Oldmangamer73's Food and Guns Thread

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


More specious talking points about what people need. How elitist do you have to be to presume that people can just displace the lives and children simply because crime has increased in their neighborhood over the past 20 years. Rhetoric like this just re-enforces my belief that most anti-gun people live sheltered lives.

The simple fact that the background check failed in the Senate is proof that the 90% poll cited ad nauseum was just another BS talking point from the Obama Administration and continually repeated by the media to such an extent that those without critical thinking skills actually believe it.

Who cares if Ayott saw a drop in her poll numbers, the real question is will the people of NH vote her out because of it? My guess, probably not. Here's an interesting tidbit, NH is a "Shall Issue" concealed carry State. How low would have Ayott's poll numbers have dropped if she voted to change that?

Here's a factual Justice Dept report that just kicks the gun violence argument into a tailspin, Firearm Violence, 1993-2011.

Also, give this blog post a read, if you dare...Justice Department study shoots holes in media gun violence narrative.
This report not only proves the media wrong, it proves the NRA right...Between the years of 1993 and 2011, as the assault weapons ban expired, more Americans purchased guns, the Supreme Court overturned outright gun bans, and individual states not only loosed gun control restrictions but also issued concealed carry permits to private citizens, incidents of gun violence in America collapsed...Between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crimes plummeted 69%; from 1.5 million to 467,300. Gun-related murders dropped 40%; from 18,253 to 11,101. Gun-related murders for black Americans plummeted by 51%...The report also shows that the media-created hysteria over school shootings is wildly misleading. Between ’93 and ’11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20...Background checks have also been exposed as another bogus narrative the media’s crafted out of thin air. This report proves beyond any doubt that closing the so-called gun show loophole will accomplish next to nothing...What this study clearly shows is that Obama, Democrats, and the media don’t give a damn about stopping gun violence. If they did, they would be focused on everything but the one and two-percent problems.
Click to expand...
 
When people arent concerned they are being lied to, when a particular mindset is more important than reality, facts arent important.
When people ignore other peoples pain and suffering to replace fact with politics, and this can be proved, and not carried on by the MSM, we have far to go.
 
@Chunks There is more than enough info out there to support the 90% wanting background checks... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

That was just a quick google (Notice how its multiple sources)

So shrugging it off as being false isnt really going to work. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and say the numbers might not be that high but still more than enough people support it to get it to pass. 75% of NH citizens were in favor of the reforms, but their representative decided against her constituents will and voted opposite. Her drop is reflective of that. This isnt just one Senator either multiple have seen approval ratings drop dramatically because of their opposition.

The AR-15 thing was tongue in cheek( Because no one really needs a weapon like that to defend their homes). But seriously Chunky if you really think you need a 30 round clip to defend yourself, move. Seriously move, because you live in Somalia.

Im not arguing that gun violence hasnt been declining (Im not sure that anyone has....) the point Im trying to make is common sense gun laws, with background checks could keep the really dangerous stuff out of the hands of people who have no business owning a gun.

One more point (And remember Chunks this is going to be what we Humans refer to as humor) where does the second amendment sit on Light Sabers? Or a blaster? Can I build a Death Star or a Star destroyer since those lazy bastards in the Senate are corrupt and unable to implement the most basic planetary defenses? The only thing thats stops a bad yuuzhan vong is a good storm trooper with a blaster.
 
Not only agendas, but voters.
People vote with their guns, and will not forget.
Those who choose a particular agenda may vote in a poll when they come knockin, but they stay home come voting time as well.
 
Please post some numbers that dont support a majority in favor of background checks. (Bonus points if its not obviously slanted)

I almost dont know what to say to this guys.... There is really no conversation if your argument boils down to "I dont believe it"

This is becoming a religion for you.

Anyone thought about the lightsaber? Protected weapon or weapon of bad ass destruction?
 
Problem here mingo, Minnesota, progressive, votes blue:
But among average Minnesotans, such a bill appears to have broad and deep support. The poll, conducted Feb. 25-27 among 800 Minnesota adults, found that 82 percent of those living in Hennepin and Ramsey counties support universal background checks, along with 91 percent of DFLers, and 60 percent of Independents. Among those over the age of 60, three in four favor such checks, as do 81 percent of women. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Outside the metro area, in areas where gun ownership is highest, 69 percent of those polled supported universal background checks.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/194720231.html?refer=y

Notice several things here.
First off is DFL, its the strongest, most liberal faction of any kind within the state.
Second, see where they expound their numbers, these are mainly inner city or first hub subarbs.
Look how difficult it is even in such an area to find a 91% grouping.
Finally, look at the lack of information outstate, and where they polled there.
90%? No way, not after reading the first thing that popped up
 
In the many jurisdictions where not many people live, they really dont want it.
In the few jurisdictions where many people live, they do.

Solution:
Abandone a national law, and use those jurisdictions towards the peoples will, democracy, what a concept, even for people who choose lies over the truth
 
I can buy a gun online right now from a private dealer with no background check for a few hundred bucks, or wait till the gun show is in town and buy one there. What if I had a restraining order on me, or I was a felon? I normally wouldnt be able to buy a gun from a dealer because the background check would flag me. But with these loopholes I can get a gun easily.

That is exactly the scenario that happened here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/three-killed-in-shooting-at-spa-in-brookfield-wis.html?pagewanted=all

Close these loopholes with universal background checks.

Your barbary pirate story is certainly interesting and would be a good point if this discussion were about complete removal of all guns. But.... A more appropriate example would be if that weapon were sold to a lunatic when there existed a system that should flag the buyer as being crazy (And probably not an ideal gun owner).

Gallup Poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

My link from earlier:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

There are a few more Ill try to track down.

 
Heres a simple question/answer/solution.
A mans daughter has just been raped, he knows who did it, the cops are just being notified, his brother has access to the family guns, where theyre all stored, does the brother give the father of the rape victim the keys to the guns?
 


If you are talking about vigilante justice then no, Im not OK with killing suspected criminals. No matter how much a person deserves to be shot they should still have to have a fair trial.
 


:lol: Why would the father need a gun in that situation, he would probably beat the guy to death!



That's definitely a matter of opinion!
Some crimes can fall into an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, category!
It's easy to talk compassion or rights for the criminal out here in the forum, it's different when it's actually happened to you!

 
If the brother gives the man the guns right away, he may act out on his emotions, or as Ry says, may just do some beat down.
If we decide to widely abuse the narrow needs and wishes of our states rights, besides our constitutional rights right after an emotional drawing event by creating laws that are supposedly "fixing" this, so it should never happen again, now is not the time to do so.
To try to capitalize is only going down a well known foolish trail, where many have had great regret.
For those that abhor guns/violence/have a hard time understanding some people will hurt you, simply because they disagree, youre the wrong faith or for whatever reasons they deem pertinent , there are those around you who will fight for you, and those people are usually the ones carrying the guns.
 

The solution is to practice republicanism and pass State laws to close the "loophole" and require all gun sales in your State to be done through an FFL. The wrong approach is to pass Federal legislation that tramples on the 2nd and 10th Amendments.

A Federal Universal Background Check will never happen for two reasons; 1) the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, and 2) it would never pass constitutional scrutiny.

There are 33 States that allow private sales of firearms. Obviously you live in one of those States. One of the beautiful things about the Ameican republic is the ability to petition your State government to change the laws - OR - move to a State that has gun laws more suited to your sensibilities.
 
And I do not deny this fact.
I just think the laws and constitutions must evolve with time.
Hiding behind constitutional amendments written in 1791 has no meaning in 2013.
 


It does if those amendments were future designed to protect us in 2013, you have to realize what the Right to Bear Arms was all about in the first place, it wasn't about owning a gun to hunt a Turkey!

It was ensuring the continued ability to protect the American public rights from being infringed upon by the tyrannical forces we separated ourselves from, through the Revolutionary War.

To the point that if our new Government started down the same path and it became necessary, they could forcibly be removed from office.

Freedom depends on which end of the gun you're on! :lol:

(Marv will get me for that statement! :) )

It seems strange that even though so long ago history is forgotten of how America became America in the first place?

I wasn't negotiated out over Tea and Crumpets! :)

 
If the context of 2013 is the same as that of 1791, it's just that you do not evolve an inch.

The history of my country is a proof that you can rebel against an unjust government without the need of a law that allows you to own a gun.
Just because anyway, if you have a revolution, you do not will respect the law.

And if my knowledge of history is correct, the second amendment refers to "a well regulated Militia" ... but if everyone has his own gun, there is as much chance of that this "militia" is "well regulated" as seeing a mouse give sexual pleasure to a humpback whale through the anus.
Or have all your own gun, but stop paying taxes to fund the police.



Not so long... America is a young country.

I don't get the point of being "negotiated out over Tea and Crumpets."
Just try to give me an example.
 


Why is it that examples always seem to be required from those that do not even live here, that really and truly are on the outside looking in, you don't even understand what is going on in the US today where the crime levels are, and you think it can all be solved by a mouse ******* a whale?

Even a militia can be commanded out of control to the satisfaction to some governmental *******, until the American public as a whole doesn't allow it anymore.

Here's a good example of militia in action in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings



What?

Are you serious?

Blood was spilled when America fought for its independence from England, it wasn't negotiated out over tea and crumpets, Understand!

I find it ironical that you would even take this evolving point of view, seeing as how your own country in 1778 supplied muskets to the Colonists fighting England, is ironical the right word, or hypocritical.

Our forefathers had the foresight, to see that laws had to be put in place to ensure the public could defend themselves if necessary, but hey!, if the invading army has better weapons just kill them and use their weapons against them.

That was what the colonists had to do in the beginning of the war, what the hey, Thanks for the guns! :)

In 1778 France became an ally of the colonies in their fight against England. The French government sent large quantities of French muskets. These muskets were much lighter in weight than the British army's "Brown Bess" and fired a smaller lead ball. They were a favored weapon of the Continental soldier.
Click to expand...

I want one! I luv ma guns! :lol:

 
Australia is a young country ... barely in our teens.

Technically we are still an extension of the British empire at this stage, as we have not yet let go of HM's skirt ... declared a republic.

The UK's long held gun laws are good ones ... and ours are more stringent after the Port Arthur Massacre in 96 ... John Howard will be remembered kindly by history for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

If you look at the reasoning behind the restrictions and what sort of weapons can be licensed it makes good sense.

Also I feel a lot better knowing that not every kook on the street can shoot me at a whim because I am wearing my pink tights when out jogging.

I guess the biggest problem that we have largely solved and the US has still to contend with, is the massive number of illegal guns on the market.

I do understand it is hard to rationalise gun restrictions over there when you see every man and his dog has one ...
 
First read my quoteThen understand, colonists were not permitted to "own" guns without direct intervention from England.
Put the two together.
Weve never really colonized anyone, and have "owned" a few lands that get much much more than any contributions, not so for France and England.
They knew what an armed colony could or might do.
Our forefathers simply didnt find this acceptable, and tho were a young nation, our government is one of the oldest in the world.
Its writers were from the old world mostly, or directly effected by it.
They knew all too well how things usually went, and how governments did their own "evolving", which is nothing more than higher taxes and less liberties and freedoms.
Now, one more time, read my quote
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom