Gun Control.. Arm yourself with more than just bullets.

Gun Control.. Arm yourself with more than just bullets.

This is a discussion on Gun Control.. Arm yourself with more than just bullets. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So many of you will get into arguments vs people who dont want to just limit your Firearm ownership but take it away completely. I ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Gun Control.. Arm yourself with more than just bullets.

  1. #1
    Member Array oFant0mo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    52

    Gun Control.. Arm yourself with more than just bullets.

    So many of you will get into arguments vs people who dont want to just limit your Firearm ownership but take it away completely. I recently was involved in talking to the Brady Community via facebook, was defended against idiotic flaming attacks by the ADMIN on thier FB because I was a Gun Advocate that was open to dialogue about we could do to attempt to stop future problems, without stepping on rights.

    I was recently banned from talking there anymore and blocked from contacting the Admin, so were others that were there with me. Politics are at play here and its time that you guys had the best information at your desposal...

    We can cite numerous statistics, countries or views that support our claim that Gun control doesn't work and that Gun banning doesn't help, but lemme crush a myth or two.

    Switzerland, it is widely believed that since most people in Switzerland own firearms that this is a great arguement against gun control because of thier low crime rate. This is not so.. most people in switzerland do NOT own thier firearms at home, they are kept at Depots and ranges. Dont use this argument it will back fire. The person you are debating, likely to be as we say your adversary, will cite Japan a nation with an extremely low crime rate. But Firearm control is little to at all responsible, Japan has been disarmed since around the 1500s. It is also widely believed that the reason Japan did not invade America is because of our Gun Culture. So if this occurs you should ask them to prove that crime rates were effectively improved due to the Gun Control Legislation that was passed. Israel, as with the others is a moot point. All these nations Israel and Switzerland are showing trends at less gun ownership as opposed to more gun ownership.

    2nd Amendment, it is our right to keep and bear arms and is not to be infringed! However, the law says NOTHING about the right vs background checks, permits, or secondary legislature. And if you argue well it is'NOT TO BE INFRINGED' I want to remind you of the 1st amendment, and how often free speech is still denied in defimation, slander, and censurship. Use this as an argument but build off this, don't take it as scripture that could never change. It can and it could, though I hope and doubt it.

    Crime in the UK is going up!That is true, in 4 districts it is going up, but in 3 it is going down, Citing this could put you in a position to depend on a rise in crime that is still less in contrast to ours. We however have a larger difference in Socio-economic desparity which overall has shown to lead to more crime. It is also true that more and more police officers are doing armed patrols, but not armed with pistols like our society but fully automatic machine guns. The only real true way to cite crime statistics in gun control cities is to cite them in contrast to neighbors and before/after the laws went into effect. This paper by a Harvard Law Professor is your bible, read it and use it. You will win everytime.

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf


    But DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL!! Yes they are, Gun Advocates have used this argument to attempt to defeat how making guns illegal will not make violence diminish. Though partially true, this is also partially a faulty argument. Drug use is a sickness, like all addictions once addicted the fear of being caught or prosecuted is less scary than the fear of withdraw, the pain, or the fear of potential side effects. To compare is to forget what drugs can do to a person, where guns do not have that effect. Its not a horrendous argument but argue the lack of ability of the government to completely prevent crime from drugs and selling drugs vs blaming the drugs.


    BUT KNIVES! This is a good argument but you will find that your adversary will cite incidents like in china when a man attacked a class room and stabbed 20+ people. No one died, to be more effective dwell more on the argument for CRIME less on fatalities.


    BUT WE SHOULD ARM TEACHERS! Not a bad argument either but it lacks compassion and consideration towards the people involved. Not all teachers want, nor would care to carry/own/operate let alone use a firearm to defend themselves. We cannot force it on them, so security or in school police would be more effective. Problem being, your adversary might cite that Columbine did have a security guard on the premise, who did infact engage one of the shooters. However, to combat this is simple the security guard wasn't inside the building at the time of the shooting he was in his car having lunch. He also did engage one of the shooters, and radio in the shots + position of the shooter. He could also have bought time for students which may have saved lives. As far as I am concerned this worked!

    But Protection from the GOVERNMENT! This is a fundemental arguement we use against gun control. That we being so very young a nation, whose birth was wrought with stryfe against an imposed government are more paranoid of those impositions occuring again. The only problem is this isnt 1781, and we are less likely at being able to overthrow our current government if we felt the urge. Modern technology has actually made the most primary of our weapon, the gun, less of an advantage and more of a false sense of security. However, the US Military is made up of men and women that would NOT have their families killed like some countries if they defected. So mass defections would be likely in our country's armed forces, vs shooting civilians even if they are combatants. Also, our military hovers at about or around 1 million active personnel. Our nation sits at around 300 million with an estimated 55 million home owners owning firearms. Our military would struggle to quell rebellion without inflicting massive casualties including colateral damage. Not only that, examples of nations such as Libya and Syria who have both undergone serious revolution recently still show that if the nation is mad enough the people can and will overthrow thier government. And in Libya the outside powers of the world tend to side with the people.

    BUT DRUNK DRIVERS!!This is a powerful argument that shows misplaced anger from individuals that are targeting guns out of fear, or disdain. It also shows how un-educated they are, the parable of the "splinter in your friends eye vs beam in your eye" is a good representation. Here in lies the problem, the biggest outcry vs gun violence is the intentional violence not as much the accidental damage. Drunk drivers have "accidents" that result in fatalities not purposeful acts. That changes the framework of the match up. That does not however invalidate the argument just makes it more challenging, think long and hard about this befoe you bring it up.


    In all of these instances you need to research and use CITATIONs.. just saying it does not validate your viewpoint and without a source your facts could be wrong. I leave you charged with researching the information so that by reading it you learn enough to make you more than a match for any Firearm argument.


    More to Come, at work writting this so expect pauses! LOL.
    brocktice and rammerjammer like this.


  2. #2
    Member Array mg27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    457
    Its pure and simple, THEY want to ban all guns. Its like talkin g to a brick wall. I think if we want to stay free we will have to fight. Im so tired of the damage the liberals have done to this country already.. In fact these days Im not even sure who to trust in the govt.. And the Media has a lot to do with it.. Merry Christmass folks

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array onacoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,329

    GUN CONTROL LAWS Ė Counterpoint

    The so call Gun Control Laws try to regulate Human Actions by controlling inanimate objects without addressing the deeper problem, i.e., the mental health of the Mass Murder(s).

    These laws have little effect on Mass Murders as we can look at recent events in China where 21 students were attacked by a knife wheeling Psycho-path intent on killing them. Additionally we can also look at Beslan, Russia where terrorists attacked a school as it was a soft target and in their minds children are a legitimate target.

    Let's use another inanimate object as an example, the personal vehicle!

    Every year Drunk Drivers used their vehicles as their weapon of choice. These Drunk Drivers have slaughtered an average of 30,000 individuals each year for the last ten (10) years! (NTSB Stats) That is 100 times as many as have died by the use of all rifles, not just the modern sporting rifle! (FBI Stats)

    And yet no one is calling for a band on personal vehicles! Donít you think that inanimate objects like the personal vehicle that has caused so much death, maiming, and injuries should be regulated? We must stop these Drunk Drivers by not allowing them access to their weapon of choice!

    But the personal vehicle is a tool and we need them!

    No we have public transportation that I pay taxes for, so you can use public transportation! Plus that would benefit the environment!

    So is a firearm any different than a personal vehicle? No it is the same! Just an inanimate object that EVIL people misuse just like the personal vehicle is misused by the Drunk Drivers!

    However, note that Drunk Drivers kill 100 times more people than any rifle!

    One additional point: Driving is a privilege granted by the state you live in and NOT a right; Owning a firearm is our RIGHT granted by the 2nd Amendment!


    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

    If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array Darrow75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    609
    Great post. I started reading the source document you provided and will finish it over the next few days. It is always best to get our facts straight and avoid the same kind of rhetorical misinformation that the anti's use to rile their base supporters. Granted, they are generally not interested in facts as much as emotional anecdotes to support their opinions, but we do our cause more harm than good when we sink to their level with more rhetoric and misstated facts. I will definitely study the information you have provided so I can more effectively argue my point of view. Thank you.
    oFant0mo likes this.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,229
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  6. #6
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,936
    2nd Amendment, it is our right to keep and bear arms and is not to be infringed! However, the law says NOTHING about the right vs background checks, permits, or secondary legislature. And if you argue well it isn't TO BE INFRINGED' I want to remind you of the 1st amendment, and how often free speech is still denied in defamation, slander, and censorship. Use this as an argument but build off this, don't take it as scripture that could never change. It can and it could, though I hope and doubt it.

    Infringement.

    Look it up.
    Its obvious to me that the New Jersey definition is different to the Arkansas version.

    Anything that makes it more difficult to bear is an infringement.
    Background checks are BS. They satisfy weak minded people as being effective, when in fact they are nothing more than a registration scheme that most people are too stupid to figure out. And how about that background check? The other day during the black rifle craze, the NICS check was so overwhelmed that it was taking several hours to get it done. How is that not an infringement? You drive an hour or so to your favorite gun-shop to buy your kid a .22 rifle fro Christmas and you end up blowing most of the day on a NICS check.

    Paying for a permit ? Infringement.
    Proving yourself innocent of crime by submitting to a background check in a country that insists we are innocent until proven guilty? Infringement.
    How about paying for the background check that the government requires? Infringement...not to mention a violation of the 10th Amendment.
    How about paying a couple of hundred for a license to carry? Infringement.
    Waiting periods? Infringement. Cant have more than 10 rounds? Infringement.
    Requiring a permit or a signature to purchase? Infringement.

    Your argument about freedom of speech. In each case, you are preventing harm to another though use of wrongful speech. Explain to me how that correlates to the Second Amendment in its argument with guns? Oh thats right...it doesn't.None of those infringements to my ability to bear arms harm anyone else in any way, shape or form.

    Now let me crush a myth or two.

    The hard core anti-gunners will not be swayed by facts. Trying to do so it a waste of time. The Brady Bunch doe not care about reality, all they are is but one of many fronts to push for gun control, and however they get there doesn't matter to them. Arguing with any of them is a waste of time.

    Giving any anti an inch will not work. There can be no compromise because they don't want compromise. There can be no ration discussion because they are not rational. There can be no intelligent dialog, because they don't care. They want your guns and they will stop at nothing to get them.

    Accepting any more infringements is not the way to win. We have enough. We need to work to eliminate the ones we have rather than accept more.
    peckman28 likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #7
    Member Array oFant0mo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Infringement.

    Look it up.
    Its obvious to me that the New Jersey definition is different to the Arkansas version.

    Anything that makes it more difficult to bear is an infringement.
    Background checks are BS. They satisfy weak minded people as being effective, when in fact they are nothing more than a registration scheme that most people are too stupid to figure out. And how about that background check? The other day during the black rifle craze, the NICS check was so overwhelmed that it was taking several hours to get it done. How is that not an infringement? You drive an hour or so to your favorite gun-shop to buy your kid a .22 rifle fro Christmas and you end up blowing most of the day on a NICS check.

    Paying for a permit ? Infringement.
    Proving yourself innocent of crime by submitting to a background check in a country that insists we are innocent until proven guilty? Infringement.
    How about paying for the background check that the government requires? Infringement...not to mention a violation of the 10th Amendment.
    How about paying a couple of hundred for a license to carry? Infringement.
    Waiting periods? Infringement. Cant have more than 10 rounds? Infringement.
    Requiring a permit or a signature to purchase? Infringement.

    Your argument about freedom of speech. In each case, you are preventing harm to another though use of wrongful speech. Explain to me how that correlates to the Second Amendment in its argument with guns? Oh thats right...it doesn't.None of those infringements to my ability to bear arms harm anyone else in any way, shape or form.

    Now let me crush a myth or two.

    The hard core anti-gunners will not be swayed by facts. Trying to do so it a waste of time. The Brady Bunch doe not care about reality, all they are is but one of many fronts to push for gun control, and however they get there doesn't matter to them. Arguing with any of them is a waste of time.

    Giving any anti an inch will not work. There can be no compromise because they don't want compromise. There can be no ration discussion because they are not rational. There can be no intelligent dialog, because they don't care. They want your guns and they will stop at nothing to get them.

    Accepting any more infringements is not the way to win. We have enough. We need to work to eliminate the ones we have rather than accept more.
    I politely disagree. If it were such an infringement the Supreme court would have struck down all those evil Background checks. Also, being an inconvience I am sure they are. I am still waiting for my permits and I put them in, in October! It is also safe to say that Adam Lanza was denied more than once due to checks into his Psyche profile and his background check.

    Had he not had access to firearms at all, he may not have been able to comitt the mass shooting that has put all of us Law abiding citizens on high alert.

    Look, I can tell from your post you are passionate and so am I. But you and I both know that there is likely to be laws coming, and the best thing you can do is compromise.

    In my opinion there are 4 people in these arguments... The extreme views, the BAN EVERYTHING vs the NO LEGISLATION. Then the moderates which are your more, ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN vs LEGISLATION THAT DOES NOT CRAP ON MY RIGHTS. You feel no legislation is appropriate maybe, and thats fine. But like I previously stated however YOU feel the Amendment is written, Amendments are still effected by secondary laws and legislation. You can stomp your feet all you want, you can call foul all you want. Personnally I work with nutcases all the time, I dont want them having a gun. But at some point we may have to do alittle compromising. NJ has some heinous and rediculous laws, and I wish them on NO ONE. But Background checks, and psych checks.. HELL even state paid for trainging courses on your intial permit aren't so bad a thing. And a FAR cry from a total ban.


    No one is going to remove Background checks, and more laws like NJ are more LIKELY to go into effect. You think they wont? Ill make the bet right now.. the only way we will win this debate is education and compromise. Don't like it? Thats really not something that matters as much as what the mass of idiots that see a gun and crap themself want. They vote the politicans into office that make these moronic laws up.. Educate Educate Educate... Lack of compromise is why our current Congress vs Senate is so inneffective.

    Your argument about freedom of speech. In each case, you are preventing harm to another though use of wrongful speech. Explain to me how that correlates to the Second Amendment in its argument with guns? Oh thats right...it doesn't.None of those infringements to my ability to bear arms harm anyone else in any way, shape or form.

    I could not disagree more, you just said "You are preventing harm to another through use of wrongful speech." Lets change some words around..

    "You are preventing harm to another through wrongful use of firearms." I don't want more gun control legislation either, but its coming and you are either going to stonewall or work an agenda and attempt to barter to preserve your rights. The First amendment argument vs 2nd amendment is valid and is viable. And if you don't believe me it really doesn't matter because when the laws are enacted you end up still shaking your head no. v0v



    In the end you have two options imho... You have those who could compromise with you and those who won't. SOMEONE is going to get thier way and I am curious who you want to deal with? I am way more fonder of compromising then bending over and taking it because the protect me nation refused to listen to my "no wiggle room BS". I am telling you its not gonna work.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    OFantOmo you are now banned,eeerrrr I mean restricted to 10 words or less.....see we compromised,wait a minute you can just use a lot of 10 word posts and therefore get out just as much script just not quite as fast,unless you can type like my daughter, a keyboard in her hands is like a machinegun,in mine it's like a musket.
    So now since the 10 words at a time isn't working we are going to give you a pencil,piece of paper envelope and a stamp,then you can write down your response send it to an Administrator and then they can post it when they get enough time...see you still have your first amendment rights,but were just telling you how you can use them.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,304
    All ready setting the stage
    Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that all options, including confiscation and “mandatory sales to the state,” would be on the table next month when the New York State Legislature debates new gun control measures. The comments were specifically aimed at what might happen should stricter rules be imposed on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,957
    Maybe what is required is to teach Washington the real meaning of " infringement" by having 3-4 million gun owners march on the capital and tie up traffic.

    That will get their attention better than anything.
    HotGuns likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  11. #11
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,936
    Whats a background check really tell us?

    It tells that at the time of purchase you were found to be not guilty of something. Thats it. Nothing more.

    Fact of the matter is, many murders are committed by people that passed a background check. So technically, that is not a deterrent. Also, when you buy a gun you are voluntarily answering many questions on the 4473. There is nothing to stop you from lying on it and people do quit often. A background check means that there is no info in the system that currently prohibits you from buying a gun. Thats it. Is not the system of magic that many people think it is.
    If it were such an infringement the Supreme court would have struck down all those evil Background checks.
    You are talking about the same Supreme court that gave us socialized medicine by calling it a tax ?
    The Supreme court only deals with cases that gets presented to it.

    Tell me how you are not proving your innocence by submitting to a background check?
    If you don't submit, you don't get to buy the gun right? Explain to me how that is not an infringement?

    "You are preventing harm to another through wrongful use of firearms." I don't want more gun control legislation either, but its coming and you are either going to stonewall or work an agenda and attempt to barter to preserve your rights. The First amendment argument vs 2nd amendment is valid and is viable. And if you don't believe me it really doesn't matter because when the laws are enacted you end up still shaking your head no
    You are trying to make sense of passing a law to prevent me from wrongfully using firearms. Just so you know, my firearms haven't hurt anyone. Its already against the law to use a firearm in an illegal manner. We already have laws that address that.

    You are arguing that more restrictive laws are coming and arguing that it is logical. It is not logical, there is no logical thought process to it, and if you think that it is, you are as much of the problem as any hard core anti is. Why don't you just raise up the white flag of defeat...hey, I'll even drive up there and dispose of your guns for you.

    You want to compromise MORE of your rights to people that want your guns, go for it. As for me, I'm tired of dealing with people that don't want to compromise, they only want your guns and they are using compromise to do it.
    Hows that compromise working for you in Jersey? How are those waiting periods working for you? How about the AR or AK ownership are you enjoying them? How about not being able to buy hollow-point ammo like people in the other 49 states can?How about getting police permission to buy a gun? Compromise away my friend. I'm having none of it, because I know better.

    This compromise trash talk is killin us.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  12. #12
    Member Array oFant0mo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    OFantOmo you are now banned,eeerrrr I mean restricted to 10 words or less.....see we compromised,wait a minute you can just use a lot of 10 word posts and therefore get out just as much script just not quite as fast,unless you can type like my daughter, a keyboard in her hands is like a machinegun,in mine it's like a musket.
    So now since the 10 words at a time isn't working we are going to give you a pencil,piece of paper envelope and a stamp,then you can write down your response send it to an Administrator and then they can post it when they get enough time...see you still have your first amendment rights,but were just telling you how you can use them.

    Dam you FIEND! I think you understand my point and illustrated it better than I could. I'll work on less lines of text. :p

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,680
    Good stuff about Japan
    Comparing infringement to defamation and slander doesn't cut it as those acts are illegal and fall under the concept of one person's rights end where another's begin.
    Good to know about the patrols with machine guns. Also, not all countries report crime the same way; here in the US 1 victim = 1+ crimes, in the UK it's 1 conviction = 1 crime. If a conviction isn't made, no crime gets reported.
    WRT drugs, if the gov't can't secure our borders against a consumable like drugs, and the required repeated smuggling into the country, there's no way it would be effective against guns - guns would be shipped in with the drugs to protect their commodity.
    The argument against knives is fine, but no one ever thinks about the use of explosives - yet.
    No one is suggesting arming all teachers, just the ones that are willing. The guard at Columbine didn't really engage the threat - given how well most people shoot handguns, all he really accomplished was putting holes in the building. Once the shooter went inside he was safe and could do as he pleased.
    Sorry, drunk driving incidents are not accidents, the drunk chose to drink and knew the potential consequences of his/her actions.

    Thanks for the cite and info.
    oFant0mo likes this.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array Darrow75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    609
    I hate to say it but if "Shall not be infringed" is your only argument, you aren't even going to be involved in the conversation. I agree that the strong antis are not going to be swayed by any facts but those aren't going to be the people we are trying to reach anyway. There are plenty of people in this country and in our legislature that are on the fence on this and that is where facts as opposed to rhetoric will matter. I don't think we should compromise with any kind of new laws or bans but we need to at least be part of the conversation. Instead we need to get the facts out to the people who will listen, express our intent on doing everything in our power to remove them from office if they won't listen.

    You are welcome to kick and scream about your rights being infringed while the rest of them are being pulled out from under your stomping feet if it makes you feel any better but honestly, you aren't doing any of us any good.

    EDIT - I am not in any way suggesting that "Shall not be Infringed" is Rhetoric. What I mean is that when say 1/3 of the country care deeply one way, 1/3 cares deeply another and 1/3 doesn't understand or think about the issue enough to lean heavily in either direction, we would do better to provide those people with facts supporting our cause instead of just stubbornly repeating the wording of the 2nd. That will not sway the ones we are actually trying to reach.
    Last edited by Darrow75; December 24th, 2012 at 02:12 PM. Reason: For Clarity
    oFant0mo likes this.

  15. #15
    Member Array oFant0mo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Whats a background check really tell us?

    It tells that at the time of purchase you were found to be not guilty of something. Thats it. Nothing more.

    Fact of the matter is, many murders are committed by people that passed a background check. So technically, that is not a deterrent. Also, when you buy a gun you are voluntarily answering many questions on the 4473. There is nothing to stop you from lying on it and people do quit often. A background check means that there is no info in the system that currently prohibits you from buying a gun. Thats it. Is not the system of magic that many people think it is.


    You are talking about the same Supreme court that gave us socialized medicine by calling it a tax ?
    The Supreme court only deals with cases that gets presented to it.

    Tell me how you are not proving your innocence by submitting to a background check?
    If you don't submit, you don't get to buy the gun right? Explain to me how that is not an infringement?



    You are trying to make sense of passing a law to prevent me from wrongfully using firearms. Just so you know, my firearms haven't hurt anyone. Its already against the law to use a firearm in an illegal manner. We already have laws that address that.

    You are arguing that more restrictive laws are coming and arguing that it is logical. It is not logical, there is no logical thought process to it, and if you think that it is, you are as much of the problem as any hard core anti is. Why don't you just raise up the white flag of defeat...hey, I'll even drive up there and dispose of your guns for you.

    You want to compromise MORE of your rights to people that want your guns, go for it. As for me, I'm tired of dealing with people that don't want to compromise, they only want your guns and they are using compromise to do it.
    Hows that compromise working for you in Jersey? How are those waiting periods working for you? How about the AR or AK ownership are you enjoying them? How about not being able to buy hollow-point ammo like people in the other 49 states can?How about getting police permission to buy a gun? Compromise away my friend. I'm having none of it, because I know better.

    This compromise trash talk is killin us.
    HEY IF YOU ARE GONNA RESTRICT ME TO 10 LINES THIS GUY TOO!

    Kidding of course.

    The NJ laws seem to be very much up for debate in place to place as to what is and what isn't allowed. We do have a rediculous ban list and yet I can get an AR15 or AK47 clone just fine. Read the law it has loop holes. Read my link to the Harvard student study. A small percentage of people who use weapons in crimes aquired them legally.. there is something to say for Background checks.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

gun ownership by state pdf

,
powered by mybb arm rest
,
powered by mybb art galleries china city
,
powered by mybb bear arms
,

powered by mybb bullet for

,

powered by mybb drug addiction

,
powered by mybb modern art galleries
,

powered by mybb people who

,

powered by mybb sex art

,
powered by mybb sexual addiction
,

powered by mybb side effects of illegal drugs

,

the only way we can control guns is by controlling the bullets

Click on a term to search for related topics.