Pro-Gun / Hunting Thread

[therodog]

Yes, everytime there is a gun being sold, there MUST be a backround/NICS check. Ill have to do it when i get my 01 FFL. You could pass the backround checks at the police staion, 3 weeks later, commit a feloney, etc, and still get a gun....NOT.....If there was a NICS check, he would have been denied. Remember all criminals start with clean records.

he should had pistol wipped him , not shot him. ( risk of lawsuit tho, hmmm )To me , if someone was looking down my 45ACP when im yelling at him, 95% of the time they will stop and freeze.

(Message edited by therodog on August 31, 2005)

 

[tieguy]

San francisco banning guns is a token effort. No one uses guns in that city. They just B_ tch slap you when angry.

 

[dannyboy]

Criminals can not legally purchase a gun in this country. But that is no problem for someone that is lawless. They either buy one from another criminal or steal one.

As for criminals having a clean record to start with, in most cases that is BS. Most criminals start their history when way too young to buy a gun. Not unusual to see them 8-10 stealing, 11-15 mugging or killing people at that age. In many cases, those that commit violent crimes have a long history of crimes to beging with.

It is rare to find a normal everyday citizen who buys a gun legally and the purchase turns them into a Bonnie and Clyde. It just dosnt happen enough to even mention.

So how to keep them away from the criminals? Well for one, keep the criminals in jail where they belong. Quit letting them out after they serve 25% of the sentence.

We have one guy that kidnapped a 12 year old girl walking home from school, raped her repeatedly over several days, shot her twice, and then buried her still live body. He has been turned down each and every time he has had a hearing, this year being the last time he has a hearing. IN four years he walks out a free man. Why?

Anyone that uses a gun in the commission of a violent crime should have access to the express lane for the death sentence.
d

 

[gman]

How many of you gun guys have actually had a gun put to your head and been robbed? I have and I would rather get rid of them all. (Hand Guns or any fire arm that can be concealed.)

If you think haveing a gun makes you less vulnerable, your nuts. Once you have one pointed at you, you are not going to do any movie action stunts and grab your own weapon of choice to take change of the situation. And having one in your home is just one more they will steal to use on you. Most criminals using a gun have nothing to lose. I do. I'd rather level the playing field and get rid of them all. Thats why the constitution was designed to be amended.

 

[therodog]

you guys see this? WTF

FOREIGN TROOPS OPERATING SECRET DETENTION CENTERS
http://www.infowars.com/detcamp.html

 

[therodog]

GMAN, My father was mugged at gun point once, and he doesnt think like you. He doesnt carry a gun either, but he believes in the second amendment. I had a gun pulled on me in the city once and i showed him mine, and he fled. He wanted my wallet when i was sitting in my car waiting for a friend, and i made it look like i was getting my wallet and aimed my 45 at his face. He his pants. I told a police officer a few weeks later, and he said i did fine.

(Message edited by therodog on September 04, 2005)

 

[trickpony1]

Gman,
Why didn't you shoot him?
If your story is true, it sounds like it would have been justifiable.
You also would have saved society, the courts and the penal system alot of money and time.
Unless, of course, you don't have a permit to carry the weapon.....in which case your act would be just as criminal as the robbers attempt.

SORRY, this question was directed at Therodog.

(Message edited by trickpony1 on September 04, 2005)

(Message edited by trickpony1 on September 04, 2005)

 

[dannyboy]

"I'd rather level the playing field and get rid of them all. "

ANd you think that will take the guns out of the hands of criminals? Now how are you going to do that? Ask them nicely to please turn them in?

When you outlaw guns, only those outside the law will have guns. And those are the very people we need to disarm, not the law abiding citizen that owns guns.

Come up with a plan to disarm the criminals, and you will have my support. Taking away guns from those of us that legally own them is not the answer.

Susie, "Or cold medications out of the hands of meth users."

lets just outlaw knives of all types since some of them are used in stabbings. Or outlaw cars because some people drink and drive.

BTW, sudafed is not used by meth users, it is used by meth producers. A legal substance used for illegal purposes. Catch the criminals that are doing it and put them in jail. JAil the criminals that possess guns and lock them up.

 

[trickpony1]

I viewed the material on infowars.com.
Before anyone goes off "half-cocked", could it be that these people are truly training for the urban tactics brought about by the recent terrorist activities in England which might include biological threats as well as terrorist cells throughout America and countries aligned with us?
If these police/military individuals were truly acting with malice wouldn't you think there would be an uproar as well as media coverage that would transcend any event in recent history?

 

[dannyboy]

Thero

Why would a sign in mississippi be in english and russian. Everyone knows the people of mississippi dont know how to read.

Just kidding.

But what you are viewing is not what the caption you linked to. These are photos of a camp, but not what they stated. IF they were, do you think someone would be able to get that close to shoot photos of the place. If it is so top secret and high security, the photographer would have been shot.

Also, where are the soldiers or vehicles. The camp is empty.

Ever think that maybe someone down there in Mississippi is pulling a leg. OR maybe they are setting up an outdoor prison like they have in Arizona?

Anyway, it is not a pow camp for us and the USA is not under attack.

Stand down, put the guns away before you hurt yourself or someone else.

And for sure, quit posting freekazoid links. The world is a crazy enough place without having to view sites like that.

 

[therodog]

the link is just for checking out, someone sent it to me , so i thought i would put it here to discuss with, YFM.

"Stand down, put the guns away before you hurt yourself or someone else.

And for sure, quit posting freekazoid links. The world is a crazy enough place without having to view sites like that."

After stupid comments like that, We are thinking you and suzi are the same person.

 

[dannyboy]

"We are thinking you and suzi are the same person"

No wonder sites like that attract people like you; you referred to yourself in the plural. Which one of you came up with that thought?

d

 

[gman]

Actually, I was in my package car when it happened. He took my keys and $7,000 worth of CODs. I called the cops and UPS brought out another set of keys. I did the paperwork and finished my day.

therodog, your lucky your still alive and you know it. Where I live has one of the highest murder rates per capita in the country. They don't run here. They just blow you away.

 

[big_arrow_up]

<font color="000000">I think we should have a national gun round up day where everyone has to turn in their guns and then the govt. would destroy them. People would be aloud to own one rifle (no pistols) and each gun would be assigned a number. There would be a 30 day period to collect all the guns and anyone found with a gun without an assigned number (which would mean they kept their gun instead of turning it in) would be subject to fines/jail time. The ability to own a gun would come back 365 days after the end of the gun round up and only people with a clean slate would be allowed. Anyone that has any criminal offenses on their record would have to wait an additional 365 days for each confiction and anyone that is conficted of criminal activity after being alloud to own a gun will have their gun(s) taken away for 365 days and double that and triple that, and so on,for any additional offenses. Would this law be a good one? Well, I think it would because after the roundup everyone in the country would be without guns and would be unable to shoot and kill each other. Without the urge to puck up a gun the crime would be reduced dramatically. I'd prefer that we'd never be aloud to own guns again and instead just use a non lethal, but highly effective, weapon for home defense but I don't think completely whiping out gun ownership for good would go well in this country even though it would be better for everyone in the long run. We'd be better off if only the police and military had guns. </font>

 

[ok2bclever]

thedog, so you are not really one of those freaked out white supremacist, you just use their emblems and read and spout their rhetoric because your friends send the stuff to you, right?

 

[dannyboy]

"I'd prefer that we'd never be aloud to own guns again and instead just use a non lethal, but highly effective, weapon for home defense "

And what would that be, a tennis racquet, slingshot maybe? Any thing you can use to protect yourself and your home has the potential to be lethal.

d

 

[big_arrow_up]

There are many non lethal weapons out there on the market that can subdue an attacker without killing them. And of course just about anything has the potentiol to be lethal but I'm sure a gun has a slightly higher change of killing someone easier than the usual household items. Shooting someone with a small dose of electricity, but not enough to kill them, would be my choice. I'm sure there are more to choose from out there. Just an idea.

 

[over9five]

A small dose of electricity?? Then they'd be alive to commit more crimes. EMPTY THE CLIP!

 

[big_arrow_up]

<font color="000000">For me emptying a clip on someone is strickly for me to watch on TV. Actually killing someone should be the last resort. I guess I could just empty a clip on them and kill them (instead of just incapacitating them with a tazer gun) and tell the authorities that they attacked me. The law would say it was self defense and I'd be looked at as someone that was just defending my home. The problem that I have with that is that there is a higher power I'll have to answer to later that will know what I really did. Killing is wrong even when it is in self defense. I'm not even 100% sure that it is OK then. What about in a war situation?? Well, war is the result of a failure of diplomacy. </font>

 

[tieguy]

I don't know my higher power has come up with such expressions as an eye for an eye and spare the rod spoil the child. Lord knows I would not want to spoil the criminal child.