Gun Debate
Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666
So you can buy a rifle at 19 but not a handgun?
Originally Posted by scotbud123
@Lehsyrus
Sure, be my guest. If that's the trouble you want to go through, I can't stop you. At least you didn't walk into any random gun shop and pick it out like you were buying a snack.
Sure, be my guest. If that's the trouble you want to go through, I can't stop you. At least you didn't walk into any random gun shop and pick it out like you were buying a snack.
---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 PM ----------
Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666
Ofc the world would end quickly if everyone used explosives to solve problems
People like Lehsyrus however, only resort to explosives when he cannot acquire any kind of firearms legally
Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
Correction, I make explosives for fun, I don't make bombs. Bombs are intended to hurt people, explosives are not (trust me on that one, I've seen four fringe discussion website get closed down because they said bombs and not explosives). I like to see things go BOOM because it makes an awesome effect not only visually but through sound as well. If I wanted to I could make a crap ton of explosives, but I usually make one, set it off, and then move to the next project.
Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666
You should buy those camera that film at 1k fps so you can see the pressure waves in slow mo
Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
EXPENSIVE .
People will kill each other regardless if guns are available publicly or not. There are so many reasons for humans to kill each other, It's never going to stop.
Originally Posted by Aborted
Problem is you can't just enter a shop and say "I want that one". Have you ever purchased a firearm, seen someone purchase a firearm, or even KNOW anyone who has purchased a firearm? My take is that you haven't and are just regurgitating the ignorant spew you watched on the news. You must go through a thorough background check.
Here are some of the people prohibited from purchasing a firearm:
- Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
- Fugitives from justice
- Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
- Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
- Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
- Undocumented Immigrants
- Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
- Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
- Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
- Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition
It doesn't take even a fraction of that time or money to get a gun in a lot of places. Even if they haven't done anything wrong, they can still be mentally unstable. It's great that they require some type of background check, that really is good. (I'm not being sarcastic.) But don't you think it should be a little more strict?
Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
I'm not advocating easily obtainable prefabricated firearms, my post was geared toward your previous statement that showed ill-contempt towards firearms as a whole.
Crazy Joe over there that has anger issues and would fire it at anybody who looks at him the wrong way, well, that's a different story.
Originally Posted by scotbud123
Where I live, it's mandatory to pay at least 2,000$ if not more to go to these dumb schools to get a driver's licence, and the courses you have to take, take OVER a year.
It doesn't take even a fraction of that time or money to get a gun in a lot of places. Even if they haven't done anything wrong, they can still be mentally unstable. It's great that they require some type of background check, that really is good. (I'm not being sarcastic.) But don't you think it should be a little more strict?
I don't have a problem with someone having a gun if they have shown that they are responsible to carry it. My problem is with lunatics getting their hands on it. For example, from what I've seen (and granted, it's only over this forum, so it's not exactly the most credible), I think you would be fit of carrying a gun.
Crazy Joe over there that has anger issues and would fire it at anybody who looks at him the wrong way, well, that's a different story.
It doesn't take even a fraction of that time or money to get a gun in a lot of places. Even if they haven't done anything wrong, they can still be mentally unstable. It's great that they require some type of background check, that really is good. (I'm not being sarcastic.) But don't you think it should be a little more strict?
I don't have a problem with someone having a gun if they have shown that they are responsible to carry it. My problem is with lunatics getting their hands on it. For example, from what I've seen (and granted, it's only over this forum, so it's not exactly the most credible), I think you would be fit of carrying a gun.
Crazy Joe over there that has anger issues and would fire it at anybody who looks at him the wrong way, well, that's a different story.
I stick with my specialty though, which is blowing shit up and setting shit on fire. I agree with you that not any old lunatic should be able to obtain a weapon (the majority of the time this happens at gun shows when distributors just want a quick buck), but even though what the populous media doesn't tell us is that the weapons used in the popular crimes we see are illegal. They say they are legally registered, but don't tell us that the person stole it from a neighbor or a family member, which is why I don't really think vamping up gun control will do too much to prevent this. The people that already have their guns won't be losing them, and trying to take them away from them will never work, so all in all we need (in my personal opinion) is get these lunatics psychiatric treatment.I myself have very bad anxiety and anger problems, hence why I smoke Ganja (they tried giving so many mood altering drugs I almost became fucking bipolar). Though I can't smoke until I'm off probation (because Marijuana is apparently more harmful than the fucking morphine they tried giving me for my other problems).
Originally Posted by scotbud123
Where I live, it's mandatory to pay at least 2,000$ if not more to go to these dumb schools to get a driver's licence, and the courses you have to take, take OVER a year.
It doesn't take even a fraction of that time or money to get a gun in a lot of places. Even if they haven't done anything wrong, they can still be mentally unstable. It's great that they require some type of background check, that really is good. (I'm not being sarcastic.) But don't you think it should be a little more strict?
I don't have a problem with someone having a gun if they have shown that they are responsible to carry it. My problem is with lunatics getting their hands on it. For example, from what I've seen (and granted, it's only over this forum, so it's not exactly the most credible), I think you would be fit of carrying a gun.
Crazy Joe over there that has anger issues and would fire it at anybody who looks at him the wrong way, well, that's a different story.
It doesn't take even a fraction of that time or money to get a gun in a lot of places. Even if they haven't done anything wrong, they can still be mentally unstable. It's great that they require some type of background check, that really is good. (I'm not being sarcastic.) But don't you think it should be a little more strict?
I don't have a problem with someone having a gun if they have shown that they are responsible to carry it. My problem is with lunatics getting their hands on it. For example, from what I've seen (and granted, it's only over this forum, so it's not exactly the most credible), I think you would be fit of carrying a gun.
Crazy Joe over there that has anger issues and would fire it at anybody who looks at him the wrong way, well, that's a different story.
Originally Posted by Aborted
Most of these big gun massacres are committed using weapons in someone else's name. Also, I think it is incredibly asinine to have to pay over $2000 and go to a school for a year just to obtain a driver's license. Though you can't really apply that standard here, as your system is OVERLY complicated, and can not be compared in terms of accessibility. Though you may not think they are, our gun laws are rather strict.
Too many idiots on the road
Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666
2 grand is absurd, but maybe a stricter driving school
Too many idiots on the road
Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
The entire reason Japan did not attack mainland USA during WWII is, and I quote: "Behind every blade of grass, there is a gun". We are feared by enemies who want to invade us as we have many guns out there.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians said,[citation needed] I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]
So it's actually bogus, that was never said.
---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------
Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
I'm only good with sniper rifles and short range SMG's, never trust me with an AR I stick with my specialty though, which is blowing shit up and setting shit on fire. I agree with you that not any old lunatic should be able to obtain a weapon (the majority of the time this happens at gun shows when distributors just want a quick buck), but even though what the populous media doesn't tell us is that the weapons used in the popular crimes we see are illegal. They say they are legally registered, but don't tell us that the person stole it from a neighbor or a family member, which is why I don't really think vamping up gun control will do too much to prevent this. The people that already have their guns won't be losing them, and trying to take them away from them will never work, so all in all we need (in my personal opinion) is get these lunatics psychiatric treatment.
I myself have very bad anxiety and anger problems, hence why I smoke Ganja (they tried giving so many mood altering drugs I almost became fucking bipolar). Though I can't smoke until I'm off probation (because Marijuana is apparently more harmful than the fucking morphine they tried giving me for my other problems).
I stick with my specialty though, which is blowing shit up and setting shit on fire. I agree with you that not any old lunatic should be able to obtain a weapon (the majority of the time this happens at gun shows when distributors just want a quick buck), but even though what the populous media doesn't tell us is that the weapons used in the popular crimes we see are illegal. They say they are legally registered, but don't tell us that the person stole it from a neighbor or a family member, which is why I don't really think vamping up gun control will do too much to prevent this. The people that already have their guns won't be losing them, and trying to take them away from them will never work, so all in all we need (in my personal opinion) is get these lunatics psychiatric treatment.I myself have very bad anxiety and anger problems, hence why I smoke Ganja (they tried giving so many mood altering drugs I almost became fucking bipolar). Though I can't smoke until I'm off probation (because Marijuana is apparently more harmful than the fucking morphine they tried giving me for my other problems).
Originally Posted by Aborted
Most of these big gun massacres are committed using weapons in someone else's name. Also, I think it is incredibly asinine to have to pay over $2000 and go to a school for a year just to obtain a driver's license. Though you can't really apply that standard here, as your system is OVERLY complicated, and can not be compared in terms of accessibility. Though you may not think they are, our gun laws are rather strict.
Maybe there should be some cracking down on illegal guns then, more checks on licences and etc?
Originally Posted by scotbud123
Found something about that quote:
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians said,[citation needed] I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]
So it's actually bogus, that was never said.
---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------
I can see why you hate the government so much, I would hate if some mother fuckers tried to shove something down my throat, I would freak out. :S
Maybe they are more strict than I thought, in that case, kudos, that's all I really wanted.
Maybe there should be some cracking down on illegal guns then, more checks on licences and etc?
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians said,[citation needed] I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]
So it's actually bogus, that was never said.
---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------
I can see why you hate the government so much, I would hate if some mother fuckers tried to shove something down my throat, I would freak out. :S
Maybe they are more strict than I thought, in that case, kudos, that's all I really wanted.
Maybe there should be some cracking down on illegal guns then, more checks on licences and etc?
I personally prefer my knives but my opinion is that anyone should be able to obtain a Semi-automatic firearm (after background and training) but if you think you need an Automatic firearm you really should even have a gun.
I'm attending the Gun March through D.C. on July 4th - anyone else?
This thread is closed for replies.
