<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Combs @ Apr 12 2007, 10:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I figured you would be. Read slower, it might help :happy0144: .And Canada is full of gangs if you didn't know it. Toronto..Winnepeg, Edmonton...Yeah...They just don't kill people at the rate we do.</div> Oh give me a break. Your comparing inner-city Canada to inner-city USA? Are you serious? That's like comparing and VW Bug to an H2 Hummer. We have some of the most violent gangs in the world in this country. Canada doesn't have thousands of MS-13 members ruling the streets like we have or the countless other South American gangs that have taken over parts of California and the Southwestern parts of the US. Canada doesn't have thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants crossing it's borders. Saying Canada has the same gang problems but they are just not as violent is completely ludacrious. I just think people that hate guns don't have experience with them. If I want a gun to hunt, practise with, defend myself with, I should be able to have one. It's easy for people to blame guns for our societies problems and blame guns for killing people. But guns aren't the problem. It's the people using them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Apr 12 2007, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I just think people that hate guns don't have experience with them. If I want a gun to hunt, practise with, defend myself with, I should be able to have one. It's easy for people to blame guns for our societies problems and blame guns for killing people. But guns aren't the problem. It's the people using them.</div>That is EXACTLY what it comes down to. Guns are portrayed by today's media that they are very bad. That hundreds of people die every day due to guns.There are about 252,000,000 guns in the U.SThere are approximately 29,500 guns deaths each year.Divide 252,000,000 and 29,500 you get 1.17%So 1 percent of all guns are used to kill. Take out suicides and self-defense, you get less than 1%.Is that reasonable evidence to take away all guns?
before people go harping on the "guns kill people" bandwagon they need to take a step back and look at history. The Murder rate in Rome during the pax-Romana was about equal to that of modern day New York city, yet there was no guns back then. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. it doesn't matter if they have a gun, a car, a knife, a Nuclear weapon, a rock, or a sharp stick; humans kill humans and have done so since the dawn of time. we're never going to be able to change that fact, yes Guns do allow for more collateral damage, but it's possible to create collateral damage with rocks.also, the people who use guns to injure people are mostly criminals to begin with, and they usually acquire their guns in an illegal way. so banning guns wouldn't really stop the violence, bad people who are hellbent on commiting crimes would still get guns illegally and would use them to commit crime. only their victims wouldn't be as well armed. Remember folks; freemen own guns, slaves dont.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Apr 12 2007, 08:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sorry if I'm confused, but I don't think Canada has one third of the United States poor black population, or one tenth our number of illegal aliens/gang members from South America....thats why Canada doesn't have our shooting death numbers.</div>canada has more poverty - lower median income - but not the culture of violence the US does.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Captain @ Apr 12 2007, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Is that enough to ban guns from the responsible people who have them? Just because it shows you are a coward?</div>The question is: Why do the responsible people need them? To protect themselves from others that have them? Pretty much. Thus your question isn't a good one.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Captain @ Apr 12 2007, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Guns cause crime like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.</div>Exactly and the problem is that Rosie O'Donnell is INEVITABLY going to use them spoons.And what the F*ck does canada have to do with any of this?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And what the F*ck does canada have to do with any of this?</div>external examples of similar societies with said law in place can give a projection of what the results will be if it is put into place.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Apr 13 2007, 01:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The question is: Why do the responsible people need them? To protect themselves from others that have them? Pretty much. Thus your question isn't a good one.</div>*Sigh*I guess it just comes down to if you own a gun and have shot one before. I can't expect you to know I guess.And that's how it should be - YOU are responsible for yor safety and security, and no one else.Which is why your right to arms is guaranteed to be free from infringement by the Constitution. If someone breaks into my house, even without a gun, he's going down. I'm not going to rely on the police who might not get there for another 10 minutes. I'm going to protect me and my family from harm. If you think that is such a bad idea, and that makes me a gun-slinging hick who just wants to go shoot cans in his backyard...Next you're going to say "What if he just wants to steal your TV? What if he might not hurt you?"I'm not going to take any chances. I'm not going to walk up to him and say, "Hey, are you just going to take my stuff, or are you going to kill me/my wife/my children?"If someone has the guts to break into someone's house, they entering at their own risk. I'm not going to show someone who possibly could harm me or someone I love any mercy.
Here's another angle to this for the liberals who are arguing it should be banned (of which I am one) to ponder: Shouldn't people have guns to protect themselves if/when the government decides to make it a police state and rub out the dissenters?
I was just thinking. Could you imagine the reactions if the government decided to ban all guns and issued a buyback from owners?There would be riots, federal officers being killed left and right collecting, people would absolutely go nuts.Would you want to be a government worker going to a house in Texas to take their guns away? Just another reason why a gun ban wouldn't work.Also, look at all of the countries in history who have had a gun ban.Nazi Germany, Communist China, The Soviet Union, North Korea, ect.Like Redneck said, free men own guns, slaves and people under Communist rule don't.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I was just thinking. Could you imagine the reactions if the government decided to ban all guns and issued a buyback from owners?</div>The south will rise again! seriously, the southern and western states would rebel. Hunting brings so much money to states like Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Neveda that if guns were banned those states would lose billions. also, the federal government couldn't afford to buy back all the guns in the US at their fair price. I've heard there is over 1/2 a billion guns in this country, and the average gun sales for about 250 dollars. that would cost the 1.25 trillion dollars at a minimum. this is not talking about the price historical guns out there, were some guns can go for 10 million dollars a piece. The second amendment doesn't just give us the right to own guns, crossbows, private figher jets, private artilliary, flamethrowers, swords, daggers, rockets and rocket launchers, catapults ect would all have to be purchased by the fed government. The cost would be astronomical. The government would have to pass an amendment banning the 4th amendment first, so then the government could come in and search you without a warrent. than once the government has the guns whats to stop them from turing this into police state?
Hunting is HUGE in our culture down here....I, and just about everybody I know, would seriously be pissed about it. I LOVE hunting, its very big down here... -"Guns don't kill people. The Government does."He has it all figured out...hes my role model...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The government would have to pass an amendment banning the 4th amendment first, so then the government could come in and search you without a warrent. than once the government has the guns whats to stop them from turing this into police state?</div>they already can search you without a warrant.....
not in your house. If your driving and they pull you over they can or anything like that. But its completely illegal for them too search your personal property(house, land etc.) without a warrant.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (austingriz @ Apr 13 2007, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>not in your house. If your driving and they pull you over they can or anything like that. But its completely illegal for them too search your personal property(house, land etc.) without a warrant.</div>yeah, but recent supreme court precedents have made things a lot more unclear. First there was the precedent last year that police could come into your house if they knocked. Feds also can come into your house if they have "sneak and peak" warrants from corrupt judges, which they don't have to show you (so as far as you know they can get in without a warrant)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Apr 13 2007, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The south will rise again! seriously, the southern and western states would rebel. Hunting brings so much money to states like Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Neveda that if guns were banned those states would lose billions. also, the federal government couldn't afford to buy back all the guns in the US at their fair price. I've heard there is over 1/2 a billion guns in this country, and the average gun sales for about 250 dollars. that would cost the 1.25 trillion dollars at a minimum. this is not talking about the price historical guns out there, were some guns can go for 10 million dollars a piece. The second amendment doesn't just give us the right to own guns, crossbows, private figher jets, private artilliary, flamethrowers, swords, daggers, rockets and rocket launchers, catapults ect would all have to be purchased by the fed government. The cost would be astronomical. The government would have to pass an amendment banning the 4th amendment first, so then the government could come in and search you without a warrent. than once the government has the guns whats to stop them from turing this into police state?</div>They could sell them off to another country though. :worthy:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Combs @ Apr 14 2007, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They could sell them off to another country though. :worthy:</div>Right, sell our weapons to a potential enemy. that way when they invade the US they can use our weapons against us. but I wouldn't be suprised because the government loves to sell our weapons to our enemies. ask Iran, Iraq,Lebanon, and Syria.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>yeah, but recent supreme court precedents have made things a lot more unclear. First there was the precedent last year that police could come into your house if they knocked. Feds also can come into your house if they have "sneak and peak" warrants from corrupt judges, which they don't have to show you (so as far as you know they can get in without a warrant)</div>The police/feds still need probable cause. without they can't search. also, it's always been if you invite the police into your home, and there is contraban in "plain and visible sight" than they don't need a warrant. the exception to this is firearms kept inside a glass gun cabinent.
I haven't read the whole thread but at the end of the day if you take guns away then there would be far less murders. You can still have guns for hunting and crack down on personal guns.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Captain @ Apr 15 2007, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So is this debate done? It was just getting good. </div> Well, Combs, aka, 'The Liberal Mommy' ducked out of the debate because we were killing him. :winkglasses:
