That is very unrealistic. It is difficult enough to get the political will to pass contentious state or federal laws. Good luck with trying to make a constitutional change.
-
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
That is very unrealistic. It is difficult enough to get the political will to pass contentious state or federal laws. Good luck with trying to make a constitutional change.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
There are those who live in Northern Ireland who would disagree with that statement most vehemently. It's all a matter of perspective really.
The US has supported both Jordan and Egypt in the past and considered Mubarak an ally at one point until he became hugely unpopular in his own country and it was no longer politically feasible to support him.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
They would, however, be wrong. The London government was wrong not to interfere enough in the runnings of the Northern Irish state, but then again, why should they? Once the Troubles flaired up London did a decent job, the problem was with the Unionist community in NI, not the British. The British were the ones who subsidised the state and brought about the main positive changes there (Welfare state post-WWII etc).
Yeah I am simply saying that these countries do deserve support. Unfortunately other countries do end up being somewhat neglected on the other hand (90s Afghanistan springs to mind).
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
My point being that it is all about perspective.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Ah of course, but one can't real compare the two countries and actually say that they are equally 'bad' without using biased sources and doing an overall shitty report.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
As I said, it's entirely a matter of perspective. Certainly the US doesn't view the UK as any sort of oppressive regime. Northern Ireland would disagree with that assessment. The US also views Israel as an important and loyal ally in the Middle East. The UK would seem to differ on that. It's a matter of perspective.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
But, it really isn't. The vast majority of Northern Irish citizens wish to remain in the UK, and for good reason. You are mistaking the British government for the Unionist administration.
Chris Rock has the right idea;
“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody got shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... S**t, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”
I edited for a PG rating.
“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody got shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... S**t, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”
I edited for a PG rating.
:congrats:Arrgh!
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
It's really a dumb idea since bullets are nothing more than chunks of lead and/or other metals and lead is not only cheap, but easy to get. It would not be difficult at all to melt your own bullets and create your own. People re-load their own shotgun shells all the time. Let's not forget that you're essentially saying the feds can dictate the price of an item and tell businesses that they must sell it for X when the market would dictate otherwise. I'm sure businesses wouldn't mind because suddenly they're making outrageous profits and no one is allowed to compete with them.
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
The feds would NEVER do that .... nor would they ever make us buy a product or service in the first place ...
Oops ... that one is now law
(sorry ... i'm not trying to change the subject)
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Primers might be a problem. Reloading with homemade this and that is one thing . . . primers are likely still needed and you likely cannot make them. What do we do if primers go away?
This is why I suggest keeping your nail gun ready at all times.
sntaylor
Android Expert
I still gotta ask as I've never had an answer....
Has anyone on here actually had to use a gun to protect themselves? Shot someone in doing so?
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I've been driving for 15 years. Not once has a seatbelt saved my life. I still wear one.
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
And I've gotta ask .... has anyone ever gone target shooting for fun???
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
It is better to have one and not need one, than to need one and not have it.
How often do you drive a vehicle that has no airbags? Have you ever been in an accident and needed them to save your life?
sntaylor
Android Expert
So going by my asking twice before and finally getting what can only be read as no for answers I'm guessing no one would know what it feels like to kill someone, to live with that thought, the what ifs the persons family etc!
Obviously it'd be different if someone was shooting at you in the first place, but even thenit'd still be hard! And accidents can easily happen, if Oscar pritorius is found to be telling the truth.....
Personally I find it sad that so many people have to live with that fear if I felt I had to have protection in my own home, I'd move! Of course anything COULD happen, but why live life worrying!
Obviously it'd be different if someone was shooting at you in the first place, but even thenit'd still be hard! And accidents can easily happen, if Oscar pritorius is found to be telling the truth.....
Personally I find it sad that so many people have to live with that fear if I felt I had to have protection in my own home, I'd move! Of course anything COULD happen, but why live life worrying!
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I don't feel I need protection in my own home personally. I've never quite understood people who do either, but that's just me. To me a lot of those people are just paranoid, but that's not a crime and it harms no one in this case. C'est le vie.
sntaylor
Android Expert
I just did a quick search and I don't know the validity of the stats in this page but its quite interesting particularly if true!
www.asecurelife.com/burglary-statistics
The USA has the highest burglary rate worldwide so clearly owning a gun doesn't put the criminals off, actually it is probably the opposite as guns are one of the items targeted in the robbery!
but I thought having a gun was supposed to ward off potential criminals!?!
www.asecurelife.com/burglary-statistics
The USA has the highest burglary rate worldwide so clearly owning a gun doesn't put the criminals off, actually it is probably the opposite as guns are one of the items targeted in the robbery!
but I thought having a gun was supposed to ward off potential criminals!?!
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
I personally have not, but I can guarantee that the regret or grief I would feel shooting someone to defend my family would be no where near as great as the regret I would feel if I could not protect them if I needed to.
JohnLaird
Well-Known Member
Kind of a null statement...guns aren't meant for bluffing or intimidation. That causes all kinds of problems. One of the fundamental rules is that you never point a gun at something or someone you aren't ready to shoot (and destroy). As a civilian I'm not going to try to ward off or scare someone who breaks into my home or otherwise clearly threatens my life. I'm going to shoot them. And keep shooting until they no longer present a threat to my life. Brandishing (or trying to "ward them off") and not following up shows to them that you are not ready to take that step...which puts me in a much worse position then I would be in if I never drew and just ran.
copestag
Android Expert
thats the 2nd time Ive heard that ridiculous statement... dunno if it was you or who said it the first time..... too lazy to go look
you do realize that people leave their houses right? burglars, though not always, typically target unoccupied homes
does your report say how many times a burglary occurred while the gun owning homeowner was home? Id be willing to bet that number is pretty low
just so youre aware....... despite containing tons of money and drugs...... thieves dont usually target the evidence lockers at police stations either
On March 30, 1989, Bill Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:
"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."
William B. Ruger
Ruger was the founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., a major gun manufacturer including the Mini-14.
"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."
William B. Ruger
Ruger was the founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., a major gun manufacturer including the Mini-14.