[stanky_dlx]

Switzerland is hardly a valid comparison to the US. Have you looked into their history of neutrality, dating back to the 1200's, their social, and geographic factors, and strong emphasis on community duty? I urge you to do a little research (and not from John Lott). Also, all swiss males are trained to serve in the military... and the government has strict control of handing out these weapons to men in the military. This might be a little closer to what our framers refered to as a "well regulated militia". Of course Switzerland could help the argument that Cultural conditions have as much to do with violence as gun laws.

Also interesting is that their suicide rate is double that of the U.S.

And what research do you speak of? According to the World Health Organization in 2000 the suicide rate in the US was 10.4 per 100k. Switzerland is 19.1. Japan was 24.1 and they have even more restrictive gun laws than the US. Check out the numbers at:

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/country_reports/en/

Face it there are always different ways to interpret data. Some are lies, others are damn lies, and then there are statistics.

 

[valve bouncer]

300 not 400 sorry about that
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=41400

I see Fluff's link showed your links to be totally bogus. Anytime you wanna say "sorry boys I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about" then that would be fine. But then again I think most of us suspect that about you anyway.

 

[TheMontashu]

valve jest because you cant have airguns with more than like 10 foot pounds of energy(not sure the exact number) dosent mean i dont know what im talking about

 

[valve bouncer]

valve jest because you cant have airguns with more than like 10 foot pounds of energy(not sure the exact number) dosent mean i dont know what im talking about

Q.E.D

 

[TheMontashu]

In Japan they have no guns, even there air guns (pellet guns. BB guns, air soft) have a lot restricting laws, which limit the energy the projectile has.

 

[valve bouncer]

In Japan they have no guns, even there air guns (pellet guns. BB guns, air soft) have a lot restricting laws, which limit the energy the projectile has.

I'm Australian not Japanese, seems you are confused. And you can have a gun in Japan, plenty of hunters here.

 

[genpowell71]

I dont think the Swiss have rifles in every house. I doubt very highly that they have a stockpile of ammo there either. Switzerland is as bad as New York about gun control. If there is an assault rifle in the house, the person is a memeber of the Swiss security force (Janes Defence). I lived a stones throw (Sacile, Italy)away from Switzerland from 98-00. I've been to their country on a training basis on more than one occasion.

Clinton was an idiot, but he was after the gun makers to hold them accountable for the shootings in the streets. I'll go to the grave saying that a full auto rifle or machine gun for the average person is stupid. You dont need an AK47 with a 30 rd magazine to hunt with. But to take away LEGAL weapons from law abiding people that all they have them for is target shooting, hunting, personal and home defense is asking for trouble. When you criminalize guns, the only people that'll haev'em are the criminals.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

First of all the people that are going to kill people arn't really law abiding citizens, why would a law banning them from using them weapons stop them? so the only people that have the guns are the crimanals and the cops, if they plan on killing somone, I doubt they are going to worry about if it's against the law to posses the certain firearm they are using. If someone really wants to kill someone they are going to do it with or with out a gun...bottom line it's just one more right to take away from law abiding citizins, because they are the only ones that will follow that law.

well, interesting POV, but utter crap from a logical stand. that reasoning falls on the assumption of every "law abiding citizen" being responsible, mature and who will always be that way. and that IS a hardly a tautology in which to rest your argument.

how are you sure the law abiding citizens will be law abiding citizens forever???

would you sign an affidavit on all those "law abiding citizens" taking liability on their actions??? or would you rather not, and give those guns anyway, and make the entire society sign the affidavit and take liability on those individuals???

after all, every non abiding citizen, was a law abiding citizen at some point, or not??

are you gonna trust societies safety in the word of those "law abiding people" who will always be????

just think of how many licenses have been revoked. that number sure will tell you that this "law abiding people" change their mind at some point.


then that "if someone wants to kill someone, he will do anyways" argument falls itself.
bigger guns allow you to kill more efficiently. every army knows that. the more gunpower you got, the more damage you can do.

if that argument is true, go and tell a general to arm his soldiers with glocks, because "if they were going to kill X enemys with an Ak47, they as well will do with a glock". or not??? no matter what weapon they have its their "will to kill people" what matters over the weapon of choice, isn it????

sure the holocaust would have killed the same people if they had use knifes and spears according to that reasoning. after all, both sides REALLY wanted to kill the other side.

 

[nicklin]

sure the holocaust would have killed the same people if they had use knifes and spears according to that reasoning. after all, both sides REALLY wanted to kill the other side.

well, if carbon monoxide were to be banned, then the holocaust would have a different ending, so the whole arguement here don't measure up too well.

interestingly, in the same period of time, the japanese "samauri" wannabes, however, did plenty of sh*t with their knives, bayonet, and other pointy objects to helpless, armless women and children. if they were better armed, what would have happened? bunch of dead j*ps.

so your point is also utterly crap. :

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

the japanese "samuri" wannabes, however, did plenty of sh*t with their knives, bayonet, and other pointy objects.

so your point is also utterly crap. :

so how does samurais doing sh*t with swords means that it would not have been worse with ak47s????

does that impply that they would have killed the same regardless of weapon???

am not saying pointy things dont kill, am saying more gunpower, more likely to me a more efficient killer. or not???

my point still stays as yours does nothing to its meat, but distracts on details.

 

[MorphineFreak]

then that "if someone wants to kill someone, he will do anyways" argument falls itself.
bigger guns allow you to kill more efficiently. every army knows that. the more gunpower you got, the more damage you can do.

You know the last time I wanted to kill someone, the first thing I thought was "what is the most efficient way to do so", go figure!!! come on, do you really think that banning assult type weapons will hamper murder? It might be a good idea on paper and such, but we both know that just because it makes them illegal, it doesn't make them unobtainable.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You know the last time I wanted to kill someone, the first thing I thought was "what is the most efficient way to do so", go figure!!! come on, do you really think that banning assult type weapons will hamper murder? It might be a good idea on paper and such, but we both know that just because it makes them illegal, it doesn't make them unobtainable.

well, murderers DO think a lot more than you before commiting crimes. whenever sombody goes to rob a gas station, they dont like come up with the idea and grab the first weapon they see. i bet they give it more thought than that.

am not saying it will make is unobtainable. but at least, harder to get. like drugs.
or do you think if we legalize drugs there wont increase users???

no law, nor its enforcement is perfect. but that does not mean we should not take it because its not perfect.

following your logic, we should allow guns in airplanes cuz you know, current laws nor enforcement dont make it impossible. maybe we should drop DUI laws because there is still people drinking and driving after all, and so on.

i mean, guns, knives, baseball bats attacts as widespread as now is bad. allowing more powerful ones in the market will just make it worse.
why we need to allow more firepower, if with the "little" we have now its bad already???

Dont you think all this nra, gun ownership and rights thing is not really about keeping your rights in the constitution, but about gun makers pushing it so that they dont loose the huge market there is for guns in the US????

 

[MorphineFreak]

Guns arn't the problem, it's the people behind them. Second as an avid hunter and american citizen I hate to see when people that have never been around guns, see a "terrible" crime comitted with a gun, then think they should be outlawed. How about the people that commit vehicular homicide? should cars be outlawed next? or just the really big cars that can really crush people? Just about anything can be deadly, it's all about how the person decides to use it. Maybe people should be the ones looked at, not the weapons.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Guns arn't the problem, it's the people behind them. Second as an avid hunter and american citizen I hate to see when people that have never been around guns, see a "terrible" crime comitted with a gun, then think they should be outlawed. How about the people that commit vehicular homicide? should cars be outlawed next? or just the really big cars that can really crush people? Just about anything can be deadly, it's all about how the person decides to use it. Maybe people should be the ones looked at, not the weapons.

well yeah, guns are not necesarily intrinsically bad. and yeah people who use the guns to kill are the problem.

BUT giving this troubled people access to easier and more effective ways to kill is what a ban on assault weapons is about. it has nothing to do with guns themselves, but with making them harder to access.

and yeah, almost anything can be used to kill. yeah cars can kill. i wont deny that. but that suggests something.

we are already living with that risk at a cost of some lifes. we already take the risk when driving cars, we already have the risk of baseball bats being used to hurt people, like some do.

so why in the world do we need more hazards?????????

like i said, there are already enough things you can use to hurt someone, to add more and more powerful and effective things.

the line gotta be drawn somewhere. and assault weapons is definately a good point on where u can say, well this is actually too much firepower for any practical non-criminal use.

dont you think????? or where do u think the line should be drawn?? RPGs?? howitzers maybe???

 

[Lexx D]

I was into this thread but gave up. I will ask again the purpose of an assault type rifle? I think the name itself indicates the intended use of the gun. I could kill a person with my hands, so should we outlaw hands? None of the pro- assault arguments have given a reaso other than "but cars kill" or "it's my rights". The best argument I've heard yet was to shoot prairie dogs, that's the best argument for assault type rifles? It is your right to own a gun,i have no problem with that.
So why do we still sell AK47's in this country? It's not hunting, or protecting your family and home. Look at some of the articles posted in this thread alone. Why should some random crazy son of a bitch have more ammo and a more powerful weapon than the police? "Because it's my right" Well when i know the cop who got shop by one of those "scary looking" guns that doesn't hold water.

 

[stanky_dlx]

BUT giving this troubled people access to easier and more effective ways to kill is what a ban on assault weapons is about. it has nothing to do with guns themselves, but with making them harder to access.

That my friend, is the problem with the ban It did NOTHING in limiting access to the guns. Do you understand the difference in a "pre-ban" and "post-ban" gun? Look at the AR15. Banned? Nope, remove the bayonet lug, and the flashhider and you're legit. Look at the AK, remove the bayonet lug, flash hider, and put a thumbhole stock on it (since it's imported and falls under a few additional rules) and it's legit. So what did the ban do? Did it bring crime down? There is as much evidence that it did as there it didn't affect the rate of crime. It sure as heck didn't affect my abilitity to walk into a gun shop and buy a functionally identical AR or AK.

Most people who say you don't need a AW don't have the understanding that there are few differences in most semi auto rifles. If you classify them based on features to ban them then they will simply be produced with out those features like they are today. If you attempt to ban them on function you will also have eliminated guns that are used for other legitimate sporting purposes.

and yeah, almost anything can be used to kill. yeah cars can kill. i wont deny that. but that suggests something. we are already living with that risk at a cost of some lifes. we already take the risk when driving cars, we already have the risk of baseball bats being used to hurt people, like some do
so why in the world do we need more hazards????????? .

You're absolutely right! So when are you going to start lobbying congress to ban cars and baseball bats?

where do u think the line should be drawn?? RPGs?? howitzers maybe???

Actually you can own RPG's and howitzers in the US legally. They are classified as destructive devices and are taxed and regulated the same as machine guns. The biggest difference is each round of a RPG is a destructive device since that's the controlled part. Also you need to file out paperwork for each round that is used. A major expense and a major hassle but it can be done.

 

[urbanhuckbot]

with the ban set to expire it just levels the playing field so that law abiding citizens will be able to be as well armed as the criminal.

all gun laws do is take the weapons away from law abiding citizens, criminals will continue to break the law.

 

[urbanhuckbot]

also, i have never seen a weapon "assault" any one. and by the way, my guns have killed less people than ted kennedy's car.


guns dont kill people..........i do

 

[urbanhuckbot]

and another thing, i think that every male over the age of 18 should be made to carry a firearm.

an armed society is a polite society.

 

[Lexx D]

and another thing, i think that every male over the age of 18 should be made to carry a firearm.

an armed society is a polite society.

Guns are for pussies. The strong don't need guns.
Then you start with the "peoeple kill not guns" yeah like i've never heard that before , but crazy idiots with guns can kill alot of people.

Here we go again "but cars kill", beat you to you're argument. A gun has the sole purpose of killing, am I wrong? A car was built and is purchased with intensions other than killing. Meanwhile majority of guns are purchased to kill, it may be prairie dogs and it may be people either way it's designed, built and purchased around the sole purpose of hitting your target(whatever that may be). I don't care if you want a pistol(home protection personal safety), you can have a rifle or shotgun(both very effective tools for hunting), but there is no reason for assault type rifles other than having a small.......well you know, get over it buy a porche.

 

[Lexx D]

and another thing, i think that every male over the age of 18 should be made to carry a firearm.

an armed society is a polite society.

Ok cowboy, go back to your wild west movies. Oh, wait it may not be safe in the living room, better grab a gun.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Guns are for pussies. The strong don't need guns.
.

lol, that is exactly what my grandfather (who used to be a very avid hunter) said.

he said hunting is about precision, not about bringing the biggest rifle and start shooting aimlessly blowing anything that breathes. (and yeah, he hunted big game the jungles of peru and brazil in the 50s, not pussyfied turkeys or boars in a closed ranch).

so i read nothing new in this thread, and well, how can anyone guarantee those "law abiding citizens" will always be that. that is an assumption on the good will of people.

so until if somebody steps up front and signs a civil and penal liability affidavit on every "law abiding citizen with a gun permit", all those are just mushy words.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

and another thing, i think that every male over the age of 18 should be made to carry a firearm.

an armed society is a polite society.

hahahaha, yeah right, like if a modern armed milita would stay alive for more than 10 minutes in a fight against a trained army of soldiers.

 

[stanky_dlx]

I was into this thread but gave up. I will ask again the purpose of an assault type rifle?

Kinda the same as what's the purpose of your bike? It's what YOU as an individual decide you need it for. If you use one for wall decoration then it's an object of art. If you use it to punch holes in paper like some folks do at Camp Perry then it's a target shooting rifle. If you use it to help eliminate a field of prairedogs then it's a tool.

I think the name itself indicates the intended use of the gun.

The name is actually wrong. An Assault Rife is generally a rifle caliber, shoulder fired, select fire, magazine feed weapon....a machine gun. Machine guns are already controlled and taxed by the gov't (yes they are legal to own). The AW ban simply tried to ban semi auto rifles. The name SEMI auto assault weapon is an oxymoron, you don't drive a "manual automatic transmission" do you?

I could kill a person with my hands, so should we outlaw hands?

Yeah you could kill someone with your hands couldn't you? I guess you better sign that petition to ban cars and baseballbats.

It is your right to own a gun,i have no problem with that.
So why do we still sell AK47's in this country? It's not hunting, or protecting your family and home.

AK's are still sold in the country because you happen to live in a free market economy and there is a demand for them. We've already covered that AK's are plenty accurate for shot to medium distances on deer sized game. They are available with 5 round magazines so they can be used for hunting if you wanted to. The AK74 (updated version that uses a round similar to the Nato 5.56mm) along with the AR15 are excellent home defense guns. Smaller caliber rounds are more easily deflected and thus have less penetration potential in side a typical house/apt than heavier 9mm and 45acp rounds. Less risk of ricochet and overpenetration (it's a bad thing for the police to shoot the neighbor on the otherside of the wall).

Look at some of the articles posted in this thread alone. Why should some random crazy son of a bitch have more ammo and a more powerful weapon than the police? "Because it's my right" Well when i know the cop who got shop by one of those "scary looking" guns that doesn't hold water.

Now it seems the dominant train of thought here is to ban gun XYZ because there is no sporting purpose for them and they are used by criminals. Well should FS bikes be banned also? There is no need for more than a SS rigid, and after alll, the majority of people who are illegally building stunts and trails are using FS bikes.

Heck, I'm better armed than the county police dept. Does this make me some "random crazy son of a bitch"? Hardly. While it's sad about your cop friend you're letting your emotions override your logical, thought processes. Again the issue is about freedom of choice. You may not see an need for them but need is not the issue.

 

[Archslater]

And what research do you speak of? According to the World Health Organization in 2000 the suicide rate in the US was 10.4 per 100k. Switzerland is 19.1. Japan was 24.1 and they have even more restrictive gun laws than the US. Check out the numbers at:

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/country_reports/en/

Did I miss something here? I stated that Switzerland's suicide rate was double the U.S. - and you disagreed , but then reinforced my argument, stating that it was 19.1 per 1000, versus ours which is 10.4 per 1000. That is pretty close to double.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

That my friend, is the problem with the ban It did NOTHING in limiting access to the guns. Do you understand the difference in a "pre-ban" and "post-ban" gun? Look at the AR15. Banned? Nope, remove the bayonet lug, and the flashhider and you're legit. Look at the AK, remove the bayonet lug, flash hider, and put a thumbhole stock on it (since it's imported and falls under a few additional rules) and it's legit. So what did the ban do? Did it bring crime down? There is as much evidence that it did as there it didn't affect the rate of crime. It sure as heck didn't affect my abilitity to walk into a gun shop and buy a functionally identical AR or AK.

Most people who say you don't need a AW don't have the understanding that there are few differences in most semi auto rifles. If you classify them based on features to ban them then they will simply be produced with out those features like they are today. If you attempt to ban them on function you will also have eliminated guns that are used for other legitimate sporting purposes.



You're absolutely right! So when are you going to start lobbying congress to ban cars and baseball bats?



Actually you can own RPG's and howitzers in the US legally. They are classified as destructive devices and are taxed and regulated the same as machine guns. The biggest difference is each round of a RPG is a destructive device since that's the controlled part. Also you need to file out paperwork for each round that is used. A major expense and a major hassle but it can be done.

well dude, that is what amazes me. the line is almost non existent now. And the US needs a line according to that of a 1st world, civilized society. not like that of somalia or sierra leone or colombia or some other country in civil war for decades.

 

[stanky_dlx]

lol, that is exactly what my grandfather (who used to be a very avid hunter) said.

he said hunting is about precision, not about bringing the biggest rifle and start shooting aimlessly blowing anything that breathes. (and yeah, he hunted big game the jungles of peru and brazil in the 50s, not pussyfied turkeys or boars in a closed ranch).

You're right real men don't need guns...especially to hunt wild boars. They use one of these... http://www.coldsteel.com/spears-high-performance-spears.html

so i read nothing new in this thread, and well, how can anyone guarantee those "law abiding citizens" will always be that. that is an assumption on the good will of people.

so until if somebody steps up front and signs a civil and penal liability affidavit on every "law abiding citizen with a gun permit", all those are just mushy words.

Well if you look at the raw numbers of people who have been issued concealed carry permits and looked at the total number that have been revolked you'll see that the number is pretty darn low. Take the entire state of Indiana. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent have had there permit revoked. Florida issued ~200K permits between 1987-1994. During that time 17 (~0.008%) permits were revoked. Seems like gun owners are pretty much "law abiding citizens".

 

[Lexx D]

Kinda the same as what's the purpose of your bike? It's what YOU as an individual decide you need it for. If you use one for wall decoration then it's an object of art. If you use it to punch holes in paper like some folks do at Camp Perry then it's a target shooting rifle. If you use it to help eliminate a field of prairedogs then it's a tool.

The purpose of my bike is fun, fitness and thrills. Stop comparing guns to bikes. i haven't seen to many cops killed by a suspect armed with a bike, or a bank robbed with a 10 speed.(I know, I know you could do this with a bat, so don't bother it's not what we're talking about.

The name is actually wrong. An Assault Rife is generally a rifle caliber, shoulder fired, select fire, magazine feed weapon....a machine gun. Machine guns are already controlled and taxed by the gov't (yes they are legal to own). The AW ban simply tried to ban semi auto rifles. The name SEMI auto assault weapon is an oxymoron, you don't drive a "manual automatic transmission" do you?

Actually they do make make manual automatic transmissions. I won't debate legal definitions.

Yeah you could kill someone with your hands couldn't you? I guess you better sign that petition to ban cars and baseballbats.

No, that was my point that anything "could" be used. Difference is the intended use of the tool.

AK's are still sold in the country because you happen to live in a free market economy and there is a demand for them. We've already covered that AK's are plenty accurate for shot to medium distances on deer sized game. They are available with 5 round magazines so they can be used for hunting if you wanted to. The AK74 (updated version that uses a round similar to the Nato 5.56mm) along with the AR15 are excellent home defense guns. Smaller caliber rounds are more easily deflected and thus have less penetration potential in side a typical house/apt than heavier 9mm and 45acp rounds. Less risk of ricochet and overpenetration (it's a bad thing for the police to shoot the neighbor on the otherside of the wall).

Anyone who feels they need an AR15 to defend their home has big issues. Are you scared of your shadow also.

Now it seems the dominant train of thought here is to ban gun XYZ because there is no sporting purpose for them and they are used by criminals. Well should FS bikes be banned also? There is no need for more than a SS rigid, and after alll, the majority of people who are illegally building stunts and trails are using FS bikes.

This whole comparing it to bikes is getting old. I'll say it again, INTENDED PURPOSE.

Heck, I'm better armed than the county police dept. Does this make me some "random crazy son of a bitch"? Hardly. While it's sad about your cop friend you're letting your emotions override your logical, thought processes. Again the issue is about freedom of choice. You may not see an need for them but need is not the issue.

Yes, I guess it makes you one paranoid freak. Any person who feels the need for more guns than the county police does have issues, have you actually sat down and thought about why you would need so many guns. is someone after you, are you a drug dealer who needs to protect a stash?
My emotions are in no way overrideing my logic, you are trying to compare bikes to guns and guns to cars, you have the warped logic my NRA friend. The freedom to have a firearm is important nobody is disputing that.
I'm still waiting for a RATIONAL argument for assault rifles(not "what about your bike", that's just an ignorant argument, typical of that wak job Charlton Heston)

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You're right real men don't need guns...especially to hunt wild boars. They use one of these... http://www.coldsteel.com/spears-high-performance-spears.html



Well if you look at the raw numbers of people who have been issued concealed carry permits and looked at the total number that have been revolked you'll see that the number is pretty darn low. Take the entire state of Indiana. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent have had there permit revoked. Florida issued ~200K permits between 1987-1994. During that time 17 (~0.008%) permits were revoked. Seems like gun owners are pretty much "law abiding citizens".

http://www2.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=incident&menu=gvr

even such a small % means more than 1000 "law abiding citizens gone wild"

 

[stanky_dlx]

well dude, that is what amazes me. the line is almost non existent now. And the US needs a line according to that of a 1st world, civilized society. not like that of somalia or sierra leone or colombia or some other country in civil war for decades.

First off you can't compare the US to the rest of the world. We've already covered the fact that comparision don't work...switzerland and japan. The US is it's own place with unique and individual differences.

The problem is not a lack of a line. There are (according to some) over 20K gun laws on the books at the federal, state, and local level. Some refute this number though. Enforcing the law really is the issue. How do you stop a determined person from manufacturing an illegal-nonregistered machine gun? Ban guns? Won't help, as you can build one out of steel tubing, some brass chunks, and a stick welder (look at the Sten gun for an example). If there is anything I've learned from history is banning anything when there is a demand is doomed to failure. Look at prohibition and the war on drugs. All they have done is suck up a bunch of tax payer dollars and made certain people very rich. Guns are not going away in America. Not as long as there is a demand for them and as long as there is a 2nd admendment people will argue about what you need or don't need.

Okay, I'll step off my soapbox now. I'm gonna go ride my bike

 

[Lexx D]

Okay, I'll step off my soapbox now. I'm gonna go ride my bike

I'm with you.

 

[TheMontashu]

WOW have any of you that say guns are bad shot a gun? I know I have formulated my opinion and decided that guns aren’t the problem ignorance is. I had a damn good time going shooting this morning and guess what I have been doing it once a week for 5 years now, and I’m going to get shot when? O y I’m not.

 

[LordOpie]

WOW have any of you that say guns are bad shot a gun? I know I have formulated my opinion and decided that guns aren’t the problem ignorance is. I had a damn good time going shooting this morning and guess what I have been doing it once a week for 5 years now, and I’m going to get shot when? O y I’m not.

But the law allows ignorant people to own guns.

 

[TheMontashu]

The law allows ignorant people to be doctors and there the 2nd leading cause of unnatural death. It also allows ignorant people to drive the number one cause of unnatural death. So why don’t we ban cars.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

WOW have any of you that say guns are bad shot a gun? I know I have formulated my opinion and decided that guns aren’t the problem ignorance is. I had a damn good time going shooting this morning and guess what I have been doing it once a week for 5 years now, and I’m going to get shot when? O y I’m not.

I´ve shot a gun. I´ve even shot a FAL.

not really that much of a rush. at least not enough to make society un-safer for the sake of having them.

and well yeah you agree on cars killing people as well, and you think that we should ban them if we ban big guns.

alright, so we have 2 bad things, guns and cars. and cars are already legal. why in the world do we need them 2 dangerous things being legal????

 

[TheMontashu]

I was using cars as an example and it’s not about getting a rush, its about discipline and relaxation. O and FAL’s aren’t going to be legal after the ban is lifted

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I was using cars as an example and it’s not about getting a rush, its about discipline and relaxation. O and FAL’s aren’t going to be legal after the ban is lifted

well dude, valium will give you far more relaxation.

anyway. so for the sake of a few "good guys" who get their "discipline and relaxation" from shooting, should big guns be available for anyone who poses to be "a law abiding citizen".

if you are so sure about that, well until i see somebody signing a civil and penal liability affidavit on behalf of every "law abiding citizen" who gets a gun.

well nono, you are just passing the bill of your enterteinment and source of "discipline and relaxation" on society.

 

[LordOpie]

The law allows ignorant people to be doctors and there the 2nd leading cause of unnatural death.

wow, that was absurd to a whole new level. I'm seriously impressed.

 

[fluff]

But the law allows ignorant people to own guns.

It also allows ignorant people to post bull**** on the internet. Damn law's a bitch.

(Not aimed at you Opie, btw).

 

[genpowell71]

I guess you'd know all about BS huh fluff???

AH HAAAAA Love that word antagonism... (take it for what I meant it as, not an insult)