SeventhSeal17
Junior CNV Member
Featured CNV Contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by SeventhSeal17 on May 13, 2007 22:13:04 GMT -5
Ok, what stance does everyone take on this hot issue? Personally, I own a .45 Tactical Smith and Wesson that could basically blow a hole in two feet of steel, so it goes without saying that I am staunch defender of gun rights. I feel that a gun, when used properly, can increase peace of mind and the saftey of your family. Besides, in the event that you find yourself needing a firearm, won't you be kicking yourself in the ass for trying to pass laws to make them illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Ceci on May 13, 2007 23:42:57 GMT -5
Just a Small Disclaimer: When discussing the right to own firearms, please do not describe any plans that would injure or kill anyone. Other than that, I think that we can have a civil discussion about the right to own fire-arms and the governmental stance on it. ----------------------------------------------------------- Otherwise, I am more of a pacifist. So, as I mentioned in the threads about the VT tragedy, I'm not a big proponent on gun ownership. However, I think that if people are responsible with their weapons, keep them out of the hands of minors, properly store them and teach their children to handle anger appropriately instead of violence, then fine.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeka on May 15, 2007 20:07:28 GMT -5
Ok, what stance does everyone take on this hot issue? Personally, I own a .45 Tactical Smith and Wesson that could basically blow a hole in two feet of steel, so it goes without saying that I am staunch defender of gun rights. I'm not a gun expert, but I find it hard to believe that your .45 can blow a hole in 2 feet of steel. Well, now that I think about it, you probably mean a nickel-sized hole through 2 feet of steel; my first impression was a 2 foot wide hole. But still, I find it hard to believe, but I'll check it out. But yeah, I definitely feel you on the "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" mentality. Don't have heat myself yet, but I have potnas that do. I'm just too broke to get a piece right now. The way things are going, I'm going to put a shotgun at the top of the list, followed by an assault rifle. Once the govt goes completely rogue, it's gonna be on like Donkey Kong, and it won't be pretty.
|
|
SeventhSeal17
Junior CNV Member
Featured CNV Contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by SeventhSeal17 on May 15, 2007 20:20:41 GMT -5
I was exercising a literary device known as "exaggeration", but it can penetrate 3 inch steel plating. Hardly matters though, as people aren't made of steel
|
|
|
Post by truthseeka on May 16, 2007 10:24:41 GMT -5
LIAR! j/k ;D I got ya now. And you're right, it doesn't matter, unless you're going against Steel (that was a great movie ). So, will you be handing over your .45 when they finally start confiscating guns? And what do you think about the UN's wish for a global gun ban?
|
|
SeventhSeal17
Junior CNV Member
Featured CNV Contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by SeventhSeal17 on May 16, 2007 16:28:40 GMT -5
As far as me handing over my gun in a confiscation, allow me to quote Mr. Joe Strummer:
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun
When the law break in How you gonna go? Shot down on the pavement Or waiting on death row
You can crush us You can bruise us But you'll have to answer to Oh, the guns of Brixton
And as for the proposed UN resolution to a global gun ban... my question is: Why can the military still have them? Are they not part of a "global initiative for safety"?
I spit on the UN and their idle foolishness.
In this world there are two kinds of people. Those with guns, and those without guns. It is obvious which one controls the other.
I refuse to be without.
|
|
|
Post by dcfusion on May 24, 2007 15:28:56 GMT -5
Personally, I don't think I could ever own a gun, but I do believe that U.S. citizens should have the right to own one.
I think the argument can be made that in areas with strict gun laws (for example, Washington D.C., where it is illegal to own a gun), law abiding citizens are unarmed while criminals walk the street armed to the teeth with semi-automatic weapons. And of course the criminals know that they can do whatever they wish because the 'law abiding citizen' will be unarmed and the police won't show up until after the crime has been committed.
But, what if law abiding citizens are armed? I think we can all agree that the 'criminals' will think twice before robbing a store, breaking into a persons home or trying to hi-jack a person's car.
They won't know if the person they are about to harm has a gun!
|
|
|
Post by gemwolf on May 29, 2007 2:21:14 GMT -5
But, what if law abiding citizens are armed? I think we can all agree that the 'criminals' will think twice before robbing a store, breaking into a persons home or trying to hi-jack a person's car. They won't know if the person they are about to harm has a gun! The problem with this is the criminals still do what they do - even with the risk of being shot themselves. To counter the chance of being shot, they shoot first. We see this a lot in South Africa. Crimes are violent, because criminals know their victims are armed. They shoot to kill before their victims have any chance to react. If "victims" are unarmed (because of "no guns laws"), criminals are less inclined to be violent. They have the power of the gun against an unarmed victim. Unarmed victims are less likely to fight back, therefore criminals are less likely to shoot. It's sick if you ask me.
|
|
SeventhSeal17
Junior CNV Member
Featured CNV Contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by SeventhSeal17 on May 29, 2007 8:14:06 GMT -5
I see where you are coming from, and that logic makes perfect sense. I have never been to South Africa, so I cannot say that I can relate to it all that much, though. However, I'd still like a fighting chance. Therefore, I'll take my chances with my firearm.
|
|
|
Post by gemwolf on May 30, 2007 2:05:01 GMT -5
I see where you are coming from, and that logic makes perfect sense. I have never been to South Africa, so I cannot say that I can relate to it all that much, though. However, I'd still like a fighting chance. Therefore, I'll take my chances with my firearm. Currently new gun laws are being implemented (in South Africa), which is very complex to describe to the fullest here, but it basically comes down to: Average Joe being disarmed, and criminals staying armed - because let's face it, they're not "law abiding citizens". While I know my way around a gun, I don't have one at the moment, and I doubt if I'll ever be able to kill anyone, even if it is in self-defence. A fair fight in my opinion is the situation in the UK. The best criminals can do is a short blade. And I'll take my chances against a short blade. Give the scum a beating, and everyone goes home happy. ;D (Or something like that... )
|
|