Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Think gun control is a good idea ?
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 4 14:34:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
The 'Gun Problem'
Mark Alexander

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic..." --Justice Joseph Story

In the wake of another school shooting by another sociopathic teenager, Second Amendment opponents are again out in force attempting to convert the blood of innocents into political capital for gun confiscation.

Among the first to demagogue the issue was Brady Campaign gun control advocate Michael Barnes, who condemned the "gun problem" and criticized Congress and President George W. Bush for letting the so-called "assault weapons" ban expire. Million Mom Marcher Kate Havelin howled, "We need to do more to make sure...our young people are safe from gun violence."

In an observation typical of the gun confiscation crowd's Leftmedia trucklings, Washington Post Deputy Editor Colbert King posed this loaded question: "What about the guns that take away the life?"

"Gun problem," "gun violence" and "guns that take away the life"? Like Barnes and Havelin, King insists that the problem is guns and that confiscating guns will solve the problem. But Barnes, Havelin and King, like most Leftists, display a chronic disconnect with reality. The "problem" in Red Lake, Minnesota (nine dead), is similar to that which visited Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado (thirteen dead), back in 1999.

What was the problem? Leftists brace yourself: It was not a gun problem, but a culture problem. Amazingly, Barnes inadvertently touched on this problem, saying, "Our leaders are preaching about the culture of life. They should spend the same amount of energy taking steps to stop our nation's culture of death." Of course, Barnes and his ilk think the culture of death begins and ends with guns. Their silence on the real cultural problems is deafening.

Like the Columbine murderers, the 16-year-old Red Lake sociopath was obsessed with "Goth" culture. Similarly, he played violent video games and was fascinated with the ultra-Leftist Hitlerian Nazi anarchist movement. And, likewise, he asked some of his victims "Do you believe in God?" before gunning them down.

Of course, focusing on inanimate objects like guns is far easier than focusing on cultural problems, particularly since many of the problems in question are the result of Leftist doctrines -- like parents (particularly fathers) who have abdicated the responsibility for raising responsible and moral children to government schools. The cultural consequences of renouncing that responsibility are exacerbated by the phony "Wall of Separation" arguments, which Leftjudicial activists have used to eliminate religious (read: "moral") training from those schools, and remove the Ten Commandments in principle and substance.

The best teachers in America are barely holding the high ground in classrooms where half the kids are under-parented (at best). The Left's response is to treat disorderly children and youth for ADD or (as was the case in Red Lake) with more powerful drugs like Prozac.

Not to be overlooked is yet another sacred cow of the Left -- the "entertainment" industry's perverse glorification of murder, mayhem and drug use. Typical of Leftist hypocrisy, it is those Hollywonk "actors" making the biggest bucks on the bloodiest big screen splashes who are advocating for gun confiscation. Even allegedly "moderate" actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, in his worst role yet as Governor of California recently signed a gun-ban, reached his position in life making films featuring wholesale slaughter and/or disembowelment of innocent folks.

Back to reality, Founder John Adams wisely noted, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Indeed, the fact is, the Left's assertions about the "gun problem" simply don't hold up under scrutiny.

If the problem of criminal misuse of firearms was dependent on the availability of guns, research would demonstrate that the prevalence of firearms is directly related to violent gun crimes -- that is, the more guns in an area, the more criminal gun use. However, any such relationship has been refuted by multiple and differing analyses. All studies inevitably lead to this conclusion: The crime problem is not about implements but intentions, and intent is inexorably defined by culture. Guns as implements are irrelevant to the criminal mindset that must perforce precede the decision to commit violence. To wit, despite Leftmedia folklore, the most violent attack on a school occurred on 18 May 1927 when Andrew Kehoe, a Bath, Michigan, school board member, murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students -- with a bomb.

Yale researcher John Lott addressed the relationship between gun possession and crime, and concluded his research with the title of his 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime." Notably, Lott's research also determined this corollary to be fact: The countries that ban guns have the highest homicide rates. And why is this true? Intended victims are much easier to murder when their government has already disarmed them through gun control laws.

So, what about internal U.S. murder rates tracked against gun access over time? In 1900, the U.S. homicide rate was estimated at 1 per 100,000. In 2003, FBI statistics put the rate at 5.7 per 100,000. But during the 20th Century, gun availability was inversely related to these numbers; nearly anyone could buy and carry a gun in 1900, whereas there were 23,000 federal, state and local restrictions on firearms purchases by the end of the century.

Consider the comparable murder rates in the adjacent states of Massachusetts (very restrictive gun laws), versus Maine and New Hampshire (unrestrictive gun laws). Rates for crimes committed with guns are lower in Maine and New Hampshire than in Massachusetts. Furthermore, cities with the most restrictive gun laws, like Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, have the highest murder rates in the nation.

Similarly, U.S. murder rates have trended downward in the last decade as more states have implemented "right to carry" laws, which make the criminal task of choosing unarmed victims more difficult. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "Most criminals aren't that stupid; they tend to go where the guns aren't."

The same correlations are in evidence around the world. Nations with the highest per-capita possession of firearms, such as Switzerland (where most households contain at least one "assault weapon" as part of their "well regulated militia") are among those with the lowest murder rates. Conversely, nations like the UK, with the most restrictive gun laws, are now experiencing escalating crime rates.

The UK's gun restrictions, for example, did not stop a sociopath from slaughtering 16 kindergarteners and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, three years before Columbine. As a result of that shooting, all handguns were confiscated (similar to Sen. Diane Feinstein's proposal after Columbine). The result? By 2002, England and Wales had the highest incidence of "very serious" offences (18 crimes per 100 people) among the 17 developed Western nations. Second in line is Australia (16 per 100) where many classes of guns have also been confiscated. The incidence of "violent crime" is 3.6 per 100 in the UK, compared with 1.9 per 100 in the U.S.

Gun confiscation has never protected anyone. Gun restrictions have not protected citizens in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., New York or Boston, much less anyone in Columbine or Red Lake. Nor did such laws protect Jews from Hitler or Stalin or Chinese peasants from Mao, etc., ad infinitum.

In his Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, "On Crimes and Punishment": "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Again, no less true today than it has been throughout history.

The next time some Chardonnay-sipping Leftists pontificates about the "gun problem," reminded them that far more Americans, particularly children, die as a result of alcohol abuse, than at the hands of criminals using guns. Would a five-day waiting period on the purchase of good bottle of wine prevent those injuries and deaths?

As for the Marching Moms, it's worth noting that women are the fastest-growing demographic group of gun owners. And for good reason. It's now estimated that guns are used defensively more that 2.5 million times annually -- four times more often than the estimated use of a gun in commission of a crime.

In short, culture trumps firearm access in determining murder rates, and if our murder rates are going to be further reduced, Americans of all political feathers would be well advised to take a sobering look at the cultural components which breed such violence, not the instruments used to commit violence.

Any efforts by the government to further regulate firearms should be met head-on by the clear language of our Constitution's Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In fact, broad reduction of current gun regulations is consistent both with the letter of our Constitution, and the historical reality of self-defense and criminal restraint. Political folly such as the Feinstein/Schumer gun control act -- which was, fortunately, defeated by Congress last year -- serves only to weaken this "palladium of the liberties of our republic," as Justice Joseph Story called the Second Amendment. For your neighbors who don't see it that way, tell them to put one of these on their front door: http://PatriotShop.US/GunFreeHousehold.




 
Nikki Posted: Mon Apr 4 14:42:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  guns aren't a problem ppl are...ahahahahahahahahahahaha such utter fucking bullshit !!!


 
addi Posted: Mon Apr 4 15:37:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "What was the problem? Leftists brace yourself: It was not a gun problem, but a culture problem."

What insight! What a genius! I want this man to bear my children!

Brace yourself everyone: I'm a leftist, but I have always believed that our culture was part (emphasis on part) of the problem.

A leftist that doesn't think guns are the only problem?!
SHOCKING!

He actually had some valid points, but blaming it all on the left-wing of our society is just silly talk, and shows he has a 1st grade understanding of the complexity of this problem.
...there are shit for brains left wing parents, and shit for brains right wing conservative parents. It takes a whole village to raise an idiot child.

How 'bout this? Let's attack all the sources of the problem. We ban assault rifles and handguns, AND we try to improve our culture here by being responsible parents and raising our kids to have compassion and respect for all human life.
Unfortunately the latter problem would prove to be the most difficult to do...unless we got a bunch of right wing political fanatics to start legislating morality and telling us all how to live more godly lives.

"Yes, Johnny, you can own a semi-automatic rifle, but i don't want it used on anything other than bunnies, deer, and other cute woodland creatures... But it's open season on jews, muslims, blacks and other non-believers."



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 4 16:24:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>"What was the problem? Leftists brace yourself: It was not a gun problem, but a culture problem."
>
>What insight! What a genius! I want this man to bear my children!
>
>Brace yourself everyone: I'm a leftist, but I have always believed that our culture was part (emphasis on part) of the problem.
>
>A leftist that doesn't think guns are the only problem?!
>SHOCKING!
>
>He actually had some valid points, but blaming it all on the left-wing of our society is just silly talk, and shows he has a 1st grade understanding of the complexity of this problem.
>...there are shit for brains left wing parents, and shit for brains right wing conservative parents. It takes a whole village to raise an idiot child.
>
>How 'bout this? Let's attack all the sources of the problem. We ban assault rifles and handguns, AND we try to improve our culture here by being responsible parents and raising our kids to have compassion and respect for all human life.
>Unfortunately the latter problem would prove to be the most difficult to do...unless we got a bunch of right wing political fanatics to start legislating morality and telling us all how to live more godly lives.
>
>"Yes, Johnny, you can own a semi-automatic rifle, but i don't want it used on anything other than bunnies, deer, and other cute woodland creatures... But it's open season on jews, muslims, blacks and other non-believers."
>
How many folks that live to the right of center do you know who want to ban guns ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 4 16:26:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>Brace yourself everyone: I'm a leftist, but I have always believed that our culture was part (emphasis on part) of the problem.
>
By the way Addie, I consider you to be more center-left than a left winger.


 
addi Posted: Mon Apr 4 16:57:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  shit, this arrogant SOB pisses me off
: )

let's say for the sake of arguement that he's 100% correct in his assessment: Culture is the root cause of our violent behavior, not guns.

If a psych ward is dealing with a mentally disturbed patient they look for ways to get at the source of the problem and treat it accordingly. Untill this sick person is healed, and in control of his emotions, strict controls are placed on him to protect others and to protect the patient. The staff wouldn't give that patient access to knifes or razor blades, cuz that would just be dumb and asking for trouble. D'uh

So America is the patient. We are a sick culture in need of some serious healing and changing of our self destructive ways, according to Mr. Alexander, and guns are not the problem.

I ask you this then. How much sense does it make to have so many guns available to so many in this "sick" culture, and with access so easy to aquiring them?
We've all agreed that it's not the guns, it's us that has the problem...yet we scream bloody fucking murder if any lefto wants to bring up gun control and make it more difficult for our sick culture to have access to these weapons.

Do ya even hear what i'm saying?
Razor blades aren't inherently evil. We all know that. But we do our best to keep them away from people that aren't responsible enough to use them safely.

Guns aren't inherently evil. But allowing sick people in this sick society to literally drive a few miles down the road to the local pawn shop or gun show and pick up a gun is not a very responsible way to deal with the problem we are facing.

I don't have the answer to healing the daily violence, hatred, and bloodshed in this sick culture, but i can tell you, in the meantime, that having so many guns around is not going to improve the situation.


 
addi Posted: Mon Apr 4 17:30:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>By the way Addie, I consider you to be more center-left than a left winger.

that's probably a fair assessment, hif.
I don't much care for labels. I guess it's all relative. To some I'm a far leftist, to others I'm more in the moderate camp.
I do feel that the demise of a strong family unit has had major repercussions in American over the past 50 years. I saw it as a teacher with so many children having serious troubles that came from a bad family situation. Too many parents are doing a lousy job raising their children these days. I'm not even pointing my finger at the high divorse rate either. My father left my mother when i was a child, but he remained, as best he could, a loving, involved father to me. And my mother is a saint and was always there for me. What a difference that make have in making or breaking the future path of a mixed up kid. I turned out normal (sort of).

I'm not talking about Baptist, church going, God fearing, family values here. I'm talking about, whatever your personal belief system may be, that you raise your own to love and to respect the dignity of human life. Instill some moral guidance in their lives, and teach them how to question and think on their own.
sigh

Done ranting.
Happy Birthday


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 4 17:35:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I blame it all on those damned foreign folk.


 
beetlebum Posted: Mon Apr 4 17:55:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:

>
>Do ya even hear what i'm saying?
>Razor blades aren't inherently evil. We all know that. But we do our best to keep them away from people that aren't responsible enough to use them safely.
>
>Guns aren't inherently evil. But allowing sick people in this sick society to literally drive a few miles down the road to the local pawn shop or gun show and pick up a gun is not a very responsible way to deal with the problem we are facing.
>

That's one of the best analogies I've heard in awhile... a solid argument, too. I completely agree. Well said!


 
kurohyou Posted: Mon Apr 4 18:03:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  In my mind, the issue of gun control is far to complex, as Addi said, to narrow down to being caused by a single source. The availibility of guns, socital factors and cultural factors all play into the situation to make it what it is. Eliminating one of the problems will simply change the face of the problem, it doesn't explain it fully and it won't solve it fully either.

As an aspiring law enformcment officer, I am in support of a limited form of gun control. It does not set well with me that, as an officer, I may walk into a domestic violence situation, and the potential for one of the parties being armed with an assault rifle exists. For that fact the possibilty of the parties being armed with a firearm of any sort is disturbing to me.

I have a hard time understanding what a person who is not commissioned in the military, or a law enforcement agency would need with a handgun or an assault rifle. In my mind those weapons have only one purpose, to kill. That is what they were designed to do.

I'm not saying there isn't a sporting aspect of firearms. For me, marksman ship is a facinating excercise in control and focus. Its not as easy to fire a handgun as it looks, at least not with any form of accuracy.

The sad thing is that while there are a large number of cultural and socital issues which have had a cause in these school shootings and the violence we have in America, you cannot take guns out of the equation and simply place blame on an obscure, at best, idea of a problematic culture. Sure that plays a role, you can't deny that role, but you can't say that is the only cause. That is a bit too narrow minded of a view. A broad view, not a leftist, not a right-wing, but a broad view is what is needed to solve these problems.

To use Addi's anology further, to help a trama victim you have to first top the bleeding. Getting inside and repairing the damaged organs will do no good if your patient dies due to excessive blood loss. Deal with the most obvious of causes, at the very least find a way to limit the damage that they are causing, stop some of the bleeding even if you can't stop it all and you stand a better chance of saving the victim.

For what its worth...


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 4 18:34:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm a very strong believer in personal freedom.

That being said, I also acknowledge the fact that a lot of people should have restrictions when it comes to owning guns.

I hear it's out of control in America and it's one of the many paradoxes I see when I look at American culture/society from an outsider's point of view.

On one hand you have the mass hysteria about terrorism, but at the same time neither the citizens nor the people calling the shots (pun intended) seem to care about the fact that every "gangsta" and yokel or any other disturbed person has free acces to even heavy assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols.

I can see how that, and the fact (amongst other things, ofcourse, but just as an example) that lately you have all these "home dawg niggas" singing about how cool it is to kill your ho's and "biatches" who "dizrizpectz you" or don't "recconniiize" you, lead to situations where you have the marginal folk arming up to be part of the herd and to protect themselves from eachother, resulting in the average housefather thinking he needs to be able to protect his family from those same people if things should get out of hand.

Here, the vast majority of rifles, pistols, revolvers, whatever, is registered. Every bullet even.

Take it from me, I can know, everything is thoroughly checked.

You can't own/buy a weapon without a proper license. Normally, unless you have a special license, you can't own weapons with a military calibre.

To get such a license you need to be part of a legitimate, regulated shooting range and you have to take various tests to see if you have both the technical and psychological background needed.

Because of this when the shit does hit the fan the people responsible are easily traced, and people who own a weapon actually know and understand what they're dealing with, instead of just having it seen on tv.

Ofcourse, there are illegal weapons here too, and yes, there are crimes being commited with them, but all on a limited scale, which from the statistics I have come across can't be said about the way things are in America at this point.


The simple fact is: nobody needs a gun. Yes, some people enjoy shooting one, I do too, and yes, some people want one to feel safer in their homes, and that's all fine. But it gets dangerous when you start dispensing them amongst people who don't know that they have to point the hole in the barrel away from themselves, pumped up kids and adolescent shitheads who think they're tough, or gunnuts who think they're a fucking militia.

The reason why it doesn't get licensed in America is probably fairly simple: there's a lot of money to be made with guns if the trade in them has few to no restrictions.

I'd bet my left nut though that if licenses were introduced and enforced that after a decade crime involving fire arms will shrink to less than a shadow of what it is today.


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 4 18:53:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Like the Columbine murderers, the 16-year-old Red Lake sociopath was obsessed with "Goth" culture.

I don't buy crap like that hif, and I do think that I'm in a better place to be the judge of this than the guy who's writing that, being around people in the 16->25 age category all the time.

All those goth, skater, whatever kids, are fakes. Anybody who takes those things seriously as a reason why they would murder somebody is fully aware of the fact that it isn't one, or seriously needs to get out some more.

>Similarly, he played violent video games

I play violent video games and watch horror movies all the time. If anything, it reduces my murderous impulses.

This too is propaganda, nothing more.

Movies and games don't kill people.

If the relation that some people claim exists between violent games/movies and people going on killing sprees would in effect be a reality crime rates would fifty times what they are now.

>and was fascinated with the ultra-Leftist Hitlerian Nazi anarchist movement.

Yes, damn those communist nazi's. Oh wait.

>And, likewise, he asked some of his victims "Do you believe in God?" before gunning them down.

Perhaps that's the real problem.

>The cultural consequences of renouncing that responsibility are exacerbated by the phony "Wall of Separation" arguments, which Leftjudicial activists have used to eliminate religious (read: "moral") training from those schools, and remove the Ten Commandments in principle and substance.

Don't get me started.

>murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students -- with a bomb.

I don't really see how this relates to anything.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 4 20:54:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's really very simple guys.
Violent crime is lower where they don't have restrictive gun control laws.
You can say what you want but the numbers don't lie.
And Chris you poo-pood the goth and video game stuff, but had no problem with blaming the rap/thug culture for a lot of the cultural malaise we have.
I see that as a double standard. The fact is, all of it contributes. Just because video games have no effect on you, doesn't mean the have no effect on anyone else.
And it's not just the video games or the goth stuff, it's the culmination of everything, a cultural stew if you will, except in some cases the stew is poisonous.
Does anyone actually believe the school shootings would not have happened if they had gun control laws in place ?
That's just laughable.
Would any of you have any problem at all obtaining drugs if you so desired ?
And I know some of you do happen to desire.
Would you imagine that if guns were illegal that they would be hard to find ?


 
Silentmind Posted: Mon Apr 4 21:04:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's really very simple guys.
>Violent crime is lower where they don't have restrictive gun control laws.


Where are you grabbing /those/ stats from? The US has one of the highest rates of violent crime involving the use of guns, and they also have some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country. Hell, its in your constitution as a RIGHT. I hate to say, but the British aren't coming. Thats what it was put in there for, and now its being used as an argument to have guns. I say the US goes back to when the constitution was written, and back to what the authors intended: Every man can have a musket, to be used to repel the british invasion.


 
kurohyou Posted: Mon Apr 4 21:50:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>
>Does anyone actually believe the school shootings would not have happened if they had gun control laws in place ?
>That's just laughable.

I don't know that its laughable to think that these events could have been prevented. I don't believe that all of the school shooting in America could have been prevented had there been gun control laws in place. Though you could argue that some of the smaller ones might have been prevented had a gun not been available in the home of the perpetrator.

Now with regards to the bigger events, Columbine and the recent events in Red Lake, those involved an amount of premeditation and determination by the perpetrators which place them into the catagory of a premeditated murder. The perpetrators had planned, and plotted their actions in advance, and weapons were absolutly necessary to carrying out the plots. Now, not having the weapons may have slowed the excution of their plans, but honestly, I dont' think it would have prevented those two specific events.

However, in a number of the other events, the child, fed up with being treated poorly, or whatever the case was, took the weapon and shot a couple of students before ending their rampage. These attacks were aimed at a specific party or parties, not a general rampage whose goal was to kill as many as possible. If the perpetrator in these events had not had easy access to the great equalizer, then it's doubtful that the events would have happened. Though that is merely speculation on my part.

Ben Franklin said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." While they all may not have been able to be prevented, a fair number of them might have been.

Train of thought has left, I'll have to come back to this when it returns...

For what its worth...







 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Apr 4 23:40:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >What was the problem? Leftists brace yourself: It was not a gun problem, but a culture problem. Amazingly, Barnes inadvertently touched on this problem, saying, "Our leaders are preaching about the culture of life. They should spend the same amount of energy taking steps to stop our nation's culture of death."

Well as Kurohyou said, the goal and purpose of guns are to kill. To kill people, animals, targets, whatever. Whatever's at the wrong end of the barrel will not be in one piece.

>Like the Columbine murderers, the 16-year-old Red Lake sociopath was obsessed with "Goth" culture. Similarly, he played violent video games and was fascinated with the ultra-Leftist Hitlerian Nazi anarchist movement. And, likewise, he asked some of his victims "Do you believe in God?" before gunning them down.

Wow, so much wrong in 1 paragraph. The Red Lake murderer was American Indian, and the Goth scene avoids the reservations. Every study done in the last 10 years has found little to no correlation between violent video games and physical violence. Anarchist are on the super-ultra-so far-Left that they're super far right; Nazism is as far as you can on the Right.
And then there's the God question: That has one purpose and one purpose only and it's nothing about Satanism. It's to remove the last bit of power and hope your victims have; in short, it creates the epitamy of fear in the final moments.

>The cultural consequences of renouncing that responsibility are exacerbated by the phony "Wall of Separation" arguments, which Leftjudicial activists have used to eliminate religious (read: "moral") training from those schools, and remove the Ten Commandments in principle and substance.

I've studied History, with a capital H. Some of the most horrible acts have been done by the "religious (read: "moral")". And it's not the purpose of the State and the educator to teach religious morality, as different religions and cultures have different moralities. How about they teach Humanities, the Arts, the Physical and Social Sciences, and when it gets to the religion, you show what they are? That actually works.

>The best teachers in America are barely holding the high ground in classrooms where half the kids are under-parented (at best). The Left's response is to treat disorderly children and youth for ADD or (as was the case in Red Lake) with more powerful drugs like Prozac.

Prozac is for depression, not ADHD.
The education has been made the Grand Bitch of funding cuts from No Child Left Behind, even more so than previously.


>If the problem of criminal misuse of firearms was dependent on the availability of guns, research would demonstrate that, blippity bloppity. bloop....
The guns at Columbine were all purchased legally, by Eric and Kyle's friends (one of whom who had a criminal record) at a gun show.

>Yale researcher John Lott yaddayaddayadda.....
We studied Lott and his study. The collorary "proving more guns = less deaths" was the result of a coding error on his poorly created survey. When showing that it held up on the retest, he used a pseudonym to prove!!! himself right.

>Consider the comparable murder rates in the adjacent states of Massachusetts (very restrictive gun laws), versus Maine and New Hampshire (unrestrictive gun laws). Rates for crimes committed with guns are lower in Maine and New Hampshire than in Massachusetts. Furthermore, cities with the most restrictive gun laws, like Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, have the highest murder rates in the nation.
Consider that no one lives in ME and NH, and Mass., DC, and Georgia have (or in this, are) 3 of the most major U.S. cities.


>.....To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "Most criminals aren't that stupid; they tend to go where the guns aren't."
No they don't. They go where they can get guns (see above), major cities or gun shows, usually in or nearby major cities

>The same correlations are in evidence around the world. Nations with the highest per-capita possession of firearms, such as Switzerland (where most households contain at least one "assault weapon" as part of their "well regulated militia") are among those with the lowest murder rates. Conversely, nations like the UK, with the most restrictive gun laws, are now experiencing escalating crime rates.
It's their culture and the lack thereof a melting pot


>Gun confiscation has never protected anyone. Gun restrictions have not protected citizens in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., New York or Boston, much less anyone in Columbine or Red Lake. Nor did such laws protect Jews from Hitler or Stalin or Chinese peasants from Mao, etc., ad infinitum.
I don't know where to take offense to that, especially since the Nazis and the Maoists made the laws and if they didn't fit to their totalitarian views, they ignored/changed them. Or they just shot whoever had a problem with it.
Actually in NY, they have, and crime in D.C., as well as nationwide, as been dropping steadily over the last 10 years, since the mid-90s.

>It's now estimated that guns are used defensively more that 2.5 million times annually -- four times more often than the estimated use of a gun in commission of a crime.
Most studies show that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of someone getting shot in the home, and I don't mean intruders.

>In short, culture trumps firearm access in determining murder rates, and if our murder rates are going to be further reduced, Americans of all political feathers would be well advised to take a sobering look at the cultural components which breed such violence, not the instruments used to commit violence.
This just get me so angry, I'm just going to ignore it.

>Any efforts by the government to further regulate firearms should be met head-on by the clear language of our Constitution's Second Amendment: oompa loompa doopity doo.....
bleh


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 5 06:44:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>Where are you grabbing /those/ stats from? The US has one of the highest rates of violent crime involving the use of guns, and they also have some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country. Hell, its in your constitution as a RIGHT. I hate to say, but the British aren't coming. Thats what it was put in there for, and now its being used as an argument to have guns. I say the US goes back to when the constitution was written, and back to what the authors intended: Every man can have a musket, to be used to repel the british invasion.
>
Read the first post Silentmind, and then tell me where gun control is working.

As for the right to bear arms in America, it was not put there to repel the British, as the war was long over before our constitution was established.
It was put there to guarantee a well regulated militia and the ability to protect ourselves from tyranny.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 5 06:55:43 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>>What was the problem? Leftists brace yourself: It was not a gun problem, but a culture problem. Amazingly, Barnes inadvertently touched on this problem, saying, "Our leaders are preaching about the culture of life. They should spend the same amount of energy taking steps to stop our nation's culture of death."
>
>Well as Kurohyou said, the goal and purpose of guns are to kill. To kill people, animals, targets, whatever. Whatever's at the wrong end of the barrel will not be in one piece.
>
>>Like the Columbine murderers, the 16-year-old Red Lake sociopath was obsessed with "Goth" culture. Similarly, he played violent video games and was fascinated with the ultra-Leftist Hitlerian Nazi anarchist movement. And, likewise, he asked some of his victims "Do you believe in God?" before gunning them down.
>
>Wow, so much wrong in 1 paragraph. The Red Lake murderer was American Indian, and the Goth scene avoids the reservations. Every study done in the last 10 years has found little to no correlation between violent video games and physical violence. Anarchist are on the super-ultra-so far-Left that they're super far right; Nazism is as far as you can on the Right.
>And then there's the God question: That has one purpose and one purpose only and it's nothing about Satanism. It's to remove the last bit of power and hope your victims have; in short, it creates the epitamy of fear in the final moments.
>
>>The cultural consequences of renouncing that responsibility are exacerbated by the phony "Wall of Separation" arguments, which Leftjudicial activists have used to eliminate religious (read: "moral") training from those schools, and remove the Ten Commandments in principle and substance.
>
>I've studied History, with a capital H. Some of the most horrible acts have been done by the "religious (read: "moral")". And it's not the purpose of the State and the educator to teach religious morality, as different religions and cultures have different moralities. How about they teach Humanities, the Arts, the Physical and Social Sciences, and when it gets to the religion, you show what they are? That actually works.
>
>>The best teachers in America are barely holding the high ground in classrooms where half the kids are under-parented (at best). The Left's response is to treat disorderly children and youth for ADD or (as was the case in Red Lake) with more powerful drugs like Prozac.
>
>Prozac is for depression, not ADHD.
>The education has been made the Grand Bitch of funding cuts from No Child Left Behind, even more so than previously.
>
>
>>If the problem of criminal misuse of firearms was dependent on the availability of guns, research would demonstrate that, blippity bloppity. bloop....
>The guns at Columbine were all purchased legally, by Eric and Kyle's friends (one of whom who had a criminal record) at a gun show.
>
>>Yale researcher John Lott yaddayaddayadda.....
>We studied Lott and his study. The collorary "proving more guns = less deaths" was the result of a coding error on his poorly created survey. When showing that it held up on the retest, he used a pseudonym to prove!!! himself right.
>
>>Consider the comparable murder rates in the adjacent states of Massachusetts (very restrictive gun laws), versus Maine and New Hampshire (unrestrictive gun laws). Rates for crimes committed with guns are lower in Maine and New Hampshire than in Massachusetts. Furthermore, cities with the most restrictive gun laws, like Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, have the highest murder rates in the nation.
>Consider that no one lives in ME and NH, and Mass., DC, and Georgia have (or in this, are) 3 of the most major U.S. cities.
>
>
>>.....To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "Most criminals aren't that stupid; they tend to go where the guns aren't."
>No they don't. They go where they can get guns (see above), major cities or gun shows, usually in or nearby major cities
>
>>The same correlations are in evidence around the world. Nations with the highest per-capita possession of firearms, such as Switzerland (where most households contain at least one "assault weapon" as part of their "well regulated militia") are among those with the lowest murder rates. Conversely, nations like the UK, with the most restrictive gun laws, are now experiencing escalating crime rates.
>It's their culture and the lack thereof a melting pot
>
>
>>Gun confiscation has never protected anyone. Gun restrictions have not protected citizens in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., New York or Boston, much less anyone in Columbine or Red Lake. Nor did such laws protect Jews from Hitler or Stalin or Chinese peasants from Mao, etc., ad infinitum.
>I don't know where to take offense to that, especially since the Nazis and the Maoists made the laws and if they didn't fit to their totalitarian views, they ignored/changed them. Or they just shot whoever had a problem with it.
>Actually in NY, they have, and crime in D.C., as well as nationwide, as been dropping steadily over the last 10 years, since the mid-90s.
>
>>It's now estimated that guns are used defensively more that 2.5 million times annually -- four times more often than the estimated use of a gun in commission of a crime.
>Most studies show that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of someone getting shot in the home, and I don't mean intruders.
>
>>In short, culture trumps firearm access in determining murder rates, and if our murder rates are going to be further reduced, Americans of all political feathers would be well advised to take a sobering look at the cultural components which breed such violence, not the instruments used to commit violence.
>This just get me so angry, I'm just going to ignore it.
>
>>Any efforts by the government to further regulate firearms should be met head-on by the clear language of our Constitution's Second Amendment: oompa loompa doopity doo.....
>bleh
>
None of your rebuttals matter, no matter how right or wrong they are.
Gun control absolutely does not work.
It's been proven over and over again.
If you make guns illegal today, do you really think I won't be able to get one tomorrow faster than you can get a big gulp at 7-11?
Would you be willing to put a "Gun Free Household" sticker on your front door ?


 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 5 07:40:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>As for the right to bear arms in America, it was not put there to repel the British, as the war was long over before our constitution was established.
>It was put there to guarantee a well regulated militia and the ability to protect ourselves from tyranny.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Please learn your history before you make false statements like this. We were fighting the british long after the official end of the revolutionary war. The british were still holding sections of Ohio and Michigan (Northwest Territory). We fought the Battle of Fallen Timbers against the Native Americans (who had full British support) in 1794. Tensions with the british continued long after (see the War of 1812). If it wasn't the European powers that made us skiddish, then it was the Indians barring our Manifest Destiny to push westward.

Think of the historical context of the situation young america was facing when the framers of the constitution, Madison, Jefferson, and company, wrote that amendment. We had no real conscripted army. Ordinary farmers and folk had to drop there livelihoods and defend the country. The need was there to own guns to protect one's land from others and from hostile forces. The leaders had no clue whatsoever that 200 years later what they wrote would be used by the NRA to justify assault weapon ownership. I have little doubt that if James Madison would have had a crystal ball to see into the future he would most definately had clarified what was meant by the people's right to bear arms.
It's a weak, tired, and historically lazy and innaccurate arguement to justify gun ownership today based on the true intention of that right. If you weren't a white male land owner at the time you were fucked. We made adjustments over time to recify those wrongs. We can still do it regarding the current misinterpretation of our 2nd amendment.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 5 08:20:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>As for the right to bear arms in America, it was not put there to repel the British, as the war was long over before our constitution was established.
>>It was put there to guarantee a well regulated militia and the ability to protect ourselves from tyranny.
>
>Amendment II
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>
>
>Please learn your history before you make false statements like this. We were fighting the british long after the official end of the revolutionary war. The british were still holding sections of Ohio and Michigan (Northwest Territory). We fought the Battle of Fallen Timbers against the Native Americans (who had full British support) in 1794. Tensions with the british continued long after (see the War of 1812). If it wasn't the European powers that made us skiddish, then it was the Indians barring our Manifest Destiny to push westward.
>
My history is just fine.
The revolutionary war was over.
Your assessment of "Full British Support" is a little odd, since the Treaty of Greenville was signed by the Inidand only because of England's refusal to support the Indians. They didn't support the Americans either.




 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 5 08:36:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  no, your history is not fine.
Both the british and the french aligned themselves with various tribes to fight against us in the nations early history.
Of course the revolutionary war was over officially, with the signing the the treaty of paris, but fear of a hostile takeover was still deep set in the minds of our founding fathers at that time, and for good reason. The french, spanish, and english still controlled large sections of (what was to become)the continental U.S.
My point was that we still were fighting them, and the need to form a militia at a moments notice was necessary.
Refute me with facts please, not revisionist conservative make believe history.


*and i hope you didn't party too hard last night for your birthday : )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 5 09:16:14 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>no, your history is not fine.
>Both the british and the french aligned themselves with various tribes to fight against us in the nations early history.
>Of course the revolutionary war was over officially, with the signing the the treaty of paris, but fear of a hostile takeover was still deep set in the minds of our founding fathers at that time, and for good reason. The french, spanish, and english still controlled large sections of (what was to become)the continental U.S.
>My point was that we still were fighting them, and the need to form a militia at a moments notice was necessary.
>
All that is well and good, but we were not at war with England.
>
>Refute me with facts please, not revisionist conservative make believe history.
>
Since congress was controlled by the Democrats for most of the last half of the 20th century, pretty much all that is available is revisionist liberal make believe history.
>
>
>*and i hope you didn't party too hard last night for your birthday : )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 5 09:17:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>>*and i hope you didn't party too hard last night for your birthday : )
>
Actually, last nite my new bride and I spent the evening at home, planting some spring flowers and starting our herb garden.
Then we watched Illinois choke.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 5 09:32:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And Chris you poo-pood the goth and video game stuff, but had no problem with blaming the rap/thug culture for a lot of the cultural malaise we have.

Here's the thing hif, goths don't focus on firearms, they focus on mainly destroying themselves. "gangstas" on the other hand talk about killing eachother.

When it comes to games, I presume you don't know what you're talking about, and the guy who wrote the article probably doesn't know either.

I'd have to think long and hard to find somebody who does not enjoy playing some violent game every now and then or watches a violent movie every now and then.

Tell me hif, what's the latest violent movie that has given you an urge to kill.

>I see that as a double standard. The fact is, all of it contributes. Just because video games have no effect on you, doesn't mean the have no effect on anyone else.

It works the other way around too, it's not because you don't plan on killing anybody with your weapon that another person is thinking the same.

And yeah the double standards thing, you, being the terrorist fanatic that you are, don't you have any problems with it that every terrorist who wants it can in fact legally buy/carry weapons?

If that isn't a double standard I don't know what is.

>Does anyone actually believe the school shootings would not have happened if they had gun control laws in place ?

If they'd only had knives at their disposal they could have got 2 people at most.

>Would any of you have any problem at all obtaining drugs if you so desired ?

No, but I can tell you that I'd have a hard time getting a gun.

>Would you imagine that if guns were illegal that they would be hard to find ?

I can tell you that it is.


 
Ahriman Posted: Tue Apr 5 15:30:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Gun control makes no sense because the weapons being used are almost always illegal arms. Not legally bought. I own two guns. Personally, I believe a lot of people shouldn't be allowed guns. I don't understand though why I can own an AK-47 but not nunchakus? (new york here)


 
Silentmind Posted: Tue Apr 5 19:53:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>Since congress was controlled by the Democrats for most of the last half of the 20th century, pretty much all that is available is revisionist liberal make believe history.
>>


Congress doesn't record history. It makes it. If you go to true historians you get a relatively clear picture. By a real historian, I mean one that hasn't been involved with a party, or an administration, or closely involved with the subject they are studying. Because if they are involved there will be a biased view already. Slight as it may be. So yes, you will get biased views if you go to certain sources. If you look elsewhere, you will get a clear picture. And what Addi said was correct. The intent of that section of the constitution was designed for a militia armed with muskets to prevent invasion. Though the British were not in direct conflict with the Americans, they were indirectly, and still a major threat to the Americans. Even after control was handed over, they Americans still feared that Britain would take a step back, and try and take back their colony.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 5 20:02:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>Congress doesn't record history. It makes it. If you go to true historians you get a relatively clear picture. By a real historian, I mean one that hasn't been involved with a party, or an administration, or closely involved with the subject they are studying.
>
I was referring to how the history books are selected for the public schools. As for a real historian using your definition, they don't exist.

Because if they are involved there will be a biased view already. Slight as it may be. So yes, you will get biased views if you go to certain sources. If you look elsewhere, you will get a clear picture. And what Addi said was correct. The intent of that section of the constitution was designed for a militia armed with muskets to prevent invasion.
>
How can you be sure that was the only intent ? Where is that intent written ?
Would you not agree that the bill of rights was borne of mistrust of government ?
Would it not make sense the right to bear arms would also be to guarantee of defense from tyranny ?
Since when should any part of the bill of rights become negotiable ?



 
Mesh Posted: Tue Apr 5 23:20:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I encourage gun control. That way I can rape and pillage the land without worrying about getting shot. And it DEFINATELY makes it easier for me to be the next Mao.

Come on people, give up your guns, make my job as a criminal dictator easier.

Pwetty pwease, for me *cute innocent smile*


 
mat_j Posted: Wed Apr 6 08:16:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Free guns for all!


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu Apr 7 16:31:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>How can you be sure that was the only intent ? Where is that intent written ?

Its written in history. The fears of a British invasion were well known. As well as the fears of a Native American uprising.

>Would you not agree that the bill of rights was borne of mistrust of government ?

Uh, sure. A gov't writing a bill of rights out of fear of themselves.

>Would it not make sense the right to bear arms would also be to guarantee of defense from tyranny ?

Well sure. Thats what you have an army for. Well, at least today. Way back when, the farmers ect. were the army, and they needed weapons. Today, the average citizen does not require a firearm, nor should it be a right to have one, as again, you have protection.

>Since when should any part of the bill of rights become negotiable ?
>

The basis of the modern gov't is rationalism. Secular rationalism. I don't feel that in today's society we have that in most countries. But still, the point is raised that if a part of the bill of rights makes no sense, or is detrimental to society, rationally thinking, it should be removed. Having the right to bear arms makes no sense, and in addition it is detrimental to society.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 7 19:57:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>
>>>
>>How can you be sure that was the only intent ? Where is that intent written ?
>
>Its written in history. The fears of a British invasion were well known. As well as the fears of a Native American uprising.
>
Where in the bill of rights ?

>>Would you not agree that the bill of rights was borne of mistrust of government ?
>
>Uh, sure. A gov't writing a bill of rights out of fear of themselves.
>
Are you saying that it is not well known that the founding fathers had a tremendous mistrust of government ?

>>Would it not make sense the right to bear arms would also be to guarantee of defense from tyranny ?
>
>Well sure. Thats what you have an army for. Well, at least today. Way back when, the farmers ect. were the army, and they needed weapons. Today, the average citizen does not require a firearm, nor should it be a right to have one, as again, you have protection.
>
No, the army works for the government.
Tell me exactly how the Iraqi army protected the Iraqi people from tyranny.
I was speaking of tyranny from ones own government.

>>Since when should any part of the bill of rights become negotiable ?
>>
>
>The basis of the modern gov't is rationalism. Secular rationalism. I don't feel that in today's society we have that in most countries. But still, the point is raised that if a part of the bill of rights makes no sense, or is detrimental to society, rationally thinking, it should be removed. Having the right to bear arms makes no sense, and in addition it is detrimental to society.
>
You are not American are you ?
Secular rationalism is a term that appears nowhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights.
The words "Endowed by their creator", however is very prominent.
Having the right to bear arms makes perfect sense.
All you have to do is look at where violent crime is on the rise and where it is going down. That's pretty easy to do.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Apr 7 23:54:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Where I'm from, the criminals still got guns if they wanted them, because theyre criminals. They shot people with their illegal guns. They robbed without fear with their illegal guns. They didnt care their guns were illegal.....theyre fucking criminals. The only people that were hurting were law abiding citizens who didnt have guns because they didnt want to break the law. And with all the fucking pakis and north afrikans running around with illegal guns, and robbing and raping and shooting people, it sure was a nice thing to have a gun of your own. Even IF it WAS against the law for you to have it.


Besides, if someone wants you dead, not having a gun wont stop them. Just look at the recent trend in weapons purchases in South Africa since they got their new gun control laws.


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Apr 8 00:03:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh and hif, to answer your question, obviously I'm NOT a supporter of gun controls. Whatever country I reside in, I'd like to have the option of the bullet should the government go all National-Sozialiste deutsche(or whatver country it is) Arbeiter
Partei (NSDAP) on our asses and decides that the ballot is no longer an option for us.


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 8 07:19:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Maybe they should pass a law that requires every citizen to own one. Every household could have two cars, a chicken in the pot, and a 38 caliber for Ma and Pa and Susie and Little Timmy too. Paradise! That would put an end to needless violent crime here.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 8 08:11:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Maybe they should pass a law that requires every citizen to own one. Every household could have two cars, a chicken in the pot, and a 38 caliber for Ma and Pa and Susie and Little Timmy too. Paradise! That would put an end to needless violent crime here.
>
C'mon Addie, get serious !
You know as well as I do that everybody doesn't like chicken.


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 8 08:19:14 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>You know as well as I do that everybody doesn't like chicken.

Good point. Hmmm...a choice then...chicken, or for the vegitarians tofu dandelion salad


 
FN Posted: Fri Apr 8 08:45:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm for a controlled absence of gun control.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 8 09:25:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I'm for a controlled absence of gun control.
>
That's basically what we have now.
You can buy a handgun, but you have a short waiting period for approval.
You can buy a rifle, but it must be registered.
You can get a semi automatic weapon, but not a fully automatic one.


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 8 10:10:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>You can get a semi automatic weapon, but not a fully automatic one.

LOL! That's rich! : )

Do you know how easy it is to change them back to fully automatic?

Let me paraphrase hif's post for you:

America's current gun control policy:
You can pretty much get anything you damn well want, about anytime you damn well please.


 
FN Posted: Fri Apr 8 12:55:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>That's basically what we have now.
>You can buy a handgun, but you have a short waiting period for approval.
>You can buy a rifle, but it must be registered.

But do you actually have to take tests and stuff, and what are the criteria for being allowed to have one or not, like psychological screening and technical background, etc.

Also, is it legal to carry guns on you in America? I think I heard that it is, but I'm not sure.

>You can get a semi automatic weapon, but not a fully automatic one.

lol. If I was to be asked if I wanted to go to war with a semi or a full, I'd take the semi.


 
kurohyou Posted: Fri Apr 8 13:57:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>
>lol. If I was to be asked if I wanted to go to war with a semi or a full, I'd take the semi.

I'd have to agree. I had a chance to fire an MP-5 Sub Machine gun with a SWAT team a few months back. On Semi-Auto the weapon fired easy. On Full Auto, the weapon tries to roll up an to the Left (for me I fire left handed) I was amazed at how easy it was to fire but so hard to control.

But again, I don't want to walk into Bob and Nancy's house if I'm a cop and have nancy pull out an fully automatic mp-5, even if she can't fire the thing.

For what its worth...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 8 14:22:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>You can get a semi automatic weapon, but not a fully automatic one.
>
>LOL! That's rich! : )
>
>Do you know how easy it is to change them back to fully automatic?
>
Have you ever seen it done ?
Do you know how to do it ?
I heard from so many people that it's an easy thing to do, but most of them have never even been close to a firearm.
Specifically, it can be done, but it's a skill most people don't have.
I could go out and score copious amounts of most any drug you can think of right now, but I don't have a source to get my semi-automatic converted to full auto.


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 8 16:47:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Have you ever seen it done ?
>Do you know how to do it ?
>I heard from so many people that it's an easy thing to do, but most of them have never even been close to a firearm.
>Specifically, it can be done, but it's a skill most people don't have.

It took me all of 3 minutes to find out how...and I know very little about guns other than shotguns.
Google "converting semi automatic to automatic"
see what you find...thank god anyone that owns one would ever have access to the internet

*all you need is a fucking twist tie (you'd have to find one of these rare items on the black market) to convert an AK-47



 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 8 23:27:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Have you ever seen it done ?
>>Do you know how to do it ?
>>I heard from so many people that it's an easy thing to do, but most of them have never even been close to a firearm.
>>Specifically, it can be done, but it's a skill most people don't have.
>
>It took me all of 3 minutes to find out how...and I know very little about guns other than shotguns.
>Google "converting semi automatic to automatic"
>see what you find...thank god anyone that owns one would ever have access to the internet
>
>*all you need is a fucking twist tie (you'd have to find one of these rare items on the black market) to convert an AK-47
>
Yeah sure I see it, do you think it's as easy as it says it is ? Do you know how dependable those instructions are ?
I know lot's AK47 owners and not one of them would try that crap.
They would however let a real gunsmith convert their weapon reliably if they could get one to do it.
Of course none of this has anything to do with the original argument here.
Gun control does not work, and has not been proven to work anywhere on the planet.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Apr 9 00:45:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>
>C'mon Addie, get serious !
>You know as well as I do that everybody doesn't like chicken.

Well isnt that the truth!


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Apr 9 00:46:14 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Since this thread is about weapons, I'll put this here.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/feuer.php


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Apr 9 00:47:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And this one too even thought its nothing to do with weapons. I just think it is very relaxing.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/lifecynical.php


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]