like the topic states........whats the big deal, to me a gun is just like any other inanimate object, a harmless device, only harmful when used for the purpose of harming, a freakin telephone is the same thing, harmless, unless used as a weapon
i own 3 handguns, does this make me a violent foaming at the mouth killer? no, i shoot targets for fun, its called sport shooting and its entertaining, same reason why people do any other hobby......yes guns used to be for killing only, but times have changed, i also own 6 swords, and at one time swords were for killing only, but now they hang on the wall because i think they look pretty, so seriously, whats the big deal with guns, its just a peice of sporting equipment? <br>
You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan
(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)
Hmm, very good point about swords.. They were never used for target-swording, or hunting.. Ha ha I said target-swording.. They were ocassionally used for sport, but that sport was just preparation for war.
I think the line of thinking taken by the more rational anti-gun person is that if guns are available to the public, like myself and yourself, then they can be stolen and used to commit crime. It's not so that criminals cannot buy them, they don't pay for stuff.. It's so the can't steal them. Of course that line of thinking does two very bad things. One if banned, all of those people who refuse to relinquish their weapons just became criminals (and enemies of the state). Combined with the already armed criminal word, all of the crimanals are armed, and the "law-obiding" citizens are disarmed. Sounds out of balance to me. Also you should never allow a government to arm it's agents with superior weapons to the public. With a few executive orders a president (gone mad) could institute martial law and an opressed public could result. Enforcement is easy if you have the big guns. It's a big gamble and civil war could result. I wouldn't push too far with the US public if I was anyone in office. They'll get away with assult rifles and grenades and such, but try to totally disarm the US public and there'd be a revolt, I'm sure of it.
PAX
Its easy for people to blame "guns". Its the american way to not take personal responsiblity and blame the goverment. There are alot of inadequate parents who are irresponsible with there guns and a kid shoots himself or a school and its the goverments fault. Unfortunatley thier are discusting people in the usa that will use guns to commit crimes.... So instead of stricter punishments for gun crimes the goverment will punish the law abiding citizens and try to take our rights away.
it's the ppl who use guns irresponsibly or for crime that we need to get rid of NOT the guns...
ppl that prostest against guns and try to ban them are nothin but no-life faggit losers (like most prostestors) You don't want to own a gun??? okay so don't buy one!!!! That doesn't mean NoBODY should own a gun , they need to get a life. <br>
THIS FLOWER GOT THORNS
I think the problem is lack of education, both in firearms safety training and general education "provided" by the government on state and federal levels. Get people armed for life with the tools to make better decisions, and they may repay your initial costs by being productive people in society.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2191067
The problem with Guns is the idiot that can't deal with society on it's own terms so he uses a gun to solve problems and "get things moving"
If you need a gun to protect yourself, you probably should use it for the only thing it's good for.. ending your own bloody life.
<br>
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Well, I can probably outrun someone with a sword. Or, at least I'd stand a chance.
Not so much a bullet or twelve.
Whatever though. To me, it just seems like a power thing, as in, "Hey, I could kill something right now," than it does anything else. We're all human, we all get that feeling when holding a gun.
Do I think we should get rid of them? No. I actually think we should use them quite a bit more, mainly on those who decide to play god with them. <br>
After a certain amount of time a gun loses it's hold. I've been carrying my M16A2 Service Rifle for the past 5 months everyday, everywhere I go, and I don't feel like that at all. When I go out on Convoys I don't even want to be armed with my M16 because I feel it's too light of a weapon and I won't be able to provide adequate fire support to keep me and my driver alive. Now when I'm on a M240G or M2 .50 cal, I feel differently, but I'm only on those when I'm outside the wire on a Convoy.
<br>
Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home
I can see it at somepoint you don't feel completely safe unless you have a TOW missle, 30mm artillery, 14x .50 cal machine guns and a small tactical nuclear device Saint...
Somehow I picture you with a big-ass grin too...
<--kinda like that..
J/K
The problem with owning a Gun, domestically or recreationally, is the Fear/God complex that comes with it.
I have 3 rifles (2x.22, and a 3030) and a .38 police special, but they're locked up at the firing range I have a memebership at... it's strictly for sporting purposes, and as such, I don't feel the need to have them in my house for protection. Just my 2 cents.
If you need a gun for safety, you probably need to think about your location and push your police group's role in your community.
<br>
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
There are, but I use police Ranges.
Actually, the RA center in Ottawa has a place IIRC in Winchester that's out doors...
MY weapons are secured in the RCMP training range lockup, and I have the firing bolts here.
If you want to find ranges, you need to look up shooting clubs in your area.. that's what I did.
<br>
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Peel Gun Club.
...they have pistol and handgun facilities...
Excellent.
Let me ask you GAM, how do I go about getting a weapon? Is it done all through rentals or can I purchase a handgun and have it shipped to the range where they keep it stored for me?
<br>
<b>Toronto Street Racing</b> |
<b>J-Body club of Ontario</b> |
<b>J-Body Tech Library</b>
Equality is a Prescription, Not a Description. Learn the Difference, Newbs.
the biggest thing, and the biggest weakness of those that are all pro-gun, is the god complex, like you said, GAM.
A gun is a ranged weapon--anyone with a decent grasp of self-defence can be effective at close range when someone has a gun (and can make sure they are away from the "killing edge") of the gun. I'm mentioned that before--at close range, a stilletto is more effective than a gun.
An amateur with a gun is like an amateur with a knife. they will make mistakes
a pro with a gun is like a pro with a knife--they will kill you if they want to.
<br>
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Jinxed:
1. you need an FAC. you have to have no violent criminal record IIRC, and you need a police clearance certificate. If you want a Concealed Carry or Assault weapons permit, you need to have a sponsoring agency as I last remember. For me it was the RCMP, but I believe a bonded security agency will do that, or the military will provide all the clearances.
2. you need to attend and complete a Firearms safety course... most gun ranges have courses in spring... IIRC it's a 2 day outing. (been 5 years since I did the course)
3. when ordering a weapon, you need your FAC and another piece of photo ID, A driver's license will suffice usually, I'd use my RCMP ID card
there is no hold time that I know of, but that may be inaccurate depending on the weapon.
I don't know specifically about buying weapons outside of ontario, because I already had my weapons, I have a collector's license also... Not that I really need it.
<br>
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
kill them all <br>
<img src="http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/11/web/779000-779999/779612_5_full.jpg">
word <br>
<img src="http://mi.mgcdn.us/malias3/CAAB8PMB.jpg">
956z24 wrote:kill them all
And start with your sig?
<br>
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
tmnt328 wrote:Its easy for people to blame "guns". Its the american way to not take personal responsiblity and blame the goverment. There are alot of inadequate parents who are irresponsible with there guns and a kid shoots himself or a school and its the goverments fault. Unfortunatley thier are discusting people in the usa that will use guns to commit crimes.... So instead of stricter punishments for gun crimes the goverment will punish the law abiding citizens and try to take our rights away.
couldnt have said it better
people need to take responsibility for their own actions <br>
Land Pirates sail the open roads
DISCLAIMER: If anything I say offends you, I don't care..wear a helmet. Also, the information
I post is what I know to the best of my knowledge. If I am wrong, please correct me so that
others as well as myself may learn.
Premium sinc 6-17-04
What's the answer? not less guns but more guns? Less drugs or more drugs?
I say thin the herd first, and then deal with what's left over.
<br>
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Question: whats "everyone"'s problem with guns?
Answer: the same problem "everyone" have with abortion
The funny thing about gun control fanatics, is that their arguments are very similar to a Pro-life fanatic. And vice versa, firearms rights advocates use much of the same arguments as would a pro-choice advocate.
Gun Control -
Anti-rights - Guns only kill. Gun control would save lives, prevent murders etc. Benefits of no guns "outweighs"
right to own.
Pro-rights - Guns only kill if used to kill. No one forces you to own one(with one small town as an exception).
Right to on one. Taking away
right to bear arms is taking away freedom.
Kiss my *ss you anti-American liberal commie pinko bastards!
Abortion -
Anti-rights - Abortion only kills. No more abortion would save lives, prevent "murders"(terminate pregnancies) etc. Benefits of no more abortion "outweigh"
right to choose.
Pro-rights - Abortion isn't by any means mandatory(except in China - one child limit)it in itself being legal doesn't terminate any pregnancies. If you don't like them, you may simply choose not to have one.
Right to choose. Taking away
right to choose for ourselves is taking away freedom.
Kiss my *ss you extremist right wing Bible-thumpin' trailer trash rednecks!
Arguments for/against the death penalty aren't too far off either...
It's pretty safe to say that these are pretty much the same arguments. I find in quite odd that any reasonably intelligent person could be both pro-life and pro-right to bear arms(standard conservative republican platform). Equally odd is being both pro-choice and pro-gun control(standard liberal platform). But somehow... these incredibly contradictory beliefs seem be quite commonly found.
How do we explain this... Too many people are just mindless sheep who just regurgitate whatever crap their choice of political platform feeds them, all the while believing one of the biggest(certainly not the only) lies they have been told... that the food from the other platform is - poisonous idiot food that will only eat away at your brain like sulfuric acid. That's why I'm an independent voter. That's why I have an
independent mind. And that's why I say you can shove all that
us vs them crap right up where the sun does not often, if ever, shine... Congress
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Quote:
It's pretty safe to say that these are pretty much the same arguments
you have a very narrow view then, one is the argument that there should be a limit to how much firepower you are allowed to have, the other is the argment that you shouldn't be allowed to terminate other lives because they are inconvienient to you.
90% of pro lifers would be happy if the following happened
no abortions unless it is a risk to the mother, or the child was begot of rape/incest
all the reasons the pro choicers use to protect their right to be irresponsible not use protection get knocked up then terminate the pregnancy.
The fact is that pro lifers like myself don't think that a person has the right to terminate another life because of inconvienience, we find it rather inhuman to even think that is even an option, plus there have been studies that show the abortions for these reasons have the some serious negative effects on a person phycologically compared to having the child then putting it up for adoption - new born children are adopted extremely fast it is the older ones that tend to wait around forever.
now most of us are not the raving fanatics that think there is never a case for abortion, but it should be a last resort, and not a licence to do without birthcontrol. I don't think creating life should be a right.
now I have a serious diverngance in my thoughst from other people, I think on hitting puberty everyone should have to get a permanant birth implant, then in order to have a child you need to get a licence- just like a any other serious aqusition ie gun, car whatnot... in order to get the licence you need to
1) prove that you can provide for the child
2) take a parenting test to prove you aren't a wing nut (see rottendaily.com for what I mean)
in one fell swoop society would be much better off, there would be no need for abortions, many children will not have to be brought up in bad environments, and a major overpopulation burden would be removed... unfortunatly people will fight it becuase they will believe it's a right to pop out children and raise them like dogs.
my position on gun control is this... you don't need to take out a tank... you don't need 500 rounds in a magazine other than that apply for a licence
to get a licence
1) prove that you have a place to properly store it and know how to use it
2) take a fire arms handling test to prove you aren't a wing nut ( see rottendaily.com for what I mean)
I fail to see what the problem is otherwise.
i own a few guns...ive never shot anybody...nor thought about shooting anybody...its just a lack of respect that people have for guns and their power...knowing that it can take life away is something that should demand respect.
"gun control means using both hands"
"guns dont kill people, people kill people"
EastCoastBeast II wrote:..i like guns..
|
Me too!
<img src="http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ford5/sig3">
GAM (no doot aboot it) wrote:The problem with Guns is the idiot that can't deal with society on it's own terms so he uses a gun to solve problems and "get things moving"
If you need a gun to protect yourself, you probably should use it for the only thing it's good for.. ending your own bloody life.
that really isnt a problem with the gun. it always comes back to the idiot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
