Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

To all the gun haters out there....

manny78

Plat Hero
Platinum
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

Don't Miss
Child rapists can't be executed, court rules
Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo
High court to decide whether Navy saving whales
Gun laws in high court's sights
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "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."

The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.
 
manny78 said:
I wonder what Barrack Hussein thinks about this one lol

olololo
 
i can see how you should be be allowed a rifle or a shotgun to protect your home, but hanguns are unnecessary, they can be concealed and more likely to be involved in crime. i aint being funny guys, but unless something changes, you will get further college massacres, more innocent people will be killed.
 
*The_West* said:
i can see how you should be be allowed a rifle or a shotgun to protect your home, but hanguns are unnecessary, they can be concealed and more likely to be involved in crime. i aint being funny guys, but unless something changes, you will get further college massacres, more innocent people will be killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Appalachian School of Law shooting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Appalachian School of Law shooting
Location Grundy, Virginia, United States
Date January 16, 2002
1:00pm (EDT)
Attack type School shooting
Deaths 3
Injured 3
Perpetrator(s) Peter Odighizuwa

The Appalachian School of Law shooting occurred on January 16, 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law, an American Bar Association accredited private law school in Grundy, Virginia, United States. Three people were killed and three others were wounded when former student 43-year-old Peter Odighizuwa opened fire in the school with a handgun.
Contents
[hide]

The shooting

43-year-old former student Peter Odighizuwa arrived on the campus with a handgun.[1] Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him.[2] Odighizuwa returned to the school around 1:00 and proceeded to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range.[3] Also killed along with the two faculty members was a student, Angela Denise Dales, age 33. Three other people were wounded.

Students subdued the shooter

When Peter Odighizuwa exited the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms[4] and one unarmed student. [5] There are two versions of the events that transpired at that moment, one by Tracy Bridges and one by Ted Besen.

According to Bridges, at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personal owned firearms.[6] Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[7] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C.,[8] pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe. As Bridges later told the Richmond Times Dispatch, he was prepared to shoot to kill.[9] Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[10] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.[11]

According to Besen, before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people.[12] Besen, a former marine and police officer in Wilmington, North Carolina, then charged, got into a scuffle with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled.[13] Additional witnesses at the scene stated they did not see Bridges or Gross with their guns at the time Besen started subduing Odighizuwa.[14]

Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

Police reports later noted that two empty eight round magazines designed for Odighizuwa’s handgun were recovered. Most sources (including those quoting Virginia State Police spokesman Mike Stater) state that when Odighizuwa dropped the gun the magazine was empty,[15] although an initial report suggested the gun still held three rounds of ammunition.[16]

The perpetrator

The perpetrator, Peter Odighizuwa, then 43 years old, was from Nigeria. While numerous reports stated that Odighizuwa had flunked out of school or had been suspended, Jeremy Davis, former dean and professor of law at the school, later said that Odighizuwa had withdrawn voluntarily due to poor academic performance.[17] Odighizuwa even stated in a later interview that he "had a C average." [18]

Legal Repercussions

Initially in 2002, Odighizuwa was found to be incompetent to stand trial and was referred for psychiatric treatment. After three years of treatment and monitoring, in 2005, Odighizuwa was found mentally competent and pleaded guilty to the murders to avoid the death penalty. Odighizuwa was sentenced to multiple life terms in prison plus 28 additional years.

Aftermath

Gun control implications

This case was cited by John Lott[19] and others[20] as an example of the media's bias against guns, claiming that the use of a firearm in a defensive role was not reported in most news stories of the event.[21]

Memorials

After the shooting, students at the law school planted trees in memory of Sutin, Blackwell, and Dales on the school's front lawn. The school's student services office and scholarship program were named for Dales, along with County Highway 624 in the Buchanan County, Virginia. Faculty fellowships at the school were named for Sutin and Blackwell. [22] The school's Phi Alpha Delta chapter is named for Sutin[23] while the Phi Delta Phi chapter is named for Blackwell [24].
 
*The_West* said:
i can see how you should be be allowed a rifle or a shotgun to protect your home, but hanguns are unnecessary, they can be concealed and more likely to be involved in crime. i aint being funny guys, but unless something changes, you will get further college massacres, more innocent people will be killed.
I'd like to slap the retard right out of you :rolleyes:
 
crazyjoe said:
I'd like to slap the retard right out of you :rolleyes:
and id like to slap the trigger-happy yank out of you. what the fuck mate, what i said is true. you think you have seen the last gun nut flip out and go shoot a load of innocent students? its going to keep happening, you know it is, until laws are changed to prevent firearms, handguns especially, ending up in these peoples hands.
 
OMEGA said:
awesome

i always believed in the right to bear arms

agreed. . .a man (or woman) should have the right to protect themselves against would-be assailants. . .including their own government. . .
 
*The_West* said:
i can see how you should be be allowed a rifle or a shotgun to protect your home, but hanguns are unnecessary, they can be concealed and more likely to be involved in crime. i aint being funny guys, but unless something changes, you will get further college massacres, more innocent people will be killed.

I'd much much much rather be defending myself with a .22 that's probably not going to kill anyone than some bigass rifle or shotgun.

In any case, you're comment is a little off...this ruling applies to one city's handgun ban. While we have schools in DC, if someone wanted to shoot up the place they could legally obtain one in VA or MD. I'm willing to bet this ruling will have zero effect on anything illegal. The people who wanted to carry for illegal reasons already did so.
 
*The_West* said:
i can see how you should be be allowed a rifle or a shotgun to protect your home, but hanguns are unnecessary, they can be concealed and more likely to be involved in crime. i aint being funny guys, but unless something changes, you will get further college massacres, more innocent people will be killed.
If someone really wants to commit a massacre they are not going to worry about concealing anything. There is hardly ever a shooting committed by someone with a conceal and carry permit. Maybe instead of trying to say what is "unnecessary" or "necessary" for someone to carry or own, you should think about tougher penalties for those who commit crimes with guns.
 
digimon7068 said:
agreed. . .a man (or woman) should have the right to protect themselves against would-be assailants. . .including their own government. . .
and this my friend is the main reason why we should never lose that right.
 
manny78 said:
There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.
GREAT SCOTT! A DIFFERENCE OF 8! ALERT THE MEDIAAAAAAAA!

And now the less biased interpretation.

YEAR MURDERS IN DC
(per http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm)

1976 188
1977 192
1978 189
1979 180
1980 200
1981 223
1982 194
1983 183
1984 175
1985 147
1986 194
1987 225
1988 369
1989 434
1990 472
1991 482
1992 443
1993 454
1994 399
1995 360
1996 397
1997 301
1998 260
1999 241
2000 239
2001 231
2002 264
2003 249
2004 198
2005 195
2006 169


Hmmm. 169 murders in 2006 vs 188 in 1976. GUN BANS WORKKKKKKKKKKK!!!! Never you mind that period in the 90's when the whole city, including the mayor, was on crack.

The truth is a gun ban in D.C. makes no freaking difference when you can drive your butt 20 minutes to Virginia or Maryland and get one legally.

I went to college in a dry county. You think that stopped kids from buying liquor? No, because the Alabama border was a 15 minute drive. It was legal there.

Lies, damn lies and statistics...
 
crazyjoe said:
If someone really wants to commit a massacre they are not going to worry about concealing anything. There is hardly ever a shooting committed by someone with a conceal and carry permit. Maybe instead of trying to say what is "unnecessary" or "necessary" for someone to carry or own, you should think about tougher penalties for those who commit crimes with guns.
i believe the us judicial system is a lot more effective than here in england, there people actually get lengthy sentences, rather than less than half the time that they deserve because our prisons are too full like they are here. its not your sentencing that is wrong, its the way that firearms are too easily obtained! the reason someone with a conceal/carry permit is not likely to commit an illegal shooting, is becasue they obviously have a very good reason to be carrying a firearm-work/private security etc.
i stand by my previous statement, you have not seen the last high school/college massacre, not by a long way, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themself. somethign must be done to stop firearms, especially handguns, falling in to the hands of these people. until that happens, well, it only a matter of time until it happens again.
 
*The_West* said:
and id like to slap the trigger-happy yank out of you. what the fuck mate, what i said is true. you think you have seen the last gun nut flip out and go shoot a load of innocent students? its going to keep happening, you know it is, until laws are changed to prevent firearms, handguns especially, ending up in these peoples hands.
I gotta get ready for work, but I will be back to check this thread later tonight. This is a good topic that needs to be addressed.
BTW I'm straight> Maybe AAP or pick3 would like to be your mate :kiss:
 
crazyjoe said:
If someone really wants to commit a massacre they are not going to worry about concealing anything. There is hardly ever a shooting committed by someone with a conceal and carry permit. Maybe instead of trying to say what is "unnecessary" or "necessary" for someone to carry or own, you should think about tougher penalties for those who commit crimes with guns.

amen. . .don't punish the law-abiding citizens, punish the criminals. . .

also, do you think a "ban" is going to have any effect on criminal activity?? puh-leez?! someone that robs convenience stores with a handgun, doesn't give two-shits about a gun ban. . .except that, now he doesn't have to worry about the law-abiding store owner having one to use to defend himself against the robber. . .shit. . .it's illegal to own a fucking elephant. . .you want a fucking elephant?? i guarantee i can have one shitting on you front lawn by the end of the month. with the internet, nothing is more than a mouse-click away.
 
crazyjoe said:
I gotta get ready for work, but I will be back to check this thread later tonight. This is a good topic that needs to be addressed.
BTW I'm straight> Maybe AAP or pick3 would like to be your mate :kiss:
grow up.
im english. we use the term mate as you would "bro"
 
digimon7068 said:
amen. . .don't punish the law-abiding citizens, punish the criminals. . .

also, do you think a "ban" is going to have any effect on criminal activity?? puh-leez?! someone that robs convenience stores with a handgun, doesn't give two-shits about a gun ban. . .except that, now he doesn't have to worry about the law-abiding store owner having one to use to defend himself against the robber. . .shit. . .it's illegal to own a fucking elephant. . .you want a fucking elephant?? i guarantee i can have one shitting on you front lawn by the end of the month. with the internet, nothing is more than a mouse-click away.
all im saying is guns are illegal here. we dont have people walking into colleges and schools pumping round after round into innocent people. you do. until your laws are changed it will continue to happen. anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themself
 
*The_West* said:
all im saying is guns are illegal here. we dont have people walking into colleges and schools pumping round after round into innocent people. you do. until your laws are changed it will continue to happen. anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themself

yeah. . .you guys just have the ira running around bombing people :rolleyes:
 
*The_West* said:
i believe the us judicial system is a lot more effective than here in england, there people actually get lengthy sentences, rather than less than half the time that they deserve because our prisons are too full like they are here. its not your sentencing that is wrong, its the way that firearms are too easily obtained! the reason someone with a conceal/carry permit is not likely to commit an illegal shooting, is becasue they obviously have a very good reason to be carrying a firearm-work/private security etc.
i stand by my previous statement, you have not seen the last high school/college massacre, not by a long way, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themself. somethign must be done to stop firearms, especially handguns, falling in to the hands of these people. until that happens, well, it only a matter of time until it happens again.
Not true at all. I'm not in any of those and I could go get a permit myself. People that have them understand that using that gun is a last resort action. If I have a permit to carry and I'm packing heat that doesn't mean that if I'm walking down the street and someone decides to pick a fight with me that I can pull it out and shoot them. Its called being a responsible owner/carrier.

I would have the right to shoot if they had pulled a gun on me and my life was in danger.
 
digimon7068 said:
yeah. . .you guys just have the ira running around bombing people :rolleyes:
uh...yeah about 15 years ago. the ira are next to nothing these days.


crazyjoe said:
Not true at all. I'm not in any of those and I could go get a permit myself. People that have them understand that using that gun is a last resort action. If I have a permit to carry and I'm packing heat that doesn't mean that if I'm walking down the street and someone decides to pick a fight with me that I can pull it out and shoot them. Its called being a responsible owner/carrier.

I would have the right to shoot if they had pulled a gun on me and my life was in danger.
yes, i accept that, what you need to accept is that something needs to be done to stop firearms, especially hanguns falling into the hands of 'not so responsible gun carriers' because until you do so, more people are going to think "fuck it" and walk round schools/colleges blowing innocent people away.
 
nefertiti said:
I'd much much much rather be defending myself with a .22 that's probably not going to kill anyone than some bigass rifle or shotgun.

In any case, you're comment is a little off...this ruling applies to one city's handgun ban. While we have schools in DC, if someone wanted to shoot up the place they could legally obtain one in VA or MD. I'm willing to bet this ruling will have zero effect on anything illegal. The people who wanted to carry for illegal reasons already did so.
babe, you shoot to kill, that's it. No ifs ands or buts about it, you pull that thing, someone better be taking a dirt nap.
 
im not saying that guns should be illegal! a home can easily be protected with a rifle.what im saying is that owning handguns should be outlawed, the only people who need handguns are law enforcement/private security etc. to allow hanguns to be sold to the general public is allowing easily concealed weapons to get into the wrong hands.
 
juiceddreadlocks said:
babe, you shoot to kill, that's it. No ifs ands or buts about it, you pull that thing, someone better be taking a dirt nap.
I wouldn't, which is why I don't own a gun even though I believe in gun rights. If somebody breaks into your house and all you have is a knife or a baseball bat....are you going to beat them to death with it or just put them down and call police? What's the difference?
 
*The_West* said:
all im saying is guns are illegal here. we dont have people walking into colleges and schools pumping round after round into innocent people. you do. until your laws are changed it will continue to happen. anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themself


having a law against guns doesn't do shit to stop people who are going to kill someone(s). If they are willing to break the law by killing then gun laws don't mean shit. Gun laws will ONLY take guns out of the hands of people who could protect themselves NOT out of the hands of criminals.

If you thought/knew someone was carrying a gun concealed would you rob them? Now vise versa would you if you knew for a fact they didn't?

There will always be guns and criminals will break any law(s) to have them.
 
*The_West* said:
uh...yeah about 15 years ago. the ira are next to nothing these days.



yes, i accept that, what you need to accept is that something needs to be done to stop firearms, especially hanguns falling into the hands of 'not so responsible gun carriers' because until you do so, more people are going to think "fuck it" and walk round schools/colleges blowing innocent people away.
Well that's different than saying handguns are unnecessary like you said in your other post.
 
mwm5 said:
having a law against guns doesn't do shit to stop people who are going to kill someone(s). If they are willing to break the law by killing then gun laws don't mean shit. Gun laws will ONLY take guns out of the hands of people who could protect themselves NOT out of the hands of criminals.

If you thought/knew someone was carrying a gun concealed would you rob them? Now vise versa would you if you knew for a fact they didn't?

There will always be guns and criminals will break any law(s) to have them.
i cant see how everyone keeps arguing with my point-until something is done to stop handguns falling into the hands of the wrong people, you will continue to have these twisted individuals walk into schools/colleges and pump round after round into innocent people. yet everyone keeps ignoring this point and saying things like "banning guns will be taking them away from law abiding citizens" etc etc. law abiding citizens do not need fucking handguns! yes, ok, a rifle in the house maybe. but handguns?
 
*The_West* said:
i cant see how everyone keeps arguing with my point-until something is done to stop handguns falling into the hands of the wrong people, you will continue to have these twisted individuals walk into schools/colleges and pump round after round into innocent people. yet everyone keeps ignoring this point and saying things like "banning guns will be taking them away from law abiding citizens" etc etc. law abiding citizens do not need fucking handguns! yes, ok, a rifle in the house maybe. but handguns?
Who are you to dictate what people decide to protect themselves with(handguns,shotguns,rifle) Nobody is arguing the point that there needs to be tougher penalties against those who commit crimes with guns. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess that you might think a rifle and shotgun are the same thing judging by your statement above. You don't think a rifle round can travel further than a handgun round?
 
If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?

~ Prince Philip

Said amid calls to ban firearms after the 1996 UK Dunblane shooting.
 
crazyjoe said:
Who are you to dictate what people decide to protect themselves with(handguns,shotguns,rifle) Nobody is arguing the point that there needs to be tougher penalties against those who commit crimes with guns. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess that you might think a rifle and shotgun are the same thing judging by your statement above. You don't think a rifle round can travel further than a handgun round?
that is the most ridiculous statement i have heard in a long time, prevention is always better than the cure, you cant just give these psychos bigger sentences, you have to do something to stop hanguns falling into their hands in the first place!
of course i know the fucking difference between a shotgun and a rifle, just because guns are illegal for the general public to own here, it doesnt mean i have never used one. i have a friend who owns a farm and i have been out shooting with him before, he owns a couple of shottys and rifles. im not anti guns, i enjoy shooting. i just dont see any reason why hanguns should be available to the general public. it makes it far too easy for easily concealed weapons to fall into the wrong hands. you cant argue with that statement, its 100% true
 
*The_West* said:
i cant see how everyone keeps arguing with my point-until something is done to stop handguns falling into the hands of the wrong people, you will continue to have these twisted individuals walk into schools/colleges and pump round after round into innocent people. yet everyone keeps ignoring this point and saying things like "banning guns will be taking them away from law abiding citizens" etc etc. law abiding citizens do not need fucking handguns! yes, ok, a rifle in the house maybe. but handguns?


By your reasoning, law-abiding citizens do not need cars that go over 75 mph here. We should ban them too. How many more people are killed in vehicles than by handguns each year?
 
mountain muscle said:
By your reasoning, law-abiding citizens do not need cars that go over 75 mph here. We should ban them too. How many more people are killed in vehicles than by handguns each year?
why are people more interested in picking apart my posts than focussing on the fact that unless something is done to stop firearms, mainly handguns, falling into these peoples hands then more 'college/school massacres' will occur?
 
*The_West* said:
why are people more interested in picking apart my posts than focussing on the fact that unless something is done to stop firearms, mainly handguns, falling into these peoples hands then more 'college/school massacres' will occur?


More car accidents will occur too, ban cars now!
 
mountain muscle said:
More car accidents will occur too, ban cars now!
your being stupid now. car accident will always occur. college/school massacres should not.
i cant see why you lot keep overlooking the fact that it is far too easy for easily concealed firearms to end up in the wrong hands.
 
*The_West* said:
your being stupid now. car accident will always occur. college/school massacres should not.
i cant see why you lot keep overlooking the fact that it is far too easy for easily concealed firearms to end up in the wrong hands.


It's you're.

Do you even know what is required to obtain a handgun in the U.S.A.?

Don't worry, we'll start slowly with your education.

Also please look up the deaths from car accidents as opposed to handguns and post them here. Then we can begin to see who is being stupid.
 
fucking idiots... Banning guns would do nothing except take law abiding citizens handguns away... You think criminals wouldn't be able to get them? Give me a fucking break. I'm sure guns would then be as hard to get as illegal drugs are now..... Lmfao
 
HAYEZ said:
fucking idiots... Banning guns would do nothing except take law abiding citizens handguns away... You think criminals wouldn't be able to get them? Give me a fucking break. I'm sure guns would then be as hard to get as illegal drugs are now..... Lmfao


What The ban on illegal drugs didn't work?

hahaha.
 
*The_West* said:
why are people more interested in picking apart my posts than focussing on the fact that unless something is done to stop firearms, mainly handguns, falling into these peoples hands then more 'college/school massacres' will occur?
Because in one post you say" handguns are unnecessary" and in another you say "unless something is done to stop firearms, mainly handguns, falling into these peoples hands". Get off the college/school massacre thing already. They happen rarely. More people die every year from numerous other things by far. Obviously nobody wants some CRAZY person getting there hands on a gun of any type, but to say they should be banned is ridiculous.
 
*The_West* said:
your being stupid now. car accident will always occur. college/school massacres should not.
i cant see why you lot keep overlooking the fact that it is far too easy for easily concealed firearms to end up in the wrong hands.


besides the high school one(s) due to age. Do you think that one of the college "massacres" would have happened if the class room was possibly full or half full of people with concealed handguns? The only reason the "massacres" happened is b/c these crzy people knew they could walk into a room full of un-armed innocent people that couldn't fight back.
 
Poor liberal turds. I know it's a very sad day for you. Billary Clinton must be feeling the same. Just like most hippies in Cali. Still wondering what Barrack Ossama thinks.... Does he agree ?
 
i see there is no point attempting to discuss this with you guys, i am not 'anti gun' i actually enjoy shooting, i was just trying to make the point that i believe hanguns should not be available to the general public.
 
manny78 said:
Poor liberal turds. I know it's a very sad day for you. Billary Clinton must be feeling the same. Just like most hippies in Cali. Still wondering what Barrack Ossama thinks.... Does he agree ?


Hey Manny, since you are a fan of shorty barrels, how does that work in Canada? Here I have to pay a $200 tax to have any title 2 weapons, cans etc.

Anything under 16" I have to pay, do background check, fingerprints, photos and get the sheriff to sign off.
 
Shorties are ok. They are restricted which means you need a special license (at no additonnal cost) with a one-time background check (but then no ther check when you purchase something). No special tax or BS like that. I have a Sig Commando (8.9") semi-auto only of course, and a Franchi PA3 shotgun (8.5" barrel). Actually its a lot easier to have firearms in Canada than California lol
 
i believe people should have a right to protect themselves, for instance if you break into my house you will experience what it is like to be on the wrong end of a hunting knife. but here in england, guns are illegal for the public to own, with the exception of farmers, also you may have a license for a rifle/shotgun if you use it on private ground. under no circumstances would you legally be able to own a handgun, and we have a very, and i mean very, low rate of gun crime.
 
manny78 said:
Shorties are ok. They are restricted which means you need a special license (at no additonnal cost) with a one-time background check (but then no ther check when you purchase something). No special tax or BS like that. I have a Sig Commando (8.9") semi-auto only of course, and a Franchi PA3 shotgun (8.5" barrel). Actually its a lot easier to have firearms in Canada than California lol


I have to do a background check every single purchase along with about 2 pages of paperwork. Title 2 weapons are a whole different ballgame and I have to do it every purchase as well.

Thanks for the info. And we both know Cali is just stupid when it comes to firearms. It certainly has helped their crime rate eh?
 
Oh and I had a P90 with military barrel (not that long hose shit) until 2 months ago. Sold it. One of the biggest crap ever. instead I kept my FN2000 for my cool factor and gun range cred lol
 
manny78 said:
I wonder what Barrack Hussein thinks about this one lol


I predict guns being outlawed within his reign if he's elected, and people not being able to protect themselves from all the criminals who don't give a flying fuck about gun laws, getting their weapons on the black market like they always will.
 
I don't care a gun. I don't want one. But I do believe in the choice. Just like I'm pro-choice.

Are they necessary? Not for me. Do they cause more harm then good? Personally, I think so. Do I think that I have the right anyone how to live their life? Not really. They can choose for themselves.
 
crazyjoe said:
and this my friend is the main reason why we should never lose that right.
lmao...like you're fighting the government and how's it's screwing with you...please....
 
*The_West* said:
all im saying is guns are illegal here. we dont have people walking into colleges and schools pumping round after round into innocent people. you do. until your laws are changed it will continue to happen. anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themself
I don't think so. The guns aren't the problem. If you took away the guns, I predict that the US media would have people stabbing people because of the availability of knives.
 
*The_West* said:
i can see how you should be be allowed a rifle or a shotgun to protect your home, but hanguns are unnecessary, they can be concealed and more likely to be involved in crime. i aint being funny guys, but unless something changes, you will get further college massacres, more innocent people will be killed.

to get a concealed weapons permit you have to go through a background check by the FBI and you have to be finger printed and put in the system. why would you do this if you plan on killing somone anyways?

concealed and more likely to be involved in crime? how many gang bangers have permits for their handguns? if they did they'd be caught in a second.

collage massacres? hand guns? how do those go together?
 
*The_West* said:
i believe people should have a right to protect themselves, for instance if you break into my house you will experience what it is like to be on the wrong end of a hunting knife. but here in england, guns are illegal for the public to own, with the exception of farmers, also you may have a license for a rifle/shotgun if you use it on private ground. under no circumstances would you legally be able to own a handgun, and we have a very, and i mean very, low rate of gun crime.

take all the guns away from the people the government can control the people
 
we have very strict gun controls in australia. getting a handgun license etc is a massive pain in the ass, and to maintain it you ahve to fulfil a bunch of criteria like going to the gun range every xyz weeks and firing a certain number of rounds

i also know a lot of criminals. lots and lots of them have guns illegally.

tight gun controls simply disarm the public. criminals throw $$ at the problem and get whatever weapon they like anyway
 
"i hear it everynight...another gunfight...the tenssion amounts on with the bodycount!"


karma to who can guess who sings that
 
big_bad_buff said:
take all the guns away from the people the government can control the people
Give them all the guns and the media controls the people by giving the illusion of freedom.
 
i watched a press conference about this.

the mayor of d.c. has eyebrows, and then a second pair of eyebrows made out of veins right above them.
 
*The_West* said:
i believe people should have a right to protect themselves, for instance if you break into my house you will experience what it is like to be on the wrong end of a hunting knife. but here in england, guns are illegal for the public to own, with the exception of farmers, also you may have a license for a rifle/shotgun if you use it on private ground. under no circumstances would you legally be able to own a handgun, and we have a very, and i mean very, low rate of gun crime.


You're assuming that the people who commit these crimes obtain these handguns legally. Most do not. More people were shot with handguns in london last year than in my home (Denver) yet the way your media makes it sound we still have gunfights at high noon on the streets here. And I'm speaking from experience as I've spent a fair amount of time in the UK.

All outlawing ownership of guns does is take them away from law abiding citizens. There will always be a black market for whatever it is people desire: Drugs, Guns, Prostitution, etc..

To all of you who are worried that one man can take our guns away get a fucking clue. Especially now that the supreme court has set a precedent on gun ownership. In order to take away guns in the US you have to alter the constitution, and that is not an easy thing to do.

Cheers,
Scotsman
 
I'm in agreement with the bulk of the posters on this thread; stricter gun control laws only penalise the law abiding.
 
Scotsman said:
You're assuming that the people who commit these crimes obtain these handguns legally. Most do not. More people were shot with handguns in london last year than in my home (Denver) yet the way your media makes it sound we still have gunfights at high noon on the streets here. And I'm speaking from experience as I've spent a fair amount of time in the UK.

All outlawing ownership of guns does is take them away from law abiding citizens. There will always be a black market for whatever it is people desire: Drugs, Guns, Prostitution, etc..

To all of you who are worried that one man can take our guns away get a fucking clue. Especially now that the supreme court has set a precedent on gun ownership. In order to take away guns in the US you have to alter the constitution, and that is not an easy thing to do.

Cheers,
Scotsman
dood, did you read about that shooting in LODO last weekend?
 
it's funny, all the CO guys in this thread are gun toting fanatics. Awesome, I love this state. I cant wait for the Democratic National Convention.
 
Dial_tone said:
I wouldn't, which is why I don't own a gun even though I believe in gun rights. If somebody breaks into your house and all you have is a knife or a baseball bat....are you going to beat them to death with it or just put them down and call police? What's the difference?

Sean Taylor was killed by his gardener when he attempted to attack the person who invaded his home with a machete instead of a handgun. I bet if he had a handgun, he would have shot to kill that 17 year old that took his life.
 
*The_West* said:
that is the most ridiculous statement i have heard in a long time, prevention is always better than the cure, you cant just give these psychos bigger sentences, you have to do something to stop hanguns falling into their hands in the first place!
of course i know the fucking difference between a shotgun and a rifle, just because guns are illegal for the general public to own here, it doesnt mean i have never used one. i have a friend who owns a farm and i have been out shooting with him before, he owns a couple of shottys and rifles. im not anti guns, i enjoy shooting. i just dont see any reason why hanguns should be available to the general public. it makes it far too easy for easily concealed weapons to fall into the wrong hands. you cant argue with that statement, its 100% true


So that King George doesn't quarter troops in your house, or make you buy your tea from only the East India Trading Company, remove your right to representation, or your right to trial by peers.
 
redguru said:
So that King George doesn't quarter troops in your house, or make you buy your tea from only the East India Trading Company, remove your right to representation, or your right to trial by peers.
well handguns are illegal here, we are free to buy our tea where we please and still have the right to trial by peers.
 
*The_West* said:
well handguns are illegal here, we are free to buy our tea where we please and still have the right to trial by peers.
What happened to that guy who shot robbers with a shotgun who kept invading his house? Isn't he in jail now?
 
*The_West* said:
unless something changes, you will get further college massacres, more innocent people will be killed.

who cares?? the lunacy that is being taught in the colleges today..

well, the statement "it's time to thin the herd" comes to mind..

and in many cases, abortion is a good choice, too bad more women don't take advantage of that "tax payer benefit"
 
juiceddreadlocks said:
What happened to that guy who shot robbers with a shotgun who kept invading his house? Isn't he in jail now?
about that story...it sucked. basically there was a farmer (so he had a valid reason to own a shotgun) who kept having his house broken into, so one night he catches the little fuckers at it and blows one of them away, quite rightly so and ended up in jail. i believe why he ended up in jail is because he actually shot the guy while he was making a run for it, how true that is i dont know.
anyway, after nationwide appeals he was released a while ago.
 
SpyWizard said:
who cares?? the lunacy that is being taught in the colleges today..
well, the statement "it's time to thin the herd" comes to mind..

and in many cases, abortion is a good choice, too bad more women don't take advantage of that "tax payer benefit"
im sure you would feel differently if it was your son/daughter, brother/sister who got murdered
 
*The_West* said:
about that story...it sucked. basically there was a farmer (so he had a valid reason to own a shotgun) who kept having his house broken into, so one night he catches the little fuckers at it and blows one of them away, quite rightly so and ended up in jail. i believe why he ended up in jail is because he actually shot the guy while he was making a run for it, how true that is i dont know.
anyway, after nationwide appeals he was released a while ago.
cool, thanks I didn't know the ins and outs of the story...
 
*The_West* said:
im sure you would feel differently if it was your son/daughter, brother/sister who got murdered
how bout college roommate... it was at that point I decided the only way to even the odds is to be armed, because the trash who does dirty will almost always be armed.

No matter if you disagree or agree with handgun ownership, you're not going to disarm criminals, so you might as well let law abiding citizens defend themselves...
 
juiceddreadlocks said:
how bout college roommate... it was at that point I decided the only way to even the odds is to be armed, because the trash who does dirty will almost always be armed.

No matter if you disagree or agree with handgun ownership, you're not going to disarm criminals, so you might as well let law abiding citizens defend themselves...
you know what, i actually agree with this statement,im starting to see what some of you are saying, i guess if someone wants to get their hands on a concealable weapon that bad they will do, you could make them illegal but there is that many floating about in circulation.
are you saying that you used to take a gun into college?
 
*The_West* said:
you know what, i actually agree with this statement,im starting to see what some of you are saying, i guess if someone wants to get their hands on a concealable weapon that bad they will do, you could make them illegal but there is that many floating about in circulation.
are you saying that you used to take a gun into college?

Nah, didnt even own one until after colllege. While in college, my roommate (actually he was an ''old roommate'') got murdered by two 18 year old black kids while he was working. The irony was that he was weeks from being shipped off to Afghanistan as an infantryman.

Thinking back on that, I had a paradigm shift in my thinking at that point. I realized that criminals will always be armed, no matter how small the crime. Even if they arent armed, you have to treat them as such... because the first time you dont you're going to be blown the fuck away by some degenerate with an illegally acquired pistol.

I've taken it upon myself to educate most everyone I know about responsible firearm ownership. I took an ef member from Denver to a local range when he had never shot a pistol, to educate him about firearms. Every girl I've dated, even some just female friends have been to a local range with me on ''ladies night'' where it's free for wimminz to shoot. I always try to educate people on how to properly handle a pistol.

Mountain Muscle is a helluva shot, and also a good guy. Him and I have shot at this same range before.

Responsible gun owners are a force to be reckoned with, and for the most part a group of law abiding citizens who enjoy a sport with a long tradition.
 
so what can be done to prevent further college massacres? because its going to happen again. i know iv already said you cant just make hanguns illegal, as there are too many in circulation, but they are illegal here and we dont get people walking into schools/colleges and pumping round after round into innocent people. in 21 years i can only recall anything similar to that happening once in england.
 
juiceddreadlocks said:
Nah, didnt even own one until after colllege. While in college, my roommate (actually he was an ''old roommate'') got murdered by two 18 year old black kids while he was working. The irony was that he was weeks from being shipped off to Afghanistan as an infantryman.

Thinking back on that, I had a paradigm shift in my thinking at that point. I realized that criminals will always be armed, no matter how small the crime. Even if they arent armed, you have to treat them as such... because the first time you dont you're going to be blown the fuck away by some degenerate with an illegally acquired pistol.

I've taken it upon myself to educate most everyone I know about responsible firearm ownership. I took an ef member from Denver to a local range when he had never shot a pistol, to educate him about firearms. Every girl I've dated, even some just female friends have been to a local range with me on ''ladies night'' where it's free for wimminz to shoot. I always try to educate people on how to properly handle a pistol.

Mountain Muscle is a helluva shot, and also a good guy. Him and I have shot at this same range before.

Responsible gun owners are a force to be reckoned with, and for the most part a group of law abiding citizens who enjoy a sport with a long tradition.


Tomorrow around noon do you want to head up to some of the rigs? We can grab a bite on the way and head back to the Firing Line after.
 
mountain muscle said:
Tomorrow around noon do you want to head up to some of the rigs? We can grab a bite on the way and head back to the Firing Line after.

Not to invite myself, but if ya got room... count me in, you bitches. I'm lookin to get a job in the patches as well.




:beer:
 
mountain muscle said:
It is going to take some work. Fast-holing in the DJ will be a shock to you at first but a good education.

I've spent some time in, and worked with coal-bed methane patches quite a bit, but not oil patches. Should be interesting.



:beer:
 
beefcake28 said:
I've spent some time in, and worked with coal-bed methane patches quite a bit, but not oil patches. Should be interesting.



:beer:


All the drilling in the DJ is for gas. 7k+ feet in 4 days. You won't even mud up until 1k before td or so.
 
mountain muscle said:
All the drilling in the DJ is for gas. 7k+ feet in 4 days. You won't even mud up until 1k before td or so.

That deep? They were fracking at a couple thousand feet or so with the rigs I was working with up in Wyoming... Well, that's what they told me anyways (I was just the chemist dealing with the water treatment). I know it was shallow as hell. Damn.




:beer:
 
Top Bottom