|
spank_spank
Sep 3, 2002, 8:50 PM
Post #176 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 480
|
You kill animals, what the difference of killing an animal or a human being, were all God's creatures.
If someone is hurting my wife (life treatneing), I guaran-f***ing-tee you, I would kill that person in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 4, 2002, 10:11 PM
Post #177 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Sorry, been on vacation.
Jody,
Ted Nugget is a freakin' idiot. The guy has the IQ of a turnip. I wouldn't use that bonehead to represent a diaper.
Give me a couple of days. I'll read from where I left off and add something a little more quality oriented.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Sep 5, 2002, 9:32 AM
Post #178 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Spank,spank,I cna't even believe you asked that question!
Good to hear from you Wildtrail,I need all the help i can get with these guys!!We are out numbered,and they have WAY more passion on this subject than we do!!
Oh,by the way,I stuck up for the hunters in the "climbers,verse hunter thread.
|
|
|
|
|
spank_spank
Sep 5, 2002, 12:31 PM
Post #179 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 480
|
Its a valid question.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 5, 2002, 2:54 PM
Post #180 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Ah, Rich. No one is out numbered here. Besides, if you read most pro-gun (I should say anti-regulation, as I am pro-gun) arguements, they are based on speculation and conspiracy only. So, I wouldn't worry about it. There are constant references to countries that have problems that aren't regulated or governed the same as the United States and don't have the laws and constitutional rights that we enjoy in this country. So, really, they are pointless examples because they don't relate. Then there is the constant mention that our government will take all guns and it starts with taking one gun, which is completely inane as that goes right back to our rights. The government wants to take assault weapons off the market. They do not want to take your Winchester you use for hunting or your .357 you use for target practice (or hunting).
However, you have to accept that everyone worries about something. Thought the government will never take the right to bare arms away from us, there are those that worry.
Either way, this arguement (or debate, whatever) is moot and I never thought it would get this far. Hell, I think it is beating that stupid religious debate.
Anyway, I'll lay it out.
You gun owners will always have your guns and be able to purchase firearms for the purpose of sport. However, you may (in the future) be required to fill out more paper work (when purchasing) and be required to "register" them. Not a big deal. Don't want to do that? Then you won't be getting a new firearm. Also, it is possible that "assault" style weapons may be banned and the government has already said that all persons owning said weapons prior to the passing of this possible law will get to keep them, but will be required to register them within one year of the passing of the proposed law. After the proposed law is passed, assault weapons will not be available on the market for sale or purchase.
This is the "gist" of it and I don't want to see any conspiracy added to it by others. I've talked with those in my family that are in law enforcement and to the governor of Milwaukee (Norquist), who is a friend of my mother's. He supports the proposed law and you should see his gun collection! (No, he won't be "immune" to the law. He will have to register as well)
Blah, blah, blah...
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 5, 2002, 3:02 PM
Post #181 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Rich,
I also agree with Spank. It is, kind of, the same thing. We are all animals (I don't say God's creature as I don't necessarily believe in him). However, Rich is right. There are morals and beliefs attached to human beings that makes killing wrong. The only reason we have that is because we have a higher intellegence and have attached said beliefs. Its our big heads that do that and our egos that make us believe we are the "supreme" race. Perhaps, the supreme intellegent race, but we aren't "supreme".
Anyway, there really is not difference if you look at it correctly. Killing a human is just killing an animal. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't kill any animal.
However, Spank is right. If someone was trying to hurt me or a loved one (mortally), I would kill that person. However, me killing someone in self defence would be far more brutal that you guys with guns as I don't own a gun anymore. It would be with one of three things: My sword (yes I have one and know how to use it), some sort of knife, or my bare hands.
So, honestly, people shouldn't argue the brutality of guns or that guns kill. I have no gun and for me to kill someone would be far more brutal than shooting them in the head or chest. Besides, people kill. Guns are only a tool.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 6:37 AM
Post #182 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Steve, you keep saying they will not take my target gun away or my hunting gun. You are stubborn! I have told you many times that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES US THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH HUNTING! You also can not guarantee me that the government WILL NOT take my guns away. There is no logical reason for guns to be registered. You guys have done a poor job in this debate...just throwing unproven facts, cliches, and innuendos around like they mean something. Also, you STILL havenšt explained to me what an ASSAULT WEAPON is and how it is different from many semi auto hunting rifles. I swear, it is like beating my head against a wall trying to get you guys to use a little logic and common sense here! I still like you though!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 6:53 AM
Post #183 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody,
You've done a far worse job. At least I talked to law makers (Mayor of Milwaukee) and many, many law enforcement personnel from cop to detective.
No they are not going to take them away. You have far less reasons for not registering them than I do for you to register them.
Besides, you were the one "throwing" cliches and innuendos about. Not us. Just you and the other "conspiracy theorists".
Assault Weapon:
"any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for military use with large capacity magazines" (taken from an online dictionary)
Specifically, any weapon using a high range (or caliber) round that is light weight, either steel jacketed or steel pinned (metal pin in the center of the lead round designed to "rattle" through the body after impact) and capable of piercing a protective vest. Designed for military use (specifically). Anything higher caliber weapon with a magazine capacity of 10 or more (not a .22, obviously). Weapons designed for the military, and often converted to semi-automatic firearms and sold to the general public.
THESE ARE "ASSAULT WEAPONS".
Good enough?
They are stupid weapons and totally useless. You can use a 30-30 lever action Winchester to drop a deer. No jackass needs an M-1 or SKS (AK-47 replica) to do it.
I'd like to see when you are actually going to come up with a good example, outside of using bad examples about differently (and poorly) governed countries. The bill on the tabel, the one that congress would like to see go through, specifically states that Americans would not be denied their right to bare arms. The government wants to eliminate "assault weapons" from public sale and ask those that have them to register them. THE END.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:09 AM
Post #184 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Good definition of assault weapons...except for the semiautomatic part. Automatic weapons have been banned since the 30s. You are STILL missing the point however. I cant seem to get you to address the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I still ask you what do you have to fear from an honest citizen? And if that citizen is honest, why register his gun? Unless you might want to take it away at a later date! Geeezzzzzzzzz! You frustrate me!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:16 AM
Post #185 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
BTW, Steve, You are advocating a change from the status quo, yet you have no compelling reason why we should do so. Should it be acceptable for me to decide that some major change take place in society, and just because it makes people feel good, I should be able to implement it? I would not have to present reasons why it would reduce crime, etc.? You guys are all over my ass for not accepting it, yet you have not given one solitary shred of proof or examples why your registration idea would reduce crime or make us safer. Go ahead, go research all the registration laws, our country and others, and prove to me that it makes us safer. You will not be able to do it!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:19 AM
Post #186 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
That is not the purpose of the bill on the table.
NO citizen is trully honest. It is still a conspiracy theory to think that. They aren't going to ask you to register and then take them away in the future. Get over it Jody. I have. As a matter of fact. I am buying two guns next month and I will be happy to register them voluntarily as I am not paranoid about them being taken away from me.
Getting a S & W .40 Tactical and a 9mm in the same model.
If that citizen is trully honest, he/she wouldn't find registering them a big deal. I'm registering mine.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:25 AM
Post #187 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Quote...If that citizen is trully honest, he/she wouldn't find registering them a big deal. I'm registering mine.
Okay Steve, I think everyone should be tested for drug use...If you are truly honest, you will not mind the little invasion of privacy that comes with submitting to a blood test.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:25 AM
Post #188 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
This "proposed" bill isn't a major change in society.
Projected outcomes of it prove favorable, but until implemented (which doesn't look to be the case), proof is in the practice.
No one said you had to accept anything. Just as the proposal of this bill, your "evidence" proves nothing as well. However, doing nothing (as you would prefer to do--or as it seems) improves nothing. At least it would be a step in the right direction as doing something is better than doing nothing.
I never wanted you to accept anything, Jody. I just wanted you to drop the whole "the government is going to take my shit" thing. That's all. Either way, the majority of Americans are in favor for better gun control so you are in the "losing" corner (so to speak). Eventually, something will be passed. Eventually, you and I won't be able to do much about it.
If they say register, I'm registering. Period.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:26 AM
Post #189 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
No I wouldn't. I am on plenty of drugs and they all have a doctor's "okay".
Here's my blood...
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:31 AM
Post #190 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Okay. I think that is about as far as my arguement can go. I think I am done with this thread. Its getting a little boring and repetitive.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:36 AM
Post #191 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
That is what they all do when they lose an argument...they just leave! You are a cowardly chicken Steve!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:43 AM
Post #192 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Rather be a coward than an inept bonehead freaking out that the government is going to "take things away".
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:50 AM
Post #193 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I am really disappointed that you would get so mad Steve. I always considered you a friend...It seems like this has been lost in this argument. I will carry this argument on with others, but I will not lose a friend over this, as important as it is! I love you man!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:54 AM
Post #194 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
You're right, Jody. It seems that we both agree on that. We have definitely lost the importance of "keeping it real" and I too, will not lose a friend over this. In my overzealousness to "win" a fight, or debate, that can't be one I've forgotten the most important thing. Friendship.
I give, send, and express my most sincere of apologies. Sending the love right back at ya!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Sep 6, 2002, 8:43 PM
Post #195 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
You guys are making me cry.
Wildtrail, I don't know the exact numbers from the Uniform Crime Reports(UCR), however assault weapons are used in a small percentage of crimes. From my experience many more crimes are committed with handguns. However, whenever a ASSAULT weapon is used, the case normally draws great attention. Just to note suicide is not a crime and is not shown on UCRs.
Jody don't you think the ability to trace a recovered firearm with a simple querry would be a valuable tool to a investigator? Prior to registration, the querry was time consuming and many times failed.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 10:02 PM
Post #196 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"Jody don't you think the ability to trace a recovered firearm with a simple querry would be a valuable tool to a investigator?
No. Not at the cost of our liberties and freedoms. Regardless of what has been said, I firmly believe that ultimately, the use of a registration system will be to track down MORE weapons that some politicians decided were now illegal and confiscate them. It has already happened. If a few stolen guns get away, I feel that is a small price to pay to maintain our free society.
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Sep 13, 2002, 12:16 AM
Post #197 of 197
(3326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Little did I know that this thread would be so long. I have to say, coach and jmlangford have pretty well conviced me that gun-control reducing crime is a falacy. The main thing was that no one had any facts to show how gun-control actually reduced crime. Wildtrail and justsendingits had some passionate arguments but I didn't see any facts presented to back them up. Maybe they will dig up some facts and post them here for all to see. Maybe they can still convince me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
