Kerry...

[ridecruz88]

I'm wondering how many of you mountain bikers out there like kerry. i dont know about you, and i might have my facts wrong, but does kerry not support guns? and is kerry against the u.s. being independent(giving our descisions over to the U.N., which doesn't ever do anything)? I'm not saying I hate Kerry but I'm just wondering. I don't honestly like either of the candidates :D but id take bush over him

[MikeD]

does kerry not support guns?

He's actually got a plan to put under-employed guns on welfare...

[ridecruz88]

He's actually got a plan to put under-employed guns on welfare...

Ya i noticed he says hes got a plan for just about every open issue. its gonna be interesting to see what happens if he gets elected...see these "plans" come into action.

o and im running for president too...i got a plan to repay the deficit, end the war in iraq, get everyone cheap health benifits, cheap taxes, and fix all the other problems that bush *cough* started here in the u.s....vote for me

[Toshi]

you may want to find more of these, what are they called, ah yes "facts" before you post your next batch of undercooked thoughts.

[MikeD]

Mack, meet Ridecruz88. Ridecruz88, meet Mack. I think you two will be happy together.

[Skookum]

Bestest thread in the PDF ever! :D

[zod]

http://www.mahopa.de/bilder/lustige-forenbilder/this-thread-rocks.jpg

[nicklin]

I'm wondering how many of you mountain bikers out there like kerry. i dont know about you, and i might have my facts wrong, but does kerry not support guns? and is kerry against the u.s. being independent(giving our descisions over to the U.N., which doesn't ever do anything)? I'm not saying I hate Kerry but I'm just wondering. I don't honestly like either of the candidates :D but id take bush over him


this is the reason why i am not voting for Kerry. he supports every single anti-gun legislation there is, he plans to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, constantly says he wants to ban pistols, and wants to ban deer hunting cartridges like .308, 30.30, 30-06, 270win and smaller 22-25, 223, and so on.

want my guns? over my cold, dead body

[Changleen]

Why do you need guns? Planning on killing someone?

[Toshi]

Why do you need guns? Planning on killing someone?
maybe he's a terrorist? after all, non-terrorists needn't be worried about the patriot act, so why should they be worried about guns being outlawed?

[Skookum]

want my guns? over my cold, dead body
i'm personally against gun control. in the major metropolis it might be a tool to help law enforcement, but in the country, gun's are needed to blast critters that might want to eat you.
But i'm out in the sticks all the time without a gun. If i get attacked by a critter i'm gonna probably die. But if i live long enough i'll stab it's eye out though.

[Changleen]

i'm personally against gun control. in the major metropolis it might be a tool to help law enforcement, but in the country, gun's are needed to blast critters that might want to eat you.
But i'm out in the sticks all the time without a gun. If i get attacked by a critter i'm gonna probably die. But if i live long enough i'll stab it's eye out though.So shotguns would be absolutely fine then? Maybe bolt action rifles? You don't really need a glock eh?

[BurlyShirley]

So shotguns would be absolutely fine then? Maybe bolt action rifles? You don't really need a glock eh?
A shotgun or bolt action rifle of any significant caliber is much more deadly than a glock. But a glock is better suited for home security.

[Changleen]

A shotgun or bolt action rifle of any significant caliber is much more deadly than a glock. But a glock is better suited for home security.Yeah, I know - The idea being that for agricultural use (hunting and killing critters etc.) you don't need a concealable weapon, and shotguns and rifles are more suitable for the purpose anyway.

And the only reason you need a handgun for home security is because all the crims have handguns (or AKs I suppose) too. If handguns were made illegal (except maybe for target shooting, they could be kept at a club and heavily licenced) then only criminals would have them. It might take a few years, but your gun crime would plumet and pretty soon it'd be pretty difficult for even crims to walk around packin' heat. Wouldn't that be nice?

I mean seriously, what other uses are their for handguns like glocks other than to kill or threaten other people? I suppose someone could use one to kill GW.... That might be a good thing... (just kidding Mr. CIA moderator)

[BurlyShirley]

\If handguns were made illegal (except maybe for target shooting, they could be kept at a club and heavily licenced) then only criminals would have them. It might take a few years, but your gun crime would plumet and pretty soon it'd be pretty difficult for even crims to walk around packin' heat. Wouldn't that be nice?

No. I dont think chipping away at the constitution is worth it, personally. Take your patriot act arguments and apply them here.

[Changleen]

No. I dont think chipping away at the constitution is worth it, personally. Take your patriot act arguments and apply them here.Fair enough. It's your country. You have the right to get randomly shot in the back of the head whilst driving home because some teenage gang's fVcked up initiation ritual.

[nicklin]

Yeah, I know - The idea being that for agricultural use (hunting and killing critters etc.) you don't need a concealable weapon, and shotguns and rifles are more suitable for the purpose anyway.

And the only reason you need a handgun for home security is because all the crims have handguns (or AKs I suppose) too. If handguns were made illegal (except maybe for target shooting, they could be kept at a club and heavily licenced) then only criminals would have them. It might take a few years, but your gun crime would plumet and pretty soon it'd be pretty difficult for even crims to walk around packin' heat. Wouldn't that be nice?

I mean seriously, what other uses are their for handguns like glocks other than to kill or threaten other people? I suppose someone could use one to kill GW.... That might be a good thing... (just kidding Mr. CIA moderator)

Hmmm... How do you suppose criminals would commit less crimes if the law-biding citizens ain't got them? Your logic needs a lot more work here.

[nicklin]

Fair enough. It's your country. You have the right to get randomly shot in the back of the head whilst driving home because some teenage gang's fVcked up initiation ritual.

Is that what you think America is, a land of teenage gangs? Yeah, like teenage Neo-Nazi gangs and ultra-right-wing nationalist groups in Europe and Australia are much better beating immigrants up with chains and belts. Or like the Japanese Yakuzas are much better killing eacho ther with their ritualistic swords or whatever those people are using now a days, but they ain't using guns, right? If you hate America, just come out and say, don't hide behind your "I'm right because I don't like guns therefore all you firearms-enthusiasts are stupid Bush backers and morons" talk.

[ridecruz88]

Did any of you ever consider this: GUN BANS DON'T STOP THE PEOPLE THAT MISUSE GUNS FROM GETTING THEM. It only affects the people that follow the laws and use guns appropriately. You take away guns, you take away the innocent peoples defense. Gun laws aren't gonna stop gangsters, terrorists, or robbers from getting there guns...its called a black market

and that my friends is why gun rights are put right into the constitution and should not be ****ed with.

[ridecruz88]

"therefore all you firearms-enthusiasts are stupid Bush backers and morons"


---- I didn't say I'm for Bush, I said I'm FOR GUNS. So next time you may wanna hit that preview button before you make another generalization.

[XtCamZ]

---- I didn't say I'm for Bush, I said I'm FOR GUNS. So next time you may wanna hit that preview button before you make another generalization.


I don't honestly like either of the candidates but id take bush over him

:nuts:

[XtCamZ]

Oh and by the way, I'm against gun control too. I have a concealed handgun license and carry it all the time.

Stop worrying about them taking our guns away, it's not going to happen, even with the most liberal president in office.

"Kerry for President - 2004"

[zod]

If handguns were made illegal then only criminals would have them. It might take a few years, but your gun crime would plumet and pretty soon it'd be pretty difficult for even crims to walk around packin' heat. Wouldn't that be nice?


That's gotta be the most retarded thing you have ever written and I am only saying so b/c normally you make good sense (even though I don't agree with you 99% of the time) Maybe you just need to clarrify?? :confused:

[ridecruz88]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ridecruz88
---- I didn't say I'm for Bush, I said I'm FOR GUNS. So next time you may wanna hit that preview button before you make another generalization.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ridecruz88
I don't honestly like either of the candidates but id take bush over him


and that is why id take bush over kerry, i dont like either one, but kerry being against guns makes him the one i WOULDNT vote for, leaving only bush :thumb:

[Changleen]

That's gotta be the most retarded thing you have ever written and I am only saying so b/c normally you make good sense (even though I don't agree with you 99% of the time) Maybe you just need to clarrify?? :confused:Sure - Imagine if one day, a law was passed banning handguns except for target shooting pistols, all assult weapons, in fact all guns except for shotguns (3 round max for pump actions or so) and bolt action rifles. These guns would not be banned as they are 'useful' and 'legitimate' tools for farmers and country folk generally. Obviously city folk would not be able to own these guns unless they could proove a need. Target pistols and the like would be allowed, but heavy licencing would apply and they'd need to be verified to be stored securely, prefereably at a registed gun club. Legal guns could even be rf tagged or something so they always traceable. All gun licences would be assesed on a 'need to own' basis like in Europe.

The Government would have to perform a very expensive and thorough legally required amnesty on all registered guns and demand all that any other guns are handed over anonimously as well. Citizens would be compensated for the value of their weapons. This process, even with huge resources, would take a couple of months at least. Any new weapons sold would be ID verified, tracked and generally regulated the **** out of.

At the end of this time, the only guns left in the public domain would be illegally held weapons. After the ban was in force, it would be difficult to walk around in public places with a weapon of any kind. The US already uses metal detectors at many schools and other public buildings. It wouldn't be a large step for stores and other public buildings to do this too. They already scan you for theft on the way out. Pretty soon it'd be hard to go anywhere with an illegal gun.

Police resources would be freed up to a huge extent not having to deal with the volume of gun crime they currently do.

Anytime a shot was fired, anytime there was a murder with a handgun, the police could act with absolute nazi crushing force. The user is by definition a nasty crim and gets nailed. The harsher the better at first as a deterent effect. (Illegal weapons would still be able to be anoymously amnestied). Maybe a few innocent people would get nailed. Frankly no different to the effects of guns being legal now. Pretty soon anyone who wasn't a serious criminal would go nowhere near a gun. Gun crime would drop. Owning a gun would become socially unaceptable.

OK, Now for the big however....

HOWEVER, I think this might be a waste of time. The US loves it's guns. Thousands in the industry would loose their jobs. I think most people in the US support the right to bear arms so that's fine. Keep your guns. People (like you) would not be loving it even if it meant society would be safer in the long run. Secondly, there are more important issues right now, like Bush trying to start WW3 with the Arabs.

[zod]

Have you ever lived in the US? This theory of yours wouldn't work here b/c we(in general) love our guns in a way other nations probably couldn't comprehend. You are not going to make ownership of guns socially unaceptable in the US.......it just wouldn't work.

People (like you) would not be loving it even if it meant society would be safer in the long run.

I only own rifles and shotguns.........but I would still be against what you are talking about.

[nicklin]

---- I didn't say I'm for Bush, I said I'm FOR GUNS. So next time you may wanna hit that preview button before you make another generalization.



Wow there cowboy, hold on to your horses:

I am on your side here!!!!

I was merely mocking Mr. Righteous(changleen), because that sort of talk from HIM seems to be his attitude around here. I personally don't like eiher one, just like you, and I voted the way you did, so stop breaking balls of people who are on your side!!!!!!

take a deep breathe, go outside, and shoot some cans. you'll feel better afterwards...... :evil:

[Changleen]

Have you ever lived in the US? This theory of yours wouldn't work here b/c we(in general) love our guns in a way other nations probably couldn't comprehend. You are not going to make ownership of guns socially unaceptable in the US.......it just wouldn't work.Yes. I lived for a few years in the US. I lived in Arizona and San Francisco, and have visited Oregon and most of the West Coast fairly extensivly. I've even worked for the Government.

I do understand your love of guns, hence my last paragraph above. Like I said, most of you support it so it would in actual fact be undemocratic for a ban to take place. Not that democracy seems to be a big part US politics these days.

Isn't there a small part of you that would prefer that when you're strolling round the mall, or sending your kids to school, out at a club at night, that wouldn't rather be living in place where the guy next to you was definatly not armed?

I dunno, having a gun just seems crazy to me. Really, if you live in a city, the only use for a gun is to kill someone. 'Home Defence' really means 'shooting someone who comes in your house, hopefully before they shoot you'. It's all just killing. It's just stupid to me. The purpose of a gun is to do damage. In a lot of ways it's like the holding onto the right to be wantonly destructive. The right to not wear a seatbelt. Not to wear a motorcycle helmet.

People say they are so worried about their 'right' to carry a gun. Fair enough, if that's what you really want, keep a gun. It's your country after all. There are so many other rights of yours, albeit much more subtle ones, that are being eroded right now. Democracy itself is getting weaker in the US. Maybe one day you won't have the right to choose if you get to keep guns or not.

[Changleen]

I was merely mocking Mr. Righteous(changleen)Bwahahaha. :p Yeah. OK. :D :stosh:

[nicklin]

Sure - Imagine if one day, a law was passed banning handguns except for target shooting pistols, all assult weapons, in fact all guns except for shotguns (3 round max for pump actions or so) and bolt action rifles. These guns would not be banned as they are 'useful' and 'legitimate' tools for farmers and country folk generally. Obviously city folk would not be able to own these guns unless they could proove a need. Target pistols and the like would be allowed, but heavy licencing would apply and they'd need to be verified to be stored securely, prefereably at a registed gun club. Legal guns could even be rf tagged or something so they always traceable. All gun licences would be assesed on a 'need to own' basis like in Europe.

The Government would have to perform a very expensive and thorough legally required amnesty on all registered guns and demand all that any other guns are handed over anonimously as well. Citizens would be compensated for the value of their weapons. This process, even with huge resources, would take a couple of months at least. Any new weapons sold would be ID verified, tracked and generally regulated the **** out of.

At the end of this time, the only guns left in the public domain would be illegally held weapons. After the ban was in force, it would be difficult to walk around in public places with a weapon of any kind. The US already uses metal detectors at many schools and other public buildings. It wouldn't be a large step for stores and other public buildings to do this too. They already scan you for theft on the way out. Pretty soon it'd be hard to go anywhere with an illegal gun.

Police resources would be freed up to a huge extent not having to deal with the volume of gun crime they currently do.

Anytime a shot was fired, anytime there was a murder with a handgun, the police could act with absolute nazi crushing force. The user is by definition a nasty crim and gets nailed. The harsher the better at first as a deterent effect. (Illegal weapons would still be able to be anoymously amnestied). Maybe a few innocent people would get nailed. Frankly no different to the effects of guns being legal now. Pretty soon anyone who wasn't a serious criminal would go nowhere near a gun. Gun crime would drop. Owning a gun would become socially unaceptable.

OK, Now for the big however....

HOWEVER, I think this might be a waste of time. The US loves it's guns. Thousands in the industry would loose their jobs. I think most people in the US support the right to bear arms so that's fine. Keep your guns. People (like you) would not be loving it even if it meant society would be safer in the long run. Secondly, there are more important issues right now, like Bush trying to start WW3 with the Arabs.


You know, I have reada lot of things you say, and now I realized that you are nothing but an idealistic person with common sense of a 3 year old. Perhaps less. for you, the solution to everything is to use laws and regulations to prevent things from happening. So how is your theory that different from the premptive strike policies that the United States Armed forces are using?

1. So if we ban the guns, guns won't kill people.

2. If we don't let the arabs have Nukes and weapons, they won't kill innocent civilians.

Call me crazy but i think those two make good anologies of each other.

If you really like to impose regulations on people's rights to own self-defense things, great. glad it works out for your taste.

but your theory on things might be just a little out of touch for a nation of 300 million people, 50 states, and more ethnically diverse than any other nation on earth.

The fact is, the vast majority of people in this country of ours who own high powered weapons are extremely responsible, law biding, reasonable folks. If you want to takes guns away from these fine folks and let criminals have the advantage, go ahead and think that, whatever floats your boat. it just goes to show us what type of person your are: you look for the easy way to solve things, with disregard to the people who your proposals are going to hurt the most. Banning things is never the answer. We tried with booz, heroine, cocaine, weed, and such, and they will always be there. the key is to infrom people of the consequence of their actions, it's a long-term thing, and a vital part of nation building.

But i suppose that's too reasonable and not quite easy enough for your "just ban them all" mentality.

Oh well.


Nick

[zod]

Isn't there a small part of you that would prefer that when you're strolling round the mall, or sending your kids to school, out at a club at night, that wouldn't rather be living in place where the guy next to you was definatly not armed?


Sure, that would be ideal and all but it won't work so I wouldn't want anything set in place to stop lawful citizens like myself from having guns when others would not follow the rules. BTW, you are going very overboard on the whole fear of getting shot thing. I have never been in a situation or feared being shot my whole life yet ALL of my neighbors have guns. I feel safer knowing they do.



I dunno, having a gun just seems crazy to me. Really, if you live in a city, the only use for a gun is to kill someone. 'Home Defence' really means 'shooting someone who comes in your house, hopefully before they shoot you'. It's all just killing. It's just stupid to me. The purpose of a gun is to do damage.


It is stupid, however if someone breaks into my house I'd rather have a gun b/c as said above.....the criminal is going to have one even if they're illegal. I keep one of my shotguns under my bed........hopefully the sound of a round pumping into the chamber will be helpful in making a robber make a swift exit.



People say they are so worried about their 'right' to carry a gun. Fair enough, if that's what you really want, keep a gun. It's your country after all. There are so many other rights of yours, albeit much more subtle ones, that are being eroded right now. Democracy itself is getting weaker in the US. Maybe one day you won't have the right to choose if you get to keep guns or not.

Maybe we won't have a right to guns in the future, you're right....... What rights are being eroded right now that you are referring to?

[Changleen]

A bunch of crapWhen you learn to make sense maybe I'll respond to your BS.

[Changleen]

Sure, that would be ideal and all but it won't work so I wouldn't want anything set in place to stop lawful citizens like myself from having guns when others would not follow the rules. BTW, you are going very overboard on the whole fear of getting shot thing. I have never been in a situation or feared being shot my whole life yet ALL of my neighbors have guns. I feel safer knowing they do.That's cool for you. Whilst I lived in Arizona, two people I had met were shot and killed. One was a good friend of my brother-in-law. He was killed as he sat in the back of a car driving away from a club. He was shot in the back of the head. The guy (girl?) who did it has not been caught. When I lived in San Francisco, whilst riding the BART one day, a black truck with very dark black windows pulled up next the BART at an intersection and started pointing a red laser dot at people on the BART. A lot of people freaked out. Fortunatly for me I was in the articlated section. No idea if the dude had a gun or not.
It is stupid, however if someone breaks into my house I'd rather have a gun b/c as said above.....the criminal is going to have one even if they're illegal. I keep one of my shotguns under my bed........hopefully the sound of a round pumping into the chamber will be helpful in making a robber make a swift exit.Or you'll get in a fight where one of you will most likely be killed. Is it worth your life to die over a a VCR or a DVD player?
Maybe we won't have a right to guns in the future, you're right....... What rights are being eroded right now that you are referring to?
I'm not going to go into this AGAIN in this thread. Please refer to all the other Patriot act threads, eh? Let's stick to the subject (Yes I know I brought it up).

[Changleen]

So how is your theory that different from the premptive strike policies that the United States Armed forces are using?

1. So if we ban the guns, guns won't kill people.

2. If we don't let the arabs have Nukes and weapons, they won't kill innocent civilians.

Call me crazy but i think those two make good anologies of each other.

If you really like to impose regulations on people's rights to own self-defense things, great. glad it works out for your taste.
:nuts: You really are stupid. :p You support pre-emptive action against 'Arabs' but don't support gun control, then you criticise me for wanting to 'impose regulations on self-defense things'. Hello? McFly? :stosh:

Let alone the fact that one is a reform of your own country's laws and the other is interfering with the sovereign rights of other nations... :thumb:

[escapeartist]

and is kerry against the u.s. being independent(giving our descisions over to the U.N., which doesn't ever do anything)?

Ya thats right, if Kerry were elected he would not only have the resolve, but also the power to immediatly hand power to the United States over to the UN. I'm sorry but you can't blindly follow what Zell Miller has to say. Kerry simply says that he would have preferred that the US have the UN's (you know, the peace keeping organization with all the weapons inspectors who never found anything) support before going into a war that would certainly be costly both in lives and dollars

[nicklin]

When you learn to make sense maybe I'll respond to your BS.


thisi s what i said:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Changleen
"Fair enough. It's your country. You have the right to get randomly shot in the back of the head whilst driving home because some teenage gang's fVcked up initiation ritual."

And I said:

"Is that what you think America is, a land of teenage gangs? Yeah, like teenage Neo-Nazi gangs and ultra-right-wing nationalist groups in Europe and Australia are much better beating immigrants up with chains and belts. Or like the Japanese Yakuzas are much better killing eacho ther with their ritualistic swords or whatever those people are using now a days, but they ain't using guns, right? If you hate America, just come out and say, don't hide behind your "I'm right because I don't like guns therefore all you firearms-enthusiasts are stupid Bush backers and morons" talk."



Apparently you automatically turn a deaf ear to what i said and consider it "crap".

Wow.

If you don't want to listen, that's fine. But you depiction of our country is excatly makes you look like an uninformed child that gets his information from movies like "Lethal Weapon" or "Terminator". if you actually care, you may want to also devote some of your time to talk about gang violence porblems in other areas of the world say Aisa or Europe. There is also conflicts in Africa that you can discuss. but, if you insist on probing the problem of the "deadly" streets of USA, you are going to be beating a dead horse sooner than your rethoric becomes yeasterday's news.

[ridecruz88]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Changleen
Isn't there a small part of you that would prefer that when you're strolling round the mall, or sending your kids to school, out at a club at night, that wouldn't rather be living in place where the guy next to you was definatly not armed?


theres always gonna be bad people with guns, whether you like it or not. gun controls dont stop ****in criminals dumbass. how many times have i gotta say this...
now with that in mind, that criminals get guns either way, would you like to have gun bans on the people trying to protect themselves or not?

[MikeD]

theres always gonna be bad people with guns, whether you like it or not. gun controls dont stop ****in criminals dumbass. how many times have i gotta say this...


I actally tend to agree with you on the issue of gun control. You, however, are a living argument for birth control.

MD

[ridecruz88]

Wow there cowboy, hold on to your horses:

I am on your side here!!!!

I was merely mocking Mr. Righteous(changleen), because that sort of talk from HIM seems to be his attitude around here. I personally don't like eiher one, just like you, and I voted the way you did, so stop breaking balls of people who are on your side!!!!!!

take a deep breathe, go outside, and shoot some cans. you'll feel better afterwards...... :evil:

haha thanks man, i feel alot better :D

[ridecruz88]

You know, I have reada lot of things you say, and now I realized that you are nothing but an idealistic person with common sense of a 3 year old. Perhaps less. for you, the solution to everything is to use laws and regulations to prevent things from happening. So how is your theory that different from the premptive strike policies that the United States Armed forces are using?

1. So if we ban the guns, guns won't kill people.

2. If we don't let the arabs have Nukes and weapons, they won't kill innocent civilians.

Call me crazy but i think those two make good anologies of each other.

If you really like to impose regulations on people's rights to own self-defense things, great. glad it works out for your taste.

but your theory on things might be just a little out of touch for a nation of 300 million people, 50 states, and more ethnically diverse than any other nation on earth.

The fact is, the vast majority of people in this country of ours who own high powered weapons are extremely responsible, law biding, reasonable folks. If you want to takes guns away from these fine folks and let criminals have the advantage, go ahead and think that, whatever floats your boat. it just goes to show us what type of person your are: you look for the easy way to solve things, with disregard to the people who your proposals are going to hurt the most. Banning things is never the answer. We tried with booz, heroine, cocaine, weed, and such, and they will always be there. the key is to infrom people of the consequence of their actions, it's a long-term thing, and a vital part of nation building.

But i suppose that's too reasonable and not quite easy enough for your "just ban them all" mentality.

Oh well.


Nick


holy **** nick....you said it all...i'll shut up now

....nice :thumb:

[Changleen]

Does anybody actually read what I post, or do they read a couple of sentences than post a response?

[ridecruz88]

:nuts: You really are stupid. :p You support pre-emptive action against 'Arabs' but don't support gun control, then you criticise me for wanting to 'impose regulations on self-defense things'. Hello? McFly? :stosh:

Let alone the fact that one is a reform of your own country's laws and the other is interfering with the sovereign rights of other nations... :thumb:

I think you're right in a certain respect. I think we shouldn't try and stop gun control for the reasons I've stated a million times in this post, and as far as nukes go, there aint **** we can do about it, so its pointless to try and make laws, we have to make action.

[jaydee]

The only way a gun can protect you is if you shoot someone before he shoots you. If he's already got a gun aimed at you, you're too late. If he doesn't, how do you know he's going to shoot you? So I guess you shoot him first just in case he might have a gun and might shoot you, right? Makes perfect sense to me.

There are so many guns around now in the US, it's a good bet anyone you get in an argument with has one on him, not just criminals. So the type of person that would normally get bent out of shape and hit someone or yell at him in a rage now pulls out his gun and shoots him instead. Most gun incidents aren't related to robberies, they are cases of domestic violence or public stupidity. Why would you want to live in a place where you feel you have to carry a concealed weapon to be safe? The Wild West era is over. Guns may not kill people by themselves, but people can't kill people with guns unless they have one.

This is not a USA-bashing post. There are a lot of testosterone-gooned morons strutting around in Canada these days with more firepower than brains too.

[nicklin]

Changleen:

"When I lived in San Francisco, whilst riding the BART one day, a black truck with very dark black windows pulled up next the BART at an intersection and started pointing a red laser dot at people on the BART. A lot of people freaked out. Fortunatly for me I was in the articlated section. No idea if the dude had a gun or not."



So we should ban laser pointer too?



Now let's talk about right wing neo-nazi activities in Australia, Europe, and Russia, where people got beaten becuase they were Arabs, Blacks, and Asians.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=neo-nazi+crime+europe&btnG=Google+Search


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=neo-nazi+crime+europe&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=neo-nazi+minority+australia&btnG=Search

how about them eh, changleen? let's abolish chains, knives, and boots right?

[ridecruz88]

The only way a gun can protect you is if you shoot someone before he shoots you. If he's already got a gun aimed at you, you're too late. If he doesn't, how do you know he's going to shoot you? So I guess you shoot him first just in case he might have a gun and might shoot you, right? Makes perfect sense to me.

There are so many guns around now in the US, it's a good bet anyone you get in an argument with has one on him, not just criminals. So the type of person that would normally get bent out of shape and hit someone or yell at him in a rage now pulls out his gun and shoots him instead. Most gun incidents aren't related to robberies, they are cases of domestic violence or public stupidity. Why would you want to live in a place where you feel you have to carry a concealed weapon to be safe? The Wild West era is over. Guns may not kill people by themselves, but people can't kill people with guns unless they have one.

This is not a USA-bashing post. There are a lot of testosterone-gooned morons strutting around in Canada these days with more firepower than brains too.


to put it into perspective:

weed was made illegal...but does that stop the people who want it from getting it? Even tho it is something that you can just grow and guns aren't, there are countries such as canada and mexico around us that would be more than willing to sell high priced guns to people with a high demand. The result, the people who want the guns get the guns, and that could be someone with the intent of hunting all the way to the intent of killing 100 people on a streetcorner. Its too late now to stop guns, theres probably millions out there, and only about half of them will probably be confiscated if a law is passed.

[JRogers]

There are so many guns around now in the US, it's a good bet anyone you get in an argument with has one on him, not just criminals.


I am going to have to give a decided "no" on this one. May be part hyperbole but, still, it sounds a bit too self-assured for that.

[jaydee]

to put it into perspective:

weed was made illegal...but does that stop the people who want it from getting it? Even tho it is something that you can just grow and guns aren't, there are countries such as canada and mexico around us that would be more than willing to sell high priced guns to people with a high demand. The result, the people who want the guns get the guns, and that could be someone with the intent of hunting all the way to the intent of killing 100 people on a streetcorner. Its too late now to stop guns, theres probably millions out there, and only about half of them will probably be confiscated if a law is passed.

I agree that a criminal who really wants a gun will usually find a way to get one, usually from someone who stole it from a non-criminal in the first place. So the less of them that are sitting in someone's gun cabinet, the less will be stolen and circulated. Especially handguns. Anyway, the point is not so much to get rid of all the guns, but to know where they are. Tight gun laws will mean fewer guns floating around, which is a good thing. If it cuts the supply in half, as you suggest, that's a great thing.

I also agree that it's too late to stop guns from being commonplace in a hurry, but it's never too late to get started on some kind of plan. Eventually guns will be harder to find, and shooting incidents will decrease.

Hunting rifles, no problem, but get them registered so you are legally responsible for them, and have the important parts removed and stored separately when they're in the case. Handguns and combat weapons, there is absolutely no legal need for them; they should be banned outright. If you really like to keep these guns as a collector, they should be gutted or barrel-welded so they can never be restored to firing order. Again, a huge proportion of shooting incidents take place just because the guns are so close at hand. If you're not a hunter, you don't need one.

I never really saw myself as pro or anti NRA, and I still don't in most matters, but there is a huge problem here and we have to make some plans to fix it.

[JRogers]

to put it into perspective:

weed was made illegal...but does that stop the people who want it from getting it? Even tho it is something that you can just grow and guns aren't, there are countries such as canada and mexico around us that would be more than willing to sell high priced guns to people with a high demand. The result, the people who want the guns get the guns, and that could be someone with the intent of hunting all the way to the intent of killing 100 people on a streetcorner. Its too late now to stop guns, theres probably millions out there, and only about half of them will probably be confiscated if a law is passed.

The analogy does not work. Should we make heroin legal because people can still get it? Suppose 50 percent of the US used herion, would it still be pertinent to ban it? I would think so. Just because only half might be confiscted, does that mean that getting half is a bad idea? You do what you can, you know. I am not saying that banning firearms would be a good idea (never going to happen, so what's the point of arguing it?) but simply that your parallel does not fit.

[JRogers]

I agree that a criminal who really wants a gun will usually find a way to get one, usually from someone who stole it from a non-criminal in the first place. So the less of them that are sitting in someone's gun cabinet, the less will be stolen and circulated. Especially handguns. Anyway, the point is not so much to get rid of all the guns, but to know where they are. Tight gun laws will mean fewer guns floating around, which is a good thing. If it cuts the supply in half, as you suggest, that's a great thing.

I also agree that it's too late to stop guns from being commonplace in a hurry, but it's never too late to get started on some kind of plan. Eventually guns will be harder to find, and shooting incidents will decrease.

Hunting rifles, no problem, but get them registered so you are legally responsible for them, and have the important parts removed and stored separately when they're in the case. Handguns and combat weapons, there is absolutely no legal need for them; they should be banned outright. If you really like to keep these guns as a collector, they should be gutted or barrel-welded so they can never be restored to firing order. Again, a huge proportion of shooting incidents take place just because the guns are so close at hand. If you're not a hunter, you don't need one.

I never really saw myself as pro or anti NRA, and I still don't in most matters, but there is a huge problem here and we have to make some plans to fix it.

I don't know if the sentiment is the same in Canada as it is in the US but here, there is never a trend to examine things from a "need" standpoint. To control environmental regulations, should we evaluate wether you "need" a car or an SUV? Sounds ridiculous because it would never work at present. Americans are not about needs, they are about rights. If it is your right, need is not part of the equation, with only few exceptions.

[Silver]

The analogy does not work. Should we make heroin legal because people can still get it? Suppose 50 percent of the US used herion, would it still be pertinent to ban it? I would think so. Just because only half might be confiscted, does that mean that getting half is a bad idea? You do what you can, you know. I am not saying that banning firearms would be a good idea (never going to happen, so what's the point of arguing it?) but simply that your parallel does not fit.

That analogy doesn't work because someone with a heroin needle is a threat mostly to themselves. It affects others, but in the same way that alcohol or tobacco does.

Someone with a gun, on the other hand...you only get to use a gun on yourself once if you do it properly.

[SlackBoy]

But c'mon if you banned handguns, there would be all those extra people living putting a strain on the resources in america

they have bad people and gangs and stuff in other countries. You sure are right to demand your right to have them in yours as well

[TheInedibleHulk]

and is kerry against the u.s. being independent(giving our descisions over to the U.N., which doesn't ever do anything)?

Sorry to kill the gun debate, but I couldnt believe no one commented on this. Kerry is against the US being independant huh? SO you think becasue Kerry desires to practice diplomacy and discussion with the international community, that he is against "the u.s. being independent"? What the hell are you smoking? What Kerry wants to do is reverse this administrations horrible policy of ignoring the rest of the world and doing whatever the fvck they want. In this campian the Bush people have tried to spin Kerry's comments on this issue into making Kerry look like some kind of pussy, when actaully he is just espousing solid, widely held views about foreign policy. The world is moving towards a global economy and political structure, and that scares people like Bush becasue they might have to relinquish some of their personal power, and maybe not get to do exactly what they want to do all the time. Making concessions is part of living in a globalized society, and cutting ourselves off is only going to hurt us economically and politically in the long run.

So the UN doesnt do anything eh? Well your right that the UN is about as effective as say, the US legislative branch, but we certainly didnt take any steps in the right direction by setting up the precedent that what they say has no effect on what we do. If you thought the UN was useless before, congrats man it just got worse. The UN was set up to prevent things like the world wars from happening again. In fact the precursor to the UN was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, which unfortunately fell apart after he had a stroke and the US govt then refused to join because it didnt want to concess any power to an international organization. The other european nations involved then made Germany pay exorbitant reparations for the first world war, creating a severe depression in Gemany (worse than everywhere else), and along with that the conditions necesarry for Hitler to gain power. Wilson was against these high reparations for exactly this kind of reason, and if the US was able to be involved in the treaty and Wilson's views were expressed, there may have never been a WWII. So basically, cooperation and diplomacy are a good thing, history has proven it, GW disagrees. I wonder which is more consistently correct? :think:

[nicklin]

Cruzrider88:

If there is one thing I learned in my life growing up in Santa Cruz, it's that people who hate guns are afraid of it, and they will always come up a reason to ban firearms.

it is very rare now that I have this kind of debates, because deep down I know, one day, it may never come, but we will be called to save these panzy liberals with our guns. And we will be ready, becuase that;s what being American is all about: we have to freedom to choose, and we will fight for our countrymen, our neighbors, our children and loved ones, even if they do not appreciate us. it does not matter. As long as we are ready

[Changleen]

Changleen:

"When I lived in San Francisco, whilst riding the BART one day, a black truck with very dark black windows pulled up next the BART at an intersection and started pointing a red laser dot at people on the BART. A lot of people freaked out. Fortunatly for me I was in the articlated section. No idea if the dude had a gun or not."



So we should ban laser pointer too?



Now let's talk about right wing neo-nazi activities in Australia, Europe, and Russia, where people got beaten becuase they were Arabs, Blacks, and Asians.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=neo-nazi+crime+europe&btnG=Google+Search


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=neo-nazi+crime+europe&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=neo-nazi+minority+australia&btnG=Search

how about them eh, changleen? let's abolish chains, knives, and boots right?You really are retarded. By your 'logic', we'd ban Republicans before boots and chains.

[JRogers]

That analogy doesn't work because someone with a heroin needle is a threat mostly to themselves. It affects others, but in the same way that alcohol or tobacco does.

Someone with a gun, on the other hand...you only get to use a gun on yourself once if you do it properly.

True, but that does not change the functional part of my analogy: just because a law does not stop an action does not mean that the law should not exist. Who is affected was not what I was considering.

[Silver]

it is very rare now that I have this kind of debates, because deep down I know, one day, it may never come, but we will be called to save these panzy liberals with our guns.

From who, exactly?

[valve bouncer]

From who, exactly?
Rabid Canadians?

[ohio]

From who, exactly?

Hello, Patriot Act. (Oh, the irony... or is it contradiction... maybe hypocrisy is the word I'm looking for)

[Silver]

Hello, Patriot Act. (Oh, the irony... or is it contradiction... maybe hypocrisy is the word I'm looking for)

That's what I hear come up occasionally too. Luckily, David Koresh should serve as a good example of how useful guns are against the government these days...

[nicklin]

You really are retarded. By your 'logic', we'd ban Republicans before boots and chains.


there you have it folks, we are graced with the presence of Psychiatrist Dr. CHangleen, and he will be taking phone calls from 8 PM to 9Pm, (long distance charges may apply).

Just don't ask him any questions other than what's wrong with America, because he will be much more likely label you retarded than actually answer the questions. He is not afraid to use the word retared even after it gets old. SO watch out!!!!!

[ohio]

Luckily, David Koresh should serve as a good example of how useful guns are against the government these days...

Dude, if owning lots of guns means I get to be leader of a cult, bang lots of (underage?) chicks, and die a martyr... I'm so in. Are you TRYING to convince me I need guns? Cause I didn't think I did until about a half hour ago.



Anyone know a good place to stockpile arms that hasn't already been used?

[Silver]

Dude, if owning lots of guns means I get to be leader of a cult, bang lots of (underage?) chicks, and die a martyr... I'm so in. Are you TRYING to convince me I need guns? Cause I didn't think I did until about a half hour ago.



Anyone know a good place to stockpile arms that hasn't already been used?

You forget the, "Die a fiery death" part. Or, the get your family shot part, like Randy Weaver (was that his name?)

[qualude]

Cruzrider88:

If there is one thing I learned in my life growing up in Santa Cruz, it's that people who hate guns are afraid of it, and they will always come up a reason to ban firearms.

it is very rare now that I have this kind of debates, because deep down I know, one day, it may never come, but we will be called to save these panzy liberals with our guns. And we will be ready, becuase that;s what being American is all about: we have to freedom to choose, and we will fight for our countrymen, our neighbors, our children and loved ones, even if they do not appreciate us. it does not matter. As long as we are ready

Agreed. I grew up with guns, and was educated properly about guns by my parents, not my peers. I now like in NYC, where it is against the law (basically) for a private citizen to own a firearm. Not that I would need one here, but the majority of accidental firearm deaths are in urban areas, not rural ones. The facts show that if you are educated about guns at an early age by your parent/guardian, you have a much healthier respect for what guns can and cannot do. If you are educated by your friends, someone is going to lose a life.
I still own a 6 guns, and I try like hell to educate my friends that grew up in NYC that guns are not just for "bad" people, but are used as a tool in rural areas.
And, Kerry never said he would "turn over" the decisions to the UN. He said that on international issues, regarding countries in the UN, he would include them in discussions and listen to what they say. Unlike Bush, who has to "cowboy" his way through everything.

[Changleen]

there you have it folks, we are graced with the presence of Psychiatrist Dr. CHangleen, and he will be taking phone calls from 8 PM to 9Pm, (long distance charges may apply).

Just don't ask him any questions other than what's wrong with America, because he will be much more likely label you retarded than actually answer the questions. He is not afraid to use the word retared even after it gets old. SO watch out!!!!! :thumb: You're great! 'retared'... Maybe you should stop posting until you get a bit older.

[valve bouncer]

:thumb: You're great! 'retared'... Maybe you should stop posting until you get a bit older.
Hey, at least he didn't say "your" an idiot.

[jaydee]

Cruzrider88:

If there is one thing I learned in my life growing up in Santa Cruz, it's that people who hate guns are afraid of it, and they will always come up a reason to ban firearms.

it is very rare now that I have this kind of debates, because deep down I know, one day, it may never come, but we will be called to save these panzy liberals with our guns. And we will be ready, becuase that;s what being American is all about: we have to freedom to choose, and we will fight for our countrymen, our neighbors, our children and loved ones, even if they do not appreciate us. it does not matter. As long as we are ready

Ladies and gentlemen, live from his hardened bunker somewhere under South Carolina, I give you NICKLIN the MAGNIFICENT, savior of the free world, scourge of aliens of all colors, and pansy-protector extraordinaire!

Dude, if you have to save the world from itself, get into the army, get a free rifle, and go get yourself dead. Which will be really easy if you are not afraid when someone points a gun at you. And now let me try to guess; a pansy is anyone who doesn't have a gun, and a Liberal is anyone who doesn't think like you. Am I getting this right?

It doesn't take any bravery to pull a trigger; a child can do it. Killing someone by moving a finger does not indicate manliness. I think you may be getting your gun confused with your dick.

[Changleen]

I think you may be getting your gun confused with your dick.That's a common problem which is often overlooked... :D

[ridecruz88]

Anyone know a good place to stockpile arms that hasn't already been used?

haha o ya dude im from a southside and im here on ridemonkey to tell you where you can stockpile guns and ammo...pm me for more info

p.s.the government cant see this...

[ridecruz88]

You forget the, "Die a fiery death" part. Or, the get your family shot part, like Randy Weaver (was that his name?)

hmmmmm

heres a thought:

which is better when having your family shot like Randy Weaver:
A) not having a gun because they're outlawed
B) having a gun and shooting the guy whos trying to kill you

[ridecruz88]

Cruzrider88:

If there is one thing I learned in my life growing up in Santa Cruz, it's that people who hate guns are afraid of it, and they will always come up a reason to ban firearms.

it is very rare now that I have this kind of debates, because deep down I know, one day, it may never come, but we will be called to save these panzy liberals with our guns. And we will be ready, becuase that;s what being American is all about: we have to freedom to choose, and we will fight for our countrymen, our neighbors, our children and loved ones, even if they do not appreciate us. it does not matter. As long as we are ready

well said

[Skookum]

i can't frikkin believe this thread made it past the first page considering how it started........
guns haha. Pow yer dead!!!! :p

[Changleen]

hmmmmm

heres a thought:

which is better when having your family shot like Randy Weaver:
A) not having a gun because they're outlawed
B) having a gun and shooting the guy whos trying to kill you

Well, in both cases everyone ends up dead, so maybe they're the same. Actually in the second one the firearms industry has more money due to higher sales and therefore makes more guns, leading to the sceanareo likely being repeated. So, overall A) is better.

[Changleen]

well saidAre you serious? :drool:

[Skookum]

Well, in both cases everyone ends up dead, so maybe they're the same. Actually in the second one the firearms industry has more money due to higher sales and therefore makes more guns, leading to the sceanareo likely being repeated. So, overall A) is better.
chick chick
BLAPOWWW!

I just blasted you with a shotgun start squirmin then die you evil islander!!!!

[Changleen]

No way! Eat lead, scumbag! You missed!

DAKADAKADAKADAKADAKA

and two more to make sure you stay down!

DAKA-DAK

:eviltongu

:)

[nicklin]

Ladies and gentlemen, live from his hardened bunker somewhere under South Carolina, I give you NICKLIN the MAGNIFICENT, savior of the free world, scourge of aliens of all colors, and pansy-protector extraordinaire!

Dude, if you have to save the world from itself, get into the army, get a free rifle, and go get yourself dead. Which will be really easy if you are not afraid when someone points a gun at you. And now let me try to guess; a pansy is anyone who doesn't have a gun, and a Liberal is anyone who doesn't think like you. Am I getting this right?

It doesn't take any bravery to pull a trigger; a child can do it. Killing someone by moving a finger does not indicate manliness. I think you may be getting your gun confused with your dick.


your opinion is your opinion, but that's not what my grandfather, a paratrooper in the Army thought when he went to fight for the free world in WWII. What he did wish, however, was that there was a program like the CMP(Civil Marksmanship Program) earlier so the people in the army would know how to shoot BEFORE they went to war.

you don;t need to be in the military to appreciate firearms, just like you don;t have to race professionally to ride a bike.

what you said is very amusing, it's in fact hilarious. I'm glad our neighbor to the north can be such an asset in providing entertainment value.

Very mature comments indeed. Your ability to use words like "dick" rivals that of the ability of changleen using the word "retarded". But I suggest you record yourself saying that and listen to it yourself. It will only help.

nick

[nicklin]

Oh uh, I used Sc standing for Santa Cruz, which I stated that merely lines above, so i suppose you didn't read the whole and decided to squeeze your brain capacity to come up with a great comment like that against "people in bunkers near south carolina.

I go to school in University of California, Berkeley. Just for your information. i came here because I couldn't afford to go to Cornell University.

Nick

[jaydee]

Nick, I''m merely an ign'ant Canajun, eh. Sorry I missed your reference to Santa Cruz. Do they have hardened bunkers there too?

My dad said similar things about fighting for freedom when he fought in the RCAF in WWII, which probably reveals how old I am. I still admire him for what he did in going to that war. I'm not really bashing guns at all; the technology and beauty of the machinery fascinates me too. They have certainly had a place in the world, though it may have been better if they had never been invented. There would be less attraction to war if you still had to kill the other guy face to face, covered in his blood, by trying to saw him in half, while realizing that he's just another guy like you. There would also be a lot fewer casualties.

I have absolutely no problem with rifle or handgun practise on a range, or hunting, or owning guns for those purposes. It's the pervasive idea in American society (correct me if I'm wrong on this) that you have to have one close at hand at all times, just in case you have to shoot someone. Surely you can't argue with the fact that if a gun is stolen from someone's house and used to kill someone, that was an easily preventable death. You may not be a "gun nut" yourself, but we have plenty of those in Canada, and I'm not the first one to estimate that the size of the nut's gun is apparently in inverse proportion to the size of the nut's penis. Sorry if I offended you with the use of the word "dick", but I've been calling it that for 53 years, and it's a hard habit to break. I'll make every attempt to be biologically accurate in future. I hope you're OK with the use of the word "nut".

When I was your age, I was in university too, and I heard all the same rhetoric from both sides as now, except it was the Vietnam war. Some things never change.

Anyway, I'm glad to provide you with some entertainment; that's really my purpose in being here.

[Damn True]

Nick, I''m merely an ign'ant Canajun, eh. Sorry I missed your reference to Santa Cruz. Do they have hardened bunkers there too?



Yes, but they grow weed in them. Keeps it hidden from the helicopters.

[Changleen]

your opinion is your opinion, but that's not what my grandfather, a paratrooper in the Army thought when he went to fight for the free world in WWII. What he did wish, however, was that there was a program like the CMP(Civil Marksmanship Program) earlier so the people in the army would know how to shoot BEFORE they went to war.

you don;t need to be in the military to appreciate firearms, just like you don;t have to race professionally to ride a bike.

what you said is very amusing, it's in fact hilarious. I'm glad our neighbor to the north can be such an asset in providing entertainment value.

Very mature comments indeed. Your ability to use words like "dick" rivals that of the ability of changleen using the word "retarded". But I suggest you record yourself saying that and listen to it yourself. It will only help.

nickYou are such an... I'm sorry, you're an idiot. Can you really not see the obvious holes in the logic of your arguments? You sound like a stoner or a drunk 15 year old. I'm glad you managed to copy my spelling of 'retarded' this time or you would have looked really stupid. Please think about what you say before you say it.

[Olyroller]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html

[Westy]

Cool! You and Changleen should get together and swap tin-foil hat tips...

Didn't yo mamma tell you to never wear someone elses hat. That is how you get government engineered mind control chip implanting lice. ;)

[Olyroller]

http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=avflash&story.id=187259