Jump to content



Photo

Gun Bans / Confiscation

Second Amendment Gun Ban Gun Confiscation

  • Please log in to reply
237 replies to this topic

#21 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:51 PM

I think we've lost track of the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Here's a good video.

  • jiyabird and iRescue like this

#22 jiyabird

jiyabird

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:53 PM

Ok I dusted off my crystal ball and this is what I see:
Say these idiot people who want to manipulate and control us succeed in taking our guns.
First of all they will not get the guns from the criminals, thugs and crazies. They probably will get them from upstanding, law abiding citizens. Why? If a law abiding citizen uses a gun to protect his home and family that he shouldn't have, since he can't afford to run that means time in the Federal Pen.
The criminal, on the other hand, spends his time running from the law anyway so what's the difference?
The number of robberies and break ins will escalate unimaginably. Why not? The thugs KNOW they are not going to face any resistance, the Feds have seen to that, thank you.
I have ADT...my alarm goes off...ADT notifies JPD....no one comes. Why not? There are 10 other alarms going off in the city...no problem, take your time...I'm dead.
At the same time school shootings, theater shootings, road rage continue...why should they stop? You think THOSE people who have done these in the past would have followed a gun ban?
The only people a gun ban would benefit is the people that should be stopped! To think anything else is an illusion.
  • iRescue likes this

#23 jiyabird

jiyabird

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:56 PM

No that wasn't the question. The question was should she? I say no.


I don't think the topic is about who should be permitted to have guns but rather gun confiscation. Am I wrong?

#24 jiyabird

jiyabird

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:06 PM

I think we've lost track of the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Here's a good video.


You can tell that one jerk with the smirk on his face is just pacifying her by listening to her but could give a r**sa** of what she has to say.
What upsetss me about the ruling in New York is they were so sneaky and didn't allow anyone to speak, even the lawyers. This can't be legal!

#25 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:12 PM

Well, first, she's not violent. My guess is that she's wanting to go to jail. She obviously wants them to call the police. Second, I saw at least 5 other people who, if armed, would be able to take her out if she became violent. The question isn't whether or not she should be armed, people intent on doing harm and breaking the law do not care about gun laws, the question is whether or not the rest of the people in the store have a right to defend themselves against her.


Why does everybody keep trying to tell me what my question is? My question was where do we draw the line on who can carry firearms or any other type of weaponry and how can it be considered a God given right that has been bestowed upon the United States if such a line exists? It must be something other than a right.

And as far as your Shootout at the Circle K Corral scenario is concerned I agree they should kill her if they all had guns and knew she had a gun too and that she was going to kill them first. But I'm glad that, in this instance, no one was armed so no one died. I think that's a good thing. I'm glad we outgrew our Wild West mentality. I hope we never go back.
  • GrumpyGranny and Donna like this

#26 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:26 PM

Ok I dusted off my crystal ball and this is what I see:
Say these idiot people who want to manipulate and control us succeed in taking our guns.
First of all they will not get the guns from the criminals, thugs and crazies. They probably will get them from upstanding, law abiding citizens. Why? If a law abiding citizen uses a gun to protect his home and family that he shouldn't have, since he can't afford to run that means time in the Federal Pen.
The criminal, on the other hand, spends his time running from the law anyway so what's the difference?
The number of robberies and break ins will escalate unimaginably. Why not? The thugs KNOW they are not going to face any resistance, the Feds have seen to that, thank you.
I have ADT...my alarm goes off...ADT notifies JPD....no one comes. Why not? There are 10 other alarms going off in the city...no problem, take your time...I'm dead.
At the same time school shootings, theater shootings, road rage continue...why should they stop? You think THOSE people who have done these in the past would have followed a gun ban?
The only people a gun ban would benefit is the people that should be stopped! To think anything else is an illusion.


And I am trying to point to a real life example of a society that implemented fairly drastic gun control measures and none of that stuff happened. This isn't just some flight of my imagination. This is real tangible evidence. I mean you can actually pick up a telephone and call over there and ask anybody and the will tell you that it isn't A nonstop bloodbath of raping and pillaging since they implemented their gun control. That's all I'm trying to say.
  • GrumpyGranny and Donna like this

#27 jiyabird

jiyabird

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:33 PM

And I am trying to point to a real life example of a society that implemented fairly drastic gun control measures and none of that stuff happened. This isn't just some flight of my imagination. This is real tangible evidence. I mean you can actually pick up a telephone and call over there and ask anybody and the will tell you that it isn't A nonstop bloodbath of raping and pillaging since they implemented their gun control. That's all I'm trying to say.

Small country and never very violent to begin with plus they are VERY strict in regard to immigration program.

Edited by jiyabird, 22 October 2015 - 07:34 PM.


#28 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:36 PM

Why does everybody keep trying to tell me what my question is? My question was where do we draw the line on who can carry firearms or any other type of weaponry and how can it be considered a God given right that has been bestowed upon the United States if such a line exists? It must be something other than a right.

And as far as your Shootout at the Circle K Corral scenario is concerned I agree they should kill her if they all had guns and knew she had a gun too and that she was going to kill them first. But I'm glad that, in this instance, no one was armed so no one died. I think that's a good thing. I'm glad we outgrew our Wild West mentality. I hope we never go back.


It is a God given right bestowed on every human being, not just The United States. The fact that we, as a society, decide to violate a right does not mean it no longer exists. So, To answer your question, we, as a society, should allow people to carry weapons until they have been proven to be a danger to others. For instance, they have committed a violent act. At that point, we, as a society, are within our rights to protect ourselves by violating their right to own a weapon. Their rights don't disappear. We just choose to violate them. Now, depending on the severity and whether or not a person can prove they are no longer a danger we may decide to allow them to carry once more at a later date.

As far as your longing to compare us to the Wild West. One, the shootout at the OK Corral was instigated by law enforcement. Second, most towns back then had very strict gun control laws. Guess who carried guns in town back then? Third, you don't even need a permit to open carry in Indiana. How many gunfights do we have at high noon? This constant characterization of proponents of our second amendment rights wanting to turn things into the Wild West is laughable. One question, how do you know that nobody was armed?

#29 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:41 PM

Small country and never very violent to begin with plus they are VERY strict in regard to immigration program.


They were founded out of a prison colony. But enough about that. But I get your point. You think that's what Americans would do. Fair enough. Point taken.

#30 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:49 PM

Russ.
A license is most certainly required to open carry in Indiana
  • Quasar and Persona Non Grata like this

#31 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:50 PM

One question, how do you know that nobody was armed?


Drat that syntax! I always have trouble with that. I meant her. She wasn't armed so nobody died. Now I know where you're going to go from there… "Well TR, how do you know she would have killed somebody? " Well, I guess that's a point for you as well. Good for you! But I still prefer my crazies to be unarmed.
  • GrumpyGranny and Donna like this

#32 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:52 PM

Russ.
A license is most certainly required to open carry in Indiana

You're correct, my bad, we are a "shall issue" state though.

#33 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:53 PM

Russ.
A license is most certainly required to open carry in Indiana


Correct. Kentucky is open carry - no license required.
  • Russell Brooksbank likes this

#34 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:54 PM

$140 .
Two background checks.
Fingerprints.
and you are good for life.
  • Quasar and Russell Brooksbank like this

#35 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:54 PM

Drat that syntax! I always have trouble with that. I meant her. She wasn't armed so nobody died. Now I know where you're going to go from there… "Well TR, how do you know she would have killed somebody? " Well, I guess that's a point for you as well. Good for you! But I still prefer my crazies to be unarmed.

Yet again, how do you know that she wasn't armed? Maybe she just wanted to go to jail.

#36 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:56 PM

Yet again, how do you know that she wasn't armed? Maybe she just wanted to go to jail.


A bullet in the ceiling would have done the job faster.

Edited by Persona Non Grata, 22 October 2015 - 07:58 PM.

  • iRescue likes this

#37 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:57 PM

Yes, I apologize for misspeaking. I still believe that the second amendment is my permit, but I will pay the extortion simply because it is easier.
  • Quasar likes this

#38 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 08:08 PM

A bullet in the ceiling would have done the job faster.

Maybe, but that has more possibility of hurting someone else and getting herself shot than dumping gum on the ground. So, that tells me that maybe she's not as crazy as you might have me to believe. Maybe she's actually smart. Maybe she's homeless and needs three squares, a cot, a shower, and medical attention for a while. That would be one way to get it, would you agree? Doesn't mean she's not armed for her protection.

#39 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 09:14 PM

Maybe, but that has more possibility of hurting someone else and getting herself shot than dumping gum on the ground. So, that tells me that maybe she's not as crazy as you might have me to believe. Maybe she's actually smart. Maybe she's homeless and needs three squares, a cot, a shower, and medical attention for a while. That would be one way to get it, would you agree? Doesn't mean she's not armed for her protection.


By golly you're right! Any rational person watching this video would quite likely draw that same conclusion. Well played sir!
  • Donna likes this

#40 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 10:51 PM

By golly you're right! Any rational person watching this video would quite likely draw that same conclusion. Well played sir!

What does she say over and over?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users