Conquer Club

Well what do you think?

gun control is a steady hand

bedub1 wrote:gun control is a steady hand

What an original, and witty comment. Kudos to you, sir or madame.

why you people are so afraid???....fear becomes hate hehehe...

You think that having a gun protect you and your family??

You misunderstood the point, and put your best effort to fight against the effect and not against the cause.

Fight against the cause would be so much permanent and pleasant than to think to blow some thief 's head and can not have a pleNty life, WITHOUT FEAR¡

first thing the goverment has no flipping right to try and control on what guns and how many we have.I'ts our god given right to bear arms.

So i would say stock up now before it's to late..........

If drugs were legalized and regulated like alcohol and tobacco, there would be a significant reduction in gun violence. Prohibition just doesn't work.

Agreed. But talking about the drug and tobacco prohibition.

karel wrote:first thing the goverment has no flipping right to try and control on what guns and how many we have.I'ts our god given right to bear arms.

So i would say stock up now before it's to late..........

A government has no rights... period. A government only has power, either that they have seized or that has been given them by the masses.

As for god, he made us with two arms already, why would he want us to bear any more? [/sarcasm]

Idiots.

You know, I can honestly say that I've never met anybody that has ever been in a situation that could have been improved by the introduction of a gun, or where the situation was improved because somebody had a gun. Seems to me that they just cause problems...

hecter wrote:You know, I can honestly say that I've never met anybody that has ever been in a situation that could have been improved by the introduction of a gun, or where the situation was improved because somebody had a gun. Seems to me that they just cause problems...

This guy knows what's up.

Batman doesn't like guns.

karel wrote:first thing the goverment has no flipping right to try and control on what guns and how many we have.I'ts our god given right to bear arms.

So i would say stock up now before it's to late..........

well said

I believe in gun control, I hit what I aim at!!!

Ah: you weren't aiming at humor then - or originality.

Kapow.

hecter wrote:You know, I can honestly say that I've never met anybody that has ever been in a situation that could have been improved by the introduction of a gun, or where the situation was improved because somebody had a gun. Seems to me that they just cause problems...

You're lucky then. I have had to produce my gun to discourage someone from attacking me before. That dude squirted a tear as he left. I think I scared the piss out of him.

I have a pistol. I have no problem registering it. As long as it remains "I inform them I have it" as opposed to "I beg them for permission to allow me to have it", I don't really have a problem with it. I registered it in California, I registered it in Nevada, I went to register it in Washington, and got told "they don't give a f*ck" so now it's not registered in this state. Oh well, I still haven't shot anybody with it. don't plan on it. I am a law abiding gun owner, not a criminal.

I took it shooting last weekend with 3 friends, they all have guns. We shot lots of paper targets, soda cans, little metal spinner objects. I'm a better shot than they are. My 9mm is more difficult to shoot than the .357. The .40 that's identical to my 9mm except it has a bigger barrel is no different except more of a kick. Mine kicks up, theirs kick back. These are tools, I enjoy shooting them...at targets. I don't carry it, it's too big to carry. Stop freaking out about about guns. pussies. you shouldn't be allowed to own one anyway given the way you treat them and react to them and the way you think about them. you act like they are a explosives that will go off with a static electricity charge.... Responsible gun owners are never the problem. The problem isn't guns. The problem is idiots with guns. The problem isn't alcohol, the problem is idiots that get wasted and drive. The problem isn't soccer, the problem is soccer fans that beat the shit out of each other. The problem isn't nuclear reactions, the problem is people that turn it into a bomb and kill each other. The problem isn't religion, the problem is fanatics that kill each other over religion.

bedub1 wrote:I have a pistol. I have no problem registering it. As long as it remains "I inform them I have it" as opposed to "I beg them for permission to allow me to have it", I don't really have a problem with it. I registered it in California, I registered it in Nevada, I went to register it in Washington, and got told "they don't give a f*ck" so now it's not registered in this state. Oh well, I still haven't shot anybody with it. don't plan on it. I am a law abiding gun owner, not a criminal.

I took it shooting last weekend with 3 friends, they all have guns. We shot lots of paper targets, soda cans, little metal spinner objects. I'm a better shot than they are. My 9mm is more difficult to shoot than the .357. The .40 that's identical to my 9mm except it has a bigger barrel is no different except more of a kick. Mine kicks up, theirs kick back. These are tools, I enjoy shooting them...at targets. I don't carry it, it's too big to carry. Stop freaking out about about guns. pussies. you shouldn't be allowed to own one anyway given the way you treat them and react to them and the way you think about them. you act like they are a explosives that will go off with a static electricity charge.... Responsible gun owners are never the problem. The problem isn't guns. The problem is idiots with guns. The problem isn't alcohol, the problem is idiots that get wasted and drive. The problem isn't soccer, the problem is soccer fans that beat the shit out of each other. The problem isn't nuclear reactions, the problem is people that turn it into a bomb and kill each other. The problem isn't religion, the problem is fanatics that kill each other over religion.

I guess to a certain point ,I do support gun control. but mainly, I support people control.

But alcohol, cars, soccer, and nuclear power are not designed with the specific purpose of shooting and killing someone or something. To use a gun properly and as intended is to cause death.

They are not tools, they are weapons. Law-abiding people may still have good precedent to carry weapons, but do not mischaracterize them as anything else.

jonesthecurl wrote:Ah: you weren't aiming at humor then - or originality.

Nope I was aiming at neither it is the way I feel. And I've been shooting since I was a kid.

F1fth wrote:But alcohol, cars, soccer, and nuclear power are not designed with the specific purpose of shooting and killing someone or something. To use a gun properly and as intended is to cause death.

They are not tools, they are weapons. Law-abiding people may still have good precedent to carry weapons, but do not mischaracterize them as anything else.

# S: (n) weapon, arm, weapon system (any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting) "he was licensed to carry a weapon"

The point being that it just sits there and, like a hammer, knife, or coffee maker, does nothing until it is activated by a person. If you take my gun away from me, but I still wish to harm another person, then I can run them down with my car, set them on fire, gut them with a knife, beat them with a crow bar... what ever. There are those that intent to do harm, and they will if that is what they want to do... then there are those that intend to defend themselves. disarming them is a disservice to them.

Indeed, many things can become improvised weapons. The point I was trying to make is that a gun is nothing but a weapon and has no other purpose. It's as much of a tool as a canister of hydrogen cyanide (poison), to name an example.

Don't get me wrong though; like in the other thread, I'm not arguing for a gun ban. But I also don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to impose certain restrictions on the availability of guns though either. I think people tend to make it either one way or the other (all guns or no guns), but it's really not.

F1fth wrote:Indeed, many things can become improvised weapons. The point I was trying to make is that a gun is nothing but a weapon and has no other purpose. It's as much of a tool as a canister of hydrogen cyanide (poison), to name an example.

Don't get me wrong though; like in the other thread, I'm not arguing for a gun ban. But I also don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to impose certain restrictions on the availability of guns though either. I think people tend to make it either one way or the other (all guns or no guns), but it's really not.

But it entirely is. The people of the United States need to have access to the same weaponry that our Government has, otherwise, we cannot utilize that last resort to overthrow the government. That is the purpose of the second amendment. The founding fathers intended for the people of America to cut down the government, knowing full well that it was going to reach a level of power that it would, undoubtedly become tyrannical.

Like I said, if the loss of life is the issue, legalize and regulate drugs. much gun violence revolves around our failed war on drugs. If you want to save lives, make cars safer or do away with them. People are killed by firearm use in substantially lower numbers than they are in automobile related deaths.

You don't have to sell me on the legalization and regulation of the drug trade. I do realize that we could kill three birds with one stone (cut off money to drug cartels in Latin America, cut the wasteful spending of the war on drugs, and make money from taxation of the new industry) .

Although I have to disagree as a matter of opinion about public access. I think it is very rare that people buy guns to uphold the populace's ability to overthrow the government. Most often, I'd wager, people buy for personal safety from criminals and the like, and regardless, that is what they will most often be used for by most, if not exclusively. To that end, I think a handgun or perhaps a rifle or shotgun is all one would need.

Surely, you can't be advocating we have access to tanks and explosives because of the second amendment though, can you?