ItnStln511
Android Enthusiast
Is it gonna be pro-gunners vs anti-gunners?? That would be a sight
He basically said that it'll be the givers versus the takers.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
The Gun Law Discussion
- Thread starter Speed Daemon
- Start date
He basically said that it'll be the givers versus the takers.
BRAINZ2013
Extreme Android User
Hey its all good if you want or need . Just make sure you have a permit and make sure your town or city has a open permit which will allow you to wear or carry anywhere . Be like my credit cards DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
The FBI statistics agree with you and they say that overall, violence has steadily increased over the last few decades. A school shooting comes along and suddenly, we are too violent.
I take far more comfort in the statistics than a liberal and ever so crazy "press."
pbf98
Android Expert
But the people don't take time to look at the stats themselves, they want to get their facts from biased news outlets, and then don't realize that what they are hearing is biased and not the straight facts that show all..
Most people will believe anything they hear on the news, and won't even question the "facts" they hear.
Most people will believe anything they hear on the news, and won't even question the "facts" they hear.
ItnStln511
Android Enthusiast
Precisely!
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
I'm sure everyone in London today sure was happy they are gun free when a Terrorist beheads someone in the middle of the street in broad daylight using a knife and meat cleaver. Guess the only logical thing to do is ban all knives in England so evil people can't go around beheading innocent people like that!
You can't say that the NRA is unbiased, especially when they will say they want one thing but when they are given what they want they say they have a problem with something else. I agree that some Democrats will ask for some outrageous things,but the NRA is the same way. Just like a few years ago the NRA said they "supported" universal background checks, but now that President Obama asks for them they don't support it, I just wished they were consistent with their demands
gsullivan90
Lurker
They have laws on drugs too and people still use them...... Just because people are going to break the law doesn't mean you shouldn't have laws. BTW look up gun related murders in the u.s. versus pretty much any other country with regulations on guns. It speaks for itself
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Hmmm . . . we should have laws, you are right. And we do. One of the best is the supreme law of the land. My favorites are the first amendment, the second, and all the rest.
Now, if only our leaders would just read it and follow them.
We have freedoms and guarantess other countries do not have. We have more guns as well. And the crime rate has been decreasing over the years, so do not give up. We are not as violent a country as many believe.
One terrible event and everyone thinks we are too violent. The FACTS do not bear this out and the facts should provide some measure of comfort.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
People only seem to care when something directly affects them. Then it becomes concrete and their POV changes.
I have friends that have been changed because something unspeakable happened. I have seen pacifists become hard line "hang 'em from the rafters" kinds of people. I have seen gun haters get carry permits.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
My friend . . . It would take a monumental event to launch a civil war. I really cannot see what would need to happen or who would end up fighting who. Perhaps you mean the government against us?
There could be a war or two, of sorts, along the way, until the alien overloards sieze final control, perhaps; a few small battles here and there, but not a civil war.
If you know anything about the American Civil War, you will know just how damaging it was. Brother against brother. We never want to see that again.
What I DO wonder about is something like Hitler's SS and the Nazi Youth Movement, for example. Social Media can influence and there are some smart social engineerrs that could do some very scary things.
In those dark days, the HJ taught the children to tell on their parents. So I can see how social media could be used to rat out certain behaviours. Too scary to think about and OK, I am not sure it will happen.
Again.
The problem with little battles is they strengthen the anti-gun people's cause(s) and weaken ours. Especially when spun all about.
I have listened to the "professors" telling us a race war is just around the corner and it has not happened yet. Just little battles here and there, like Chicago, back in 1968. Not to mention, the Assassination of Julius Ceasar in in 44 BC.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
And then the two guys would have guns. Instead one tried to fire an ancient one and blew his finger off. Gun control in action
sntaylor
Android Expert
Had there been people watching with guns, it would have made no difference other than there being more dead people in the street, the soldier attacked would still have been killed but as ninja says, these maniacs would have more likely had guns instead, most probably killed many more people!
At least now, we are able to prosecute the evil "dad less person"!
ItnStln511
Android Enthusiast
You must worry about a country where the cops aren
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
What a shock, a disarmed country now wants their guns back since a soldier got beheaded in the street in the middle of the day! Unfortunately for them I don't see it happening. I don't fully know the political climate in the UK, but I know it would take a very morally strong government that cares more about individual freedom than government power.
Britain wants its guns back!
Britain wants its guns back!
sntaylor
Android Expert
Really? First link you put up a while ago was about a group of Fox hunters who stated they'd like guns back....these people enjoy chasing an animal with a pack of dogs to tear it apart while they watch on horses! Need I say more....oh wait it was about ten years old!
Now this link is of a papers online poll, which doesn't require a log in, and even allows you to vote more than once if you wish(try it, vote, come out, go back in, vote again!), the paper being nick named the torygraph and read primarily by the same people who want Fox hunting allowed! The poll itself is pointless, taken from a wide variety of subjects suggested by readers.....what do you want, be able to defend yourself or so people spitting? Not exactly a poll giving the option of do you want guns or not. And the fact that less than 16000 people have voted(some possibly more than once, whilst others possibly not even British or resident here!) So 85% of Less than 0.02% of the British and possibly other nations, want guns vs people spitting or having a flat rate tax!
Great link thanks
On another note, the incident with the "terrorist attack"on Lee Rigby, was done in a situation where having a gun would not have helped him, others around may have been able to shoot them, but other people would have been caught up in the line of fire. The police on the other hand, when they arrived, did end up shooting them, but didn't kill them allowing information to other people involved(wouldn't have happened if members of public shot them) leading to ten arrests and they can be served justice!
PrinceCorwin
Android Expert
Ben Franklin said it best...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And I can't wait for all the comments that focus on the word "temporary" by saying that his quote doesn't apply to gun control because gun control provides permanant safety. Ya think so?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And I can't wait for all the comments that focus on the word "temporary" by saying that his quote doesn't apply to gun control because gun control provides permanant safety. Ya think so?
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
That has already been disproven by facts. If it were true Chicago would be the safest city in America instead of one of the most dangerous. And with gun ownership steadily rising every year (until the past year where it is skyrocketing) violent crime and homicide have been steadily declining and are down almost 40% in the last 18 years: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
The facts are clear. More guns in the hands of law abiding, responsible people is a clear deterrent to violent crime. It is logical. Is raping a woman or robbing someone worth it if there is a good chance of dying in the process? No, which is why more guns = less crime.
The police normally can only get to someone's house in time to investigate, they can't actually stop a crime. This case has been all over the news the last few days. This woman was raped because she called 911 and the soonest an officer could respond was the next day: 911 tape: Woman raped because there are no police available - YouTube
In the great city of Chicago police have openly stated they are not going to respond to all 911 calls, one of the things they will not respond to is robbery!! Free pass to criminals when people are unarmed: CHICAGO POLICE NOT RESPONDING TO 911 CALLS ANYMORE - YouTube
Its not its just what gun lobbyists are saying to vilify Obama and scare people into fighting gun control
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
How many times in the last 6 months have democrats been caught with hot mic's saying the end goal is confiscation? Are you really foolish enough to think they want to ban semi automatic rifles, but are perfectly ok with letting everyone keep them? They are trying to take baby steps because if they just came out and started trying to take people's gun it would be instant war. I know I will NEVER surrender a single gun I own.
Look at CA and NY for example where they are already actively confiscating guns, and don't try to say it is only from criminals that are not allowed to possess one.
I asked a question first of all, please don't question if I am foolish or not. Second, I'd like a link, where it is stated. Just curious is all. Surely if many people are proclaiming that "Obama won't take my guns away" there is factual basis to do so. That's all I was looking for. Clarification please.
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
I apologize if I jumped to conclusions. It really bothers me when people support taking my rights away and actively choose to remain ignorant and ignore facts. This shouldn't even be an issue, but it is and it is very offensive to the 100,000,000+ responsible gun owners in this country. Thank you for seeking information to educate yourself more on the topic.
Just google hot mic and confiscation, you will see plenty of links. Same for stories of gun confiscation.
If you want to see articles about that insane stuff all the time follow the NRA, NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights), Guns Save Lives, and the USCCA (US Concealed Carry Association) on Facebook or twitter just to name a few that I follow to stay up to date.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Very few politicians will openly say they want to confiscate your guns. This is how they ensure they will not be reelected. That said, I know things have changed since my first gun in 1965 or so. I remember when a teen could buy a gun from the department store along with ammo and nobody thought anything of it.
If a kid even draws a picture of someone holding a gun, they are sent away for treatment and the public goes nuts.
They might not be overtly trying to rid us of guns, but behind the scenes, things are very different and the goals are clear. NO GUNS!
jayjay1122
Android Expert
And to further Bob's point, listen very carefully to the people who support anti gun politicians, the people who have nothing to lose, politically. They are quite clear and emphatic in what they say...NO GUNS!!
What is disgusting about that is those same people (Hollywood) make absurd amounts of money, glorifying guns and gun violence in their movies! Are you listening Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, George Clooney, Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Daniel Craig, etc, etc, etc....?