Kerry...

MikeD · Oct 21, 2004

ridecruz88 said:
does kerry not support guns?

He's actually got a plan to put under-employed guns on welfare...

Toshi · Oct 21, 2004

you may want to find more of these, what are they called, ah yes "facts" before you post your next batch of undercooked thoughts.

MikeD · Oct 21, 2004

Mack, meet Ridecruz88. Ridecruz88, meet Mack. I think you two will be happy together.

Skookum · Oct 22, 2004

Bestest thread in the PDF ever!

zod · Oct 22, 2004

nicklin · Oct 23, 2004

ridecruz88 said:
I'm wondering how many of you mountain bikers out there like kerry. i dont know about you, and i might have my facts wrong, but does kerry not support guns? and is kerry against the u.s. being independent(giving our descisions over to the U.N., which doesn't ever do anything)? I'm not saying I hate Kerry but I'm just wondering. I don't honestly like either of the candidates but id take bush over him

this is the reason why i am not voting for Kerry. he supports every single anti-gun legislation there is, he plans to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, constantly says he wants to ban pistols, and wants to ban deer hunting cartridges like .308, 30.30, 30-06, 270win and smaller 22-25, 223, and so on.

want my guns? over my cold, dead body

Changleen · Oct 23, 2004

Why do you need guns? Planning on killing someone?

Toshi · Oct 23, 2004

Changleen said:
Why do you need guns? Planning on killing someone?

maybe he's a terrorist? after all, non-terrorists needn't be worried about the patriot act, so why should they be worried about guns being outlawed?

Skookum · Oct 23, 2004

nicklin said:
want my guns? over my cold, dead body

i'm personally against gun control. in the major metropolis it might be a tool to help law enforcement, but in the country, gun's are needed to blast critters that might want to eat you.
But i'm out in the sticks all the time without a gun. If i get attacked by a critter i'm gonna probably die. But if i live long enough i'll stab it's eye out though.

Changleen · Oct 23, 2004

Skookum said:
i'm personally against gun control. in the major metropolis it might be a tool to help law enforcement, but in the country, gun's are needed to blast critters that might want to eat you.
But i'm out in the sticks all the time without a gun. If i get attacked by a critter i'm gonna probably die. But if i live long enough i'll stab it's eye out though.

So shotguns would be absolutely fine then? Maybe bolt action rifles? You don't really need a glock eh?

BurlyShirley · Oct 23, 2004

Changleen said:
So shotguns would be absolutely fine then? Maybe bolt action rifles? You don't really need a glock eh?

A shotgun or bolt action rifle of any significant caliber is much more deadly than a glock. But a glock is better suited for home security.

Changleen · Oct 23, 2004

BurlySurly said:
A shotgun or bolt action rifle of any significant caliber is much more deadly than a glock. But a glock is better suited for home security.

Yeah, I know - The idea being that for agricultural use (hunting and killing critters etc.) you don't need a concealable weapon, and shotguns and rifles are more suitable for the purpose anyway.

And the only reason you need a handgun for home security is because all the crims have handguns (or AKs I suppose) too. If handguns were made illegal (except maybe for target shooting, they could be kept at a club and heavily licenced) then only criminals would have them. It might take a few years, but your gun crime would plumet and pretty soon it'd be pretty difficult for even crims to walk around packin' heat. Wouldn't that be nice?

I mean seriously, what other uses are their for handguns like glocks other than to kill or threaten other people? I suppose someone could use one to kill GW.... That might be a good thing... (just kidding Mr. CIA moderator)

BurlyShirley · Oct 23, 2004

Changleen said:
\If handguns were made illegal (except maybe for target shooting, they could be kept at a club and heavily licenced) then only criminals would have them. It might take a few years, but your gun crime would plumet and pretty soon it'd be pretty difficult for even crims to walk around packin' heat. Wouldn't that be nice?

No. I dont think chipping away at the constitution is worth it, personally. Take your patriot act arguments and apply them here.

Changleen · Oct 23, 2004

BurlySurly said:
No. I dont think chipping away at the constitution is worth it, personally. Take your patriot act arguments and apply them here.

Fair enough. It's your country. You have the right to get randomly shot in the back of the head whilst driving home because some teenage gang's fVcked up initiation ritual.

nicklin · Oct 24, 2004

Changleen said:
Yeah, I know - The idea being that for agricultural use (hunting and killing critters etc.) you don't need a concealable weapon, and shotguns and rifles are more suitable for the purpose anyway.

And the only reason you need a handgun for home security is because all the crims have handguns (or AKs I suppose) too. If handguns were made illegal (except maybe for target shooting, they could be kept at a club and heavily licenced) then only criminals would have them. It might take a few years, but your gun crime would plumet and pretty soon it'd be pretty difficult for even crims to walk around packin' heat. Wouldn't that be nice?

I mean seriously, what other uses are their for handguns like glocks other than to kill or threaten other people? I suppose someone could use one to kill GW.... That might be a good thing... (just kidding Mr. CIA moderator)

Hmmm... How do you suppose criminals would commit less crimes if the law-biding citizens ain't got them? Your logic needs a lot more work here.

nicklin · Oct 24, 2004

Changleen said:
Fair enough. It's your country. You have the right to get randomly shot in the back of the head whilst driving home because some teenage gang's fVcked up initiation ritual.

Is that what you think America is, a land of teenage gangs? Yeah, like teenage Neo-Nazi gangs and ultra-right-wing nationalist groups in Europe and Australia are much better beating immigrants up with chains and belts. Or like the Japanese Yakuzas are much better killing eacho ther with their ritualistic swords or whatever those people are using now a days, but they ain't using guns, right? If you hate America, just come out and say, don't hide behind your "I'm right because I don't like guns therefore all you firearms-enthusiasts are stupid Bush backers and morons" talk.

XtCamZ · Oct 27, 2004

ridecruz88 said:
---- I didn't say I'm for Bush, I said I'm FOR GUNS. So next time you may wanna hit that preview button before you make another generalization.

ridecruz88 said:
I don't honestly like either of the candidates but id take bush over him

:nuts:

XtCamZ · Oct 27, 2004

Oh and by the way, I'm against gun control too. I have a concealed handgun license and carry it all the time.

Stop worrying about them taking our guns away, it's not going to happen, even with the most liberal president in office.

"Kerry for President - 2004"

zod · Oct 27, 2004

Changleen said:
If handguns were made illegal then only criminals would have them. It might take a few years, but your gun crime would plumet and pretty soon it'd be pretty difficult for even crims to walk around packin' heat. Wouldn't that be nice?

That's gotta be the most retarded thing you have ever written and I am only saying so b/c normally you make good sense (even though I don't agree with you 99% of the time) Maybe you just need to clarrify?? :confused:

Changleen · Oct 27, 2004

zod said:
That's gotta be the most retarded thing you have ever written and I am only saying so b/c normally you make good sense (even though I don't agree with you 99% of the time) Maybe you just need to clarrify??

Sure - Imagine if one day, a law was passed banning handguns except for target shooting pistols, all assult weapons, in fact all guns except for shotguns (3 round max for pump actions or so) and bolt action rifles. These guns would not be banned as they are 'useful' and 'legitimate' tools for farmers and country folk generally. Obviously city folk would not be able to own these guns unless they could proove a need. Target pistols and the like would be allowed, but heavy licencing would apply and they'd need to be verified to be stored securely, prefereably at a registed gun club. Legal guns could even be rf tagged or something so they always traceable. All gun licences would be assesed on a 'need to own' basis like in Europe.

The Government would have to perform a very expensive and thorough legally required amnesty on all registered guns and demand all that any other guns are handed over anonimously as well. Citizens would be compensated for the value of their weapons. This process, even with huge resources, would take a couple of months at least. Any new weapons sold would be ID verified, tracked and generally regulated the **** out of.

At the end of this time, the only guns left in the public domain would be illegally held weapons. After the ban was in force, it would be difficult to walk around in public places with a weapon of any kind. The US already uses metal detectors at many schools and other public buildings. It wouldn't be a large step for stores and other public buildings to do this too. They already scan you for theft on the way out. Pretty soon it'd be hard to go anywhere with an illegal gun.

Police resources would be freed up to a huge extent not having to deal with the volume of gun crime they currently do.

Anytime a shot was fired, anytime there was a murder with a handgun, the police could act with absolute nazi crushing force. The user is by definition a nasty crim and gets nailed. The harsher the better at first as a deterent effect. (Illegal weapons would still be able to be anoymously amnestied). Maybe a few innocent people would get nailed. Frankly no different to the effects of guns being legal now. Pretty soon anyone who wasn't a serious criminal would go nowhere near a gun. Gun crime would drop. Owning a gun would become socially unaceptable.

OK, Now for the big however....

HOWEVER, I think this might be a waste of time. The US loves it's guns. Thousands in the industry would loose their jobs. I think most people in the US support the right to bear arms so that's fine. Keep your guns. People (like you) would not be loving it even if it meant society would be safer in the long run. Secondly, there are more important issues right now, like Bush trying to start WW3 with the Arabs.

zod · Oct 27, 2004

Have you ever lived in the US? This theory of yours wouldn't work here b/c we(in general) love our guns in a way other nations probably couldn't comprehend. You are not going to make ownership of guns socially unaceptable in the US.......it just wouldn't work.

Changleen said:
People (like you) would not be loving it even if it meant society would be safer in the long run.

I only own rifles and shotguns.........but I would still be against what you are talking about.

nicklin · Oct 27, 2004

ridecruz88 said:
---- I didn't say I'm for Bush, I said I'm FOR GUNS. So next time you may wanna hit that preview button before you make another generalization.

Wow there cowboy, hold on to your horses:

I am on your side here!!!!

I was merely mocking Mr. Righteous(changleen), because that sort of talk from HIM seems to be his attitude around here. I personally don't like eiher one, just like you, and I voted the way you did, so stop breaking balls of people who are on your side!!!!!!

take a deep breathe, go outside, and shoot some cans. you'll feel better afterwards...... :evil:

Changleen · Oct 27, 2004

zod said:
Have you ever lived in the US? This theory of yours wouldn't work here b/c we(in general) love our guns in a way other nations probably couldn't comprehend. You are not going to make ownership of guns socially unaceptable in the US.......it just wouldn't work.

Yes. I lived for a few years in the US. I lived in Arizona and San Francisco, and have visited Oregon and most of the West Coast fairly extensivly. I've even worked for the Government.

I do understand your love of guns, hence my last paragraph above. Like I said, most of you support it so it would in actual fact be undemocratic for a ban to take place. Not that democracy seems to be a big part US politics these days.

Isn't there a small part of you that would prefer that when you're strolling round the mall, or sending your kids to school, out at a club at night, that wouldn't rather be living in place where the guy next to you was definatly not armed?

I dunno, having a gun just seems crazy to me. Really, if you live in a city, the only use for a gun is to kill someone. 'Home Defence' really means 'shooting someone who comes in your house, hopefully before they shoot you'. It's all just killing. It's just stupid to me. The purpose of a gun is to do damage. In a lot of ways it's like the holding onto the right to be wantonly destructive. The right to not wear a seatbelt. Not to wear a motorcycle helmet.

People say they are so worried about their 'right' to carry a gun. Fair enough, if that's what you really want, keep a gun. It's your country after all. There are so many other rights of yours, albeit much more subtle ones, that are being eroded right now. Democracy itself is getting weaker in the US. Maybe one day you won't have the right to choose if you get to keep guns or not.

Changleen · Oct 27, 2004

nicklin said:
I was merely mocking Mr. Righteous(changleen)

Bwahahaha.

Yeah. OK.

nicklin · Oct 27, 2004

Changleen said:
Sure - Imagine if one day, a law was passed banning handguns except for target shooting pistols, all assult weapons, in fact all guns except for shotguns (3 round max for pump actions or so) and bolt action rifles. These guns would not be banned as they are 'useful' and 'legitimate' tools for farmers and country folk generally. Obviously city folk would not be able to own these guns unless they could proove a need. Target pistols and the like would be allowed, but heavy licencing would apply and they'd need to be verified to be stored securely, prefereably at a registed gun club. Legal guns could even be rf tagged or something so they always traceable. All gun licences would be assesed on a 'need to own' basis like in Europe.

The Government would have to perform a very expensive and thorough legally required amnesty on all registered guns and demand all that any other guns are handed over anonimously as well. Citizens would be compensated for the value of their weapons. This process, even with huge resources, would take a couple of months at least. Any new weapons sold would be ID verified, tracked and generally regulated the **** out of.

At the end of this time, the only guns left in the public domain would be illegally held weapons. After the ban was in force, it would be difficult to walk around in public places with a weapon of any kind. The US already uses metal detectors at many schools and other public buildings. It wouldn't be a large step for stores and other public buildings to do this too. They already scan you for theft on the way out. Pretty soon it'd be hard to go anywhere with an illegal gun.

Police resources would be freed up to a huge extent not having to deal with the volume of gun crime they currently do.

Anytime a shot was fired, anytime there was a murder with a handgun, the police could act with absolute nazi crushing force. The user is by definition a nasty crim and gets nailed. The harsher the better at first as a deterent effect. (Illegal weapons would still be able to be anoymously amnestied). Maybe a few innocent people would get nailed. Frankly no different to the effects of guns being legal now. Pretty soon anyone who wasn't a serious criminal would go nowhere near a gun. Gun crime would drop. Owning a gun would become socially unaceptable.

OK, Now for the big however....

HOWEVER, I think this might be a waste of time. The US loves it's guns. Thousands in the industry would loose their jobs. I think most people in the US support the right to bear arms so that's fine. Keep your guns. People (like you) would not be loving it even if it meant society would be safer in the long run. Secondly, there are more important issues right now, like Bush trying to start WW3 with the Arabs.

You know, I have reada lot of things you say, and now I realized that you are nothing but an idealistic person with common sense of a 3 year old. Perhaps less. for you, the solution to everything is to use laws and regulations to prevent things from happening. So how is your theory that different from the premptive strike policies that the United States Armed forces are using?

1. So if we ban the guns, guns won't kill people.

2. If we don't let the arabs have Nukes and weapons, they won't kill innocent civilians.

Call me crazy but i think those two make good anologies of each other.

If you really like to impose regulations on people's rights to own self-defense things, great. glad it works out for your taste.

but your theory on things might be just a little out of touch for a nation of 300 million people, 50 states, and more ethnically diverse than any other nation on earth.

The fact is, the vast majority of people in this country of ours who own high powered weapons are extremely responsible, law biding, reasonable folks. If you want to takes guns away from these fine folks and let criminals have the advantage, go ahead and think that, whatever floats your boat. it just goes to show us what type of person your are: you look for the easy way to solve things, with disregard to the people who your proposals are going to hurt the most. Banning things is never the answer. We tried with booz, heroine, cocaine, weed, and such, and they will always be there. the key is to infrom people of the consequence of their actions, it's a long-term thing, and a vital part of nation building.

But i suppose that's too reasonable and not quite easy enough for your "just ban them all" mentality.

Oh well.

Nick

zod · Oct 27, 2004

Changleen said:
Isn't there a small part of you that would prefer that when you're strolling round the mall, or sending your kids to school, out at a club at night, that wouldn't rather be living in place where the guy next to you was definatly not armed?

Sure, that would be ideal and all but it won't work so I wouldn't want anything set in place to stop lawful citizens like myself from having guns when others would not follow the rules. BTW, you are going very overboard on the whole fear of getting shot thing. I have never been in a situation or feared being shot my whole life yet ALL of my neighbors have guns. I feel safer knowing they do.

Changleen said:
I dunno, having a gun just seems crazy to me. Really, if you live in a city, the only use for a gun is to kill someone. 'Home Defence' really means 'shooting someone who comes in your house, hopefully before they shoot you'. It's all just killing. It's just stupid to me. The purpose of a gun is to do damage.

It is stupid, however if someone breaks into my house I'd rather have a gun b/c as said above.....the criminal is going to have one even if they're illegal. I keep one of my shotguns under my bed........hopefully the sound of a round pumping into the chamber will be helpful in making a robber make a swift exit.

Changleen said:
People say they are so worried about their 'right' to carry a gun. Fair enough, if that's what you really want, keep a gun. It's your country after all. There are so many other rights of yours, albeit much more subtle ones, that are being eroded right now. Democracy itself is getting weaker in the US. Maybe one day you won't have the right to choose if you get to keep guns or not.

Maybe we won't have a right to guns in the future, you're right....... What rights are being eroded right now that you are referring to?

Changleen · Oct 27, 2004

nicklin said:
A bunch of crap

When you learn to make sense maybe I'll respond to your BS.

Changleen · Oct 27, 2004

zod said:
Sure, that would be ideal and all but it won't work so I wouldn't want anything set in place to stop lawful citizens like myself from having guns when others would not follow the rules. BTW, you are going very overboard on the whole fear of getting shot thing. I have never been in a situation or feared being shot my whole life yet ALL of my neighbors have guns. I feel safer knowing they do.

That's cool for you. Whilst I lived in Arizona, two people I had met were shot and killed. One was a good friend of my brother-in-law. He was killed as he sat in the back of a car driving away from a club. He was shot in the back of the head. The guy (girl?) who did it has not been caught. When I lived in San Francisco, whilst riding the BART one day, a black truck with very dark black windows pulled up next the BART at an intersection and started pointing a red laser dot at people on the BART. A lot of people freaked out. Fortunatly for me I was in the articlated section. No idea if the dude had a gun or not.

It is stupid, however if someone breaks into my house I'd rather have a gun b/c as said above.....the criminal is going to have one even if they're illegal. I keep one of my shotguns under my bed........hopefully the sound of a round pumping into the chamber will be helpful in making a robber make a swift exit.

Or you'll get in a fight where one of you will most likely be killed. Is it worth your life to die over a a VCR or a DVD player?

Maybe we won't have a right to guns in the future, you're right....... What rights are being eroded right now that you are referring to?

I'm not going to go into this AGAIN in this thread. Please refer to all the other Patriot act threads, eh? Let's stick to the subject (Yes I know I brought it up).

Changleen · Oct 27, 2004

nicklin said:
So how is your theory that different from the premptive strike policies that the United States Armed forces are using?

1. So if we ban the guns, guns won't kill people.

2. If we don't let the arabs have Nukes and weapons, they won't kill innocent civilians.

Call me crazy but i think those two make good anologies of each other.

If you really like to impose regulations on people's rights to own self-defense things, great. glad it works out for your taste.

:nuts: You really are stupid.

You support pre-emptive action against 'Arabs' but don't support gun control, then you criticise me for wanting to 'impose regulations on self-defense things'. Hello? McFly? :stosh:

Let alone the fact that one is a reform of your own country's laws and the other is interfering with the sovereign rights of other nations... :thumb:

escapeartist · Oct 27, 2004

ridecruz88 said:
and is kerry against the u.s. being independent(giving our descisions over to the U.N., which doesn't ever do anything)?

Ya thats right, if Kerry were elected he would not only have the resolve, but also the power to immediatly hand power to the United States over to the UN. I'm sorry but you can't blindly follow what Zell Miller has to say. Kerry simply says that he would have preferred that the US have the UN's (you know, the peace keeping organization with all the weapons inspectors who never found anything) support before going into a war that would certainly be costly both in lives and dollars

nicklin · Oct 28, 2004

Changleen said:
When you learn to make sense maybe I'll respond to your BS.

thisi s what i said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Changleen
"Fair enough. It's your country. You have the right to get randomly shot in the back of the head whilst driving home because some teenage gang's fVcked up initiation ritual."

And I said:

"Is that what you think America is, a land of teenage gangs? Yeah, like teenage Neo-Nazi gangs and ultra-right-wing nationalist groups in Europe and Australia are much better beating immigrants up with chains and belts. Or like the Japanese Yakuzas are much better killing eacho ther with their ritualistic swords or whatever those people are using now a days, but they ain't using guns, right? If you hate America, just come out and say, don't hide behind your "I'm right because I don't like guns therefore all you firearms-enthusiasts are stupid Bush backers and morons" talk."

Apparently you automatically turn a deaf ear to what i said and consider it "crap".

Wow.

If you don't want to listen, that's fine. But you depiction of our country is excatly makes you look like an uninformed child that gets his information from movies like "Lethal Weapon" or "Terminator". if you actually care, you may want to also devote some of your time to talk about gang violence porblems in other areas of the world say Aisa or Europe. There is also conflicts in Africa that you can discuss. but, if you insist on probing the problem of the "deadly" streets of USA, you are going to be beating a dead horse sooner than your rethoric becomes yeasterday's news.

MikeD · Oct 28, 2004

ridecruz88 said:
theres always gonna be bad people with guns, whether you like it or not. gun controls dont stop ****in criminals dumbass. how many times have i gotta say this...

I actally tend to agree with you on the issue of gun control. You, however, are a living argument for birth control.

MD

Kerry...

Chimp

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Chimp

butthole powerwashing evangelist

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

bikey's is cool

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Paranoid Member

butthole powerwashing evangelist

bikey's is cool

Paranoid Member

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Paranoid Member

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Paranoid Member

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Chimp

Chimp

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Chimp

Paranoid Member

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Paranoid Member

Paranoid Member

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Paranoid Member

Paranoid Member

Paranoid Member

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Chimp

Chimp