Is kerry pro-gun?

[renierh]

Originally posted by: bozack

So in your country the criminals get the guns but the law abiding citizens do not?? watch bowling for columbine, pretty easily disproves your theory that having more guns around leads to more violence, instead the media is to blame and the constant idea of fear...

good point, i saw that and especcially the comparison between the USA and canada is very valid. but still: you can't shoot anybody if you don't have a gun.

and ofcourse: prefferably NODODY should own a gun, including criminals, but unfortunately, they don't tend to obey rules very well altough it is a lot harder to obtain guns around here, so my guess is that only the "real" criminals own them and ussually, theyre not the ones you have to fear as a normal citizen

Originally posted by: loki8481

but what if the King of England tried to invade my house?

1.: England has a Queen, not a King.

2.: I'm not from england, but from the Netherlands and no, we don't have a King either

3.: i highly doubt the queen or king of any european nation would try to invade your house. If you feel that you cannot trust your own chosen leader to respect your home and rights, i think you'll have to think really hard about your vote the next time.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: renierh

Originally posted by: loki8481

but what if the King of England tried to invade my house?

1.: England has a Queen, not a King.

2.: I'm not from england, but from the Netherlands and no, we don't have a King either

3.: i highly doubt the queen or king of any european nation would try to invade your house. If you feel that you cannot trust your own chosen leader to respect your home and rights, i think you'll have to think really hard about your vote the next time.

Homer: You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. [pushing Lisa] Do you want that? [pushing her harder] Huh? Do you?

Lisa: [quietly indignant] No

Homer: All right, then.

 

[renierh]

damn, i knew missing some simpsons episodes would catch up with me sometime!

but still, the image of a country full of Homers with guns frightens me...lol

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: renierh
jesus christ! you people scare the hell out of me!

i thought americans nowadays left this paranoid stuff behind them. it's stuff like this that makes me very gratefull to live in a country were a gun is something for policemen and criminals.

apart from the fact that it's just plain dangerous, i just can't comprehend how you're country thinks it will be safer by having MORE guns around. a gun is meant to kill people. a gun that is not made, not sold or used will not kill. a lot of the guns that are made, sold and used WILL kill.

therefore, having more guns around, wil result in more victims. does the fact that civilians don't carry guns over here make us more vulnerable to criminals? maybe, but at least we don't have to worry about shooting eachother in the head by accident or over a small argument.and if you look at the numbers on death by guns, be it intentional or accident, i think we have the better end of the deal over here.

Most of the US actually lives in peace. You only hear about the big cities and the problems they have. Most people are very responsible with their guns, but a few bad apples have given guns a bad name. As mentioned earlier, the second amendment to the US constitution was meant to protect us from our own government. That's why it's the second one; it's so important.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Kerry is about as anti-gun as they get... Read the link from Red Dawn.... He is in the same category as Feinstein and Schumer...

I personally can't stand either candidate, but Kerry's piss poor stance on responsible gun ownership has left me with little choice come November...

what responsible person needs to own a fully-automatic assault rifle?

The regulation of full-auto weapons hasnt been mentioned by either candidate in this election, to my knowledge. The "Assault Weapons Ban" only regulates semi-auto rifles. Class 3 weapons have not been mentioned this year, AFAIK. OTOH, the AWB was cooked up by people with the "thought" (and I think I'm being very charitable implying they were thinking) process of "OMG! I've seen the bad guys on TV using one of those guns! It's black! It's got a pistol grip! It's got a bayonet lug!!!! We must ban it! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Calling the semi-auto weapons banned by the AWB "Assault Weapons" is just a little piece of marketing, that unfortunately, many people fall for and believe the weapons banned were full auto.

Aside from that, when the "shall not be infringed" part is ignored, it makes you wonder what other clauses of the Constitution the government is going to find inconvenient, or rather a "right given to the States, not individuals", which IMO is the same thing.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Todd33
Ya, cause the fate of the country is on guns, lol. The NRA is one wacko bunch.

You think taking falluja is hard. Try and take Tulsa Oklahoma when they've had enough.

I really don't understand liberals being against guns. It's the ultimate form of self-defence against the "big-guy" in a dark alley. I thought libs are there to help the meek... guns do it more effectivly than any other IMO. Besides, how can you have a communist revolution w/o guns

"As all good communists know, political power grows out of the end of a gun."
-Mao Tse-Tung

That is from memory so I may have screwed up the word order a little, but you get the point.

 

[misle]

The only reason guns scare you is because you have been programmed by your TV and News to fear guns and think they are evil.
I grew up in a small farming community where guns and hunting were the norm. I started shooting .22 rifles at the age of 7 or 8. I was taught all the rules that go along with gun ownership and use. I have owned and shot firearms for the last 18 years. *I have never shot anyone or even thought about it!*

I personally believe firearm use and ownership are all about education.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: misle
The only reason guns scare you is because you have been programmed by your TV and News to fear guns and think they are evil.

Good enough... I'll just use it instead of coming up with my own.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Kerry is about as anti-gun as they get... Read the link from Red Dawn.... He is in the same category as Feinstein and Schumer...

I personally can't stand either candidate, but Kerry's piss poor stance on responsible gun ownership has left me with little choice come November...

what responsible person needs to own a fully-automatic assault rifle?

What responsible Jew needed to own a fully-automatic assault rifle when the Nazis came to take them away to death camps?

Guns are needed as a last resort to keep the government in check. Every household should have enough guns to arm every capable person in the family.

But the problem comes when Germans get fully-automatic guns too

 

[T2T III]

Guns are needed as a last resort to keep the government in check. Every household should have enough guns to arm every capable person in the family

Sounds like the credo for the Montana Militia. :Q :Q :Q

 

[renierh]

Originally posted by: misle
The only reason guns scare you is because you have been programmed by your TV and News to fear guns and think they are evil.

guns are made to kill or wound either animals or people. i can imagine they are fun for some people, but i fail to see how they can be used for anything positive.

nice guitars though.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: renierh

Originally posted by: misle
The only reason guns scare you is because you have been programmed by your TV and News to fear guns and think they are evil.

guns are made to kill or wound either animals or people. i can imagine they are fun for some people, but i fail to see how they can be used for anything positive.

nice guitars though.

I would say that using your gun on the person who is trying to rape your kid would be considered a positive use of a gun.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: renierh
jesus christ! you people scare the hell out of me!

i thought americans nowadays left this paranoid stuff behind them. it's stuff like this that makes me very gratefull to live in a country were a gun is something for policemen and criminals.

apart from the fact that it's just plain dangerous, i just can't comprehend how you're country thinks it will be safer by having MORE guns around. a gun is meant to kill people. a gun that is not made, not sold or used will not kill. a lot of the guns that are made, sold and used WILL kill.

therefore, having more guns around, wil result in more victims. does the fact that civilians don't carry guns over here make us more vulnerable to criminals? maybe, but at least we don't have to worry about shooting eachother in the head by accident or over a small argument.and if you look at the numbers on death by guns, be it intentional or accident, i think we have the better end of the deal over here.

Personal ownership of firearms by Americans has helped us scare Europeans for a long time . Think about all the dead British officers killed by Kentucky rifles in the Revolutionary War. Or the Germans at Bellau Wood*. The fact that Americans had been raised learning how to shoot was the reason they reliably scored hits at ranges the Europeans considered much to far for the weapons of the day.

In any event, thinking you can keep 500 year old technology out of the hands of criminals is laughable. And as long as criminals have guns, I want the ability to arm myself at least as well. Which one small reason why I dont like gun control. As far as the "they're dangerous" argument, well, so is life. They're used to prevent more crimes in the USA than commit them. If you look at the statistics for accidental deaths in the USA, buckets kill more children than firearms. I've never understood how a woman raped and killed in an alley is morally superior to a woman standing over a would-be rapist with three holes in his chest.

If you think banning guns makes you safer, take a look at England's crime rates before they banned (for all intents and purposes) private firearm ownership, and after the ban. Crime has gone up, as have gun crimes. Go figure.

However, I must say I agree with Heinlein on this: "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men".

*The Germans at Bellau Wood marched on trenches filled with Uncle Sam's Misguided Children . European armies of the day didnt open fire with rifles until the enemy was within 200 yards, and weren't, on an individual level, reliably scoring hits until the opposing soldiers were somewhat closer. The Marines opened fire at roughly 800+ yards. The Germans got a little chuckle out of seeing the rifle smoke, thinking the Americans were close to panic, since NO ONE commenced firing with all their men at that range. I say "little chuckle" because it lasted just a bit longer than a second, that being the amount of flight time required for the 30-06 bullets fired by the Springfield rifles to go from the muzzle to the Germans. That day the Germans learned that the Marines were quite accurate at that range, and that was the battle where the Marines were first called "devil dogs".

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

Guns are needed as a last resort to keep the government in check. Every household should have enough guns to arm every capable person in the family

Sounds like the Federalist Papers. :Q :Q :Q

Fixed.

 

[JHutch]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I would say that using your gun on the person who is trying to rape your kid would be considered a positive use of a gun.

A baseball bat to the head of said sicko would work just as well... and no chance of shooting myself in the foot while cleaning it.

You see, the scenario I always hear is that a gun-toting criminal (who would have the gun illegally if guns were outlawed), breaks into my house and threatens my family. Supposedly, if I had a gun, the dumb criminal would calmly wait while I went to wherever I had the gun locked up (because guns should NEVER be left out where a child could get access to it), made sure the gun was loaded, came back into the room where the insane criminal is waving his gun around while trying to unzip his pants to rape my wife, daughter and dog (not necessarily in that order), ignore me and my nice big gun long enough for me to put a single bullet nicely between the two hemispeheres of his brain.

You know, I'd probably be safer to put a samari sword mounted on each wall of the house, high enough that no one under 5 feet tall could reach it. Then, I wouldn't have to run through the house looking for the key to unlock my gun cabinet, I'd just whip the sword off the shelf and proceed to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon his butt.

JHutch

*Edited for typo

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JHutch

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I would say that using your gun on the person who is trying to rape your kid would be considered a positive use of a gun.

A baseball bat to the head of said sicko would work just as well... and no chance of shooting myself in the foot while cleaning it.

You see, the scenario I always hear is that a gun-toting criminal (who would have the gun illegally if guns were outlawed), breaks into my house and threatens my family. Supposedly, if I had a gun, the dumb criminal would calmly wait while I went to wherever I had the gun locked up (because guns should NEVER be left out where a child could get access to it), made sure the gun was loaded, came back into the room where the insane criminal is waving his gun around while trying to unzip his pants to rape my wife, daughter and dog (not necessarily in that order), ignore me and my nice big gun long enough for me to put a single bullet nicely between the two hemispeheres of his brain.

You know, I'd probably be safer to put a samari sword mounted on each wall of the house, high enough that no one under 5 feet tall could reach it. Then, I wouldn't have to run through the house looking for the key to unlock my gun cabinet, I'd just whip the sword off the shelf and proceed to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon his butt.

JHutch

*Edited for typo

So do you carry a baseball bat around with you everywhere you go?

You would have to be a real moron to shoot yourself while cleaning a firearm. The first rule of gun safety is that the weapon is always loaded, even if you are sure it isn't.

They make pistol safes that work on finger movements that can be open in two seconds. Personally, I have a pistol in my nightstand that with a loaded mag since I do not have any children to worry about.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: JHutch

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I would say that using your gun on the person who is trying to rape your kid would be considered a positive use of a gun.

A baseball bat to the head of said sicko would work just as well... and no chance of shooting myself in the foot while cleaning it.

You see, the scenario I always hear is that a gun-toting criminal (who would have the gun illegally if guns were outlawed), breaks into my house and threatens my family. Supposedly, if I had a gun, the dumb criminal would calmly wait while I went to wherever I had the gun locked up (because guns should NEVER be left out where a child could get access to it), made sure the gun was loaded, came back into the room where the insane criminal is waving his gun around while trying to unzip his pants to rape my wife, daughter and dog (not necessarily in that order), ignore me and my nice big gun long enough for me to put a single bullet nicely between the two hemispeheres of his brain.

You know, I'd probably be safer to put a samari sword mounted on each wall of the house, high enough that no one under 5 feet tall could reach it. Then, I wouldn't have to run through the house looking for the key to unlock my gun cabinet, I'd just whip the sword off the shelf and proceed to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon his butt.

JHutch

*Edited for typo

So do you carry a baseball bat around with you everywhere you go?

You would have to be a real moron to shoot yourself while cleaning a firearm. The first rule of gun safety is that the weapon is always loaded, even if you are sure it isn't.

They make pistol safes that work on finger movements that can be open in two seconds. Personally, I have a pistol in my nightstand that with a loaded mag since I do not have any children to worry about.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I was about to say the same thing. Most any gun owner I know keeps a gun loaded, or at least a magazine/bullets very near an easily accessible firearm.

 

[renierh]

Originally posted by: Mookow
. If you look at the statistics for accidental deaths in the USA, buckets kill more children than firearms.
...


If you think banning guns makes you safer, take a look at England's crime rates before they banned (for all intents and purposes) private firearm ownership, and after the ban. Crime has gone up, as have gun crimes. Go figure.

you know what they say: lies, damn lies and statistics. and more children killed by buckets then by guns..?
sounds good, but i'd like to see some proof!

*The Germans at Bellau Wood marched on trenches filled with Uncle Sam's Misguided Children . European armies of the day didnt open fire with rifles until the enemy was within 200 yards, and weren't, on an individual level, reliably scoring hits until the opposing soldiers were somewhat closer. The Marines opened fire at roughly 800+ yards. The Germans got a little chuckle out of seeing the rifle smoke, thinking the Americans were close to panic, since NO ONE commenced firing with all their men at that range. I say "little chuckle" because it lasted just a bit longer than a second, that being the amount of flight time required for the 30-06 bullets fired by the Springfield rifles to go from the muzzle to the Germans. That day the Germans learned that the Marines were quite accurate at that range, and that was the battle where the Marines were first called "devil dogs".

well, it's good to know you're not just dangerous to your fellow citizen, but also to foreign armies

 

[K1052]

renierh: Where do you live?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: renierh

Originally posted by: Mookow
. If you look at the statistics for accidental deaths in the USA, buckets kill more children than firearms.
...


If you think banning guns makes you safer, take a look at England's crime rates before they banned (for all intents and purposes) private firearm ownership, and after the ban. Crime has gone up, as have gun crimes. Go figure.

you know what they say: lies, damn lies and statistics. and more children killed by buckets then by guns..?
sounds good, but i'd like to see some proof!

For proof of England's crime rates, I'm just going to quote myself from a previous argument about it here on ATOT:

Originally posted by: Mookow
*cough* *cough* and *cough*

First page results from googling "England 'gun crimes'". England banned private ownership of pistols in 1997. The number of crimes committed with guns has gone up. But thats OK, because at least they have the knowledge that the thug pointing a pistol at them is committing an illegal act :roll:

For the accidental firearm deaths vs accidental bucket deaths, I should have made that for children under 5 for all firearms, and under 15 for pistols.
see chart: 17 firearm deaths between ages 0-4

The Centers for Disease Control could identify only 21 children under age 15 dying from accidental handgun deaths in 1996. But 40 children under the age of five drown in water buckets every year and another 80 drown in bathtubs.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Hah, ban bath tubs!

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Hah, ban bath tubs!

And pools. And crossing the street. Or better yet, ban cars. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Hah, ban bath tubs!

And pools. And crossing the street. Or better yet, ban cars. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

FORGET IT. Just ban birth and be done with the whole problem!

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

Guns are needed as a last resort to keep the government in check. Every household should have enough guns to arm every capable person in the family

Sounds like the Federalist Papers. :Q :Q :Q

Fixed.

You'd be surprised how many democrats have never heard of the Federalist papers.

 

[tec699]

Suspossedly we live in a civilized society? Why do we need guns? We don't and the reasoning behind it is outdated:

1) To protect your family against the US government

-Yea sure. You and a bunch of your hillbilly friends are going to stop the US government? It isn?t going to happen. Before you can put your gun on a US military personal your family members are already shot and dead,

Ruby Ridge


2) To protect yourself against criminals

-The criminal almost always has the upper hand when committing a crime. How are you going to predict when a criminal is going to rob your family? You can't. Also, your gun is more likely to be stolen by a criminal if your house is burglarized. Finally, I don't have the stats but there are people that have been mistakenly shot by family members who thought that they were criminals.


3) To hunt for food and to lessen the population of deer.

-Why does anyone hunt anymore? I go to my local supermarket if I'm hungry! If the deer population is really that bad then the US government should deal with the situation.

Just my opinion guys.