed rebellion (1861-1865). Since history is told by the victors, clearly millions of white men and women were far from law abiding during that period.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Here is what giving guns to "Whites" accomplishes - an armed rebellion (1861-1865). Since history is told by the victors, clearly millions of white men and women were far from law abiding during that period.
But then again, I'm sure you don't object to the armed rebellion of 1775â1783... the fruits of which you enjoy even to this day.