How many are buying before the coming gun control?

[snowdog]

Man I wish guns were legal here. I would had bought a pistol a long time ago.

 

[speakeasy]

I don't know some people like rifles. After they're banned you won't be able to buy even one new. They might even ban Glocks, who knows. But they'll for sure ban magazines with full capacity. It's kind of like the gov putting an 85 mph governor on sports cars, "because no one needs it..", or you have a 1st admendment right "but (now) you can't say x,y and z because of yadda yadda" if you catch my drift. The point is there will be bans, regulations and taxes and who knows what they will be. My personal opinion is guns are regulated enough as it is just leave it alone. And rights are being infringed on because no one "needs" rights..

Nobody is going to ban guns. It would be pointless. And it would be about as effective as banning drugs. Despite the war on drugs that's been going on for decades, I could get any drug I wanted if I wanted it within 15 minutes. It would be no different with guns if they were banned.

 

[user43770]

Nobody is going to ban guns. It would be pointless. And it would be about as effective as banning drugs. Despite the war on drugs that's been going on for decades, I could get any drug I wanted if I wanted it within 15 minutes. It would be no different with guns if they were banned.

There is an estimated 300,000,000 guns in America. So yes, it would be pointless to ban guns. These guys are talking about the democrats banning the sale of assault rifles.

By the way, you guys might want to buy sound suppressors while you can, as well.

 

[Bible_Belt]

In my small town last week, a woman got raped by an intruder. A few days later, he bailed out of jail, kicked in a basement window at her house, then went upstairs to rape her again...and she blew his fvcking head off with a 12 gauge shotgun.

Guns *do* kill people, but sometimes it is the right people. :rockon:

 

[Aragon034]

There is an estimated 300,000,000 guns in America. So yes, it would be pointless to ban guns. These guys are talking about the democrats banning the sale of assault rifles.

By the way, you guys might want to buy sound suppressors while you can, as well.

They're relatively easy to make if you have access to a home depot. a higher quality long lasting one would require a lathe and a drill press.

uhh not that i've ever done it I just "happen" to know the science behind it as well as a few other goodies

In my small town last week, a woman got raped by an intruder. A few days later, he bailed out of jail, kicked in a basement window at her house, then went upstairs to rape her again...and she blew his fvcking head off with a 12 gauge shotgun.

Guns *do* kill people, but sometimes it is the right people. :rockon:

More often than not i'd say. How many drug dealers get killed that we never hear about? Guns will always be a part of the criminal element, so why should we give them the advantage of our "morally superior" thinking and get rid of ours?

BTW, depending on what kind of ammo she had (i'm betting double ought 6 or 8) they'd likely have to pick his head up with a sponge.

People don't realise just how POWERFUL guns can be, and since they don't understand them, they fear them. (at least paritally)

 

[ketostix]

Nobody is going to ban guns. It would be pointless. And it would be about as effective as banning drugs. Despite the war on drugs that's been going on for decades, I could get any drug I wanted if I wanted it within 15 minutes. It would be no different with guns if they were banned.

Except gun owners are only excercising their 2nd amendment right and they generally try to follow the law unlike drug users and dealers. Besides how fun is it being busted for drugs? Probably not any worse than being busted by the ATF for excersing what was once a constitutional right.

They will most likely try to ban many types of guns. The Dems did it in '94 and this time it would probably be worse. most likely there'll be bans on "assualt" rifles, magazine capacity, and on any "evil" features on the gun such as a folding stock, and taxes on ammo and just regulations, taxes and red tape in general that will put some of the indusstry out of business. Maybe even some ATF raids a la Clinton admin. Who knows how far they will go with it.

My view is the new administration can tax and regulate Wall St. but shouldn't tax and regulate and ban individuals exercising the 2nd amendment. It's not even really about guns. It's about individual rights and all that is associated with freedome from gov.

In my small town last week, a woman got raped by an intruder. A few days later, he bailed out of jail, kicked in a basement window at her house, then went upstairs to rape her again...and she blew his fvcking head off with a 12 gauge shotgun.

Guns *do* kill people, but sometimes it is the right people. :rockon:

I read about that in the news the other day. The news story that I read was that he had cut her power and her phone didn't work. She fired as he came breaking through the door and went to the neighbors to call police. when they arrived they found him stumbling away from her house and he died later at the hospital. Turns out he has a previous conviction for a sex crime. If she hadn't had the gun she would've most likely been raped again and who knows what.

I didn't know it was in your home town B-B. or that it was a 12 guage. She probably had birdshot ammo because I doubt anyone could stumble away from say 00 buckshot from a 12 guage.

 

[Flabbergasped?]

This thread appalls me.

I'll say right now, I'm the most gun control person ever, so I have an obvious bias. But seriously, are you guys reading what you post on here?

When the second amendment was conceived, weapons that could kill masses of people didn't exist. The idea behind the amendment was always personal safety and responsibility with firearms, which is why there's no problem with having a handgun in your house/person if you want to protect yourself.

Assault rifles are for injuring masses of people. Unless you think a mob is going to attack your house, why the fvck do you need an assault weapon?

And to the argument that a black market will open up, that's the biggest crock I've ever heard. So should we stop regulating cocaine because there's a black market for it? The whole idea behind regulation is to make something less available. Buying a gun off the black market is definitely less convenient for a guy thinking about gunning down a mall than your neighborhood assault rifle dealer. Even if this inconvenience is trivial, it's worth it as long as it reduces his ability to get his hands on a weapon designed to inflict as much punishment to as many people as possible.

If you want safety, get a handgun, learn to use it, and you should be fine.

 

[ketostix]

This thread appalls me.

I'll say right now, I'm the most gun control person ever, so I have an obvious bias. But seriously, are you guys reading what you post on here?

When the second amendment was conceived, weapons that could kill masses of people didn't exist. The idea behind the amendment was always personal safety and responsibility with firearms, which is why there's no problem with having a handgun in your house/person if you want to protect yourself.

That's a baseless argument really. The 2nd amendment gave the right to have arms that were on par with anything the government or military had at the time. watering it down to only semi-automatic rifles is far enough as it is. The 2nd amendment doesn't mean you can only own muskeets. using that logic the 1st amendment meant you can only say x,y or z, but not a through w. If you can't trust sane law abiding Americans with a 2nd amendement right you can't trust them with a 1st amendment right either. Don't you see the slippery slope you are on?

Assault rifles are for injuring masses of people. Unless you think a mob is going to attack your house, why the fvck do you need an assault weapon?

Sports cars are for going fast. Speed kills. Why does anyone need a car that can go over 80 mph. Put speed governors on all cars, taxes sports cars, make buyers take special driving classes, etc! Same thing.

If you want safety, get a handgun, learn to use it, and you should be fine.

A handgun is just as effective at "injuring a lot of people" as an "assualt" rifle. Ban it too !

 

[In Motion]

God you people disgust me. The amendment was made in a time where your country was still a baby and where civil war could break out at any time, as well as invasions from other countries. That is why everyone could have a weapon so that every able bodied man could fight for their country in case of riots, wars and disruptions. Now, its only an excuse for legally owning a weapon.

Why the HELL would you need an assault rifle capable of killing 100s of people? Are you afraid of a ****ING zombie invasion? I dont give a **** whether or not you want them as collectibles, get ****ing replicas. B_B posted a story of a woman taking the law into her own hands and ended up killing a man. Even if he was a rapist it doesnt justify that a civilian did the job of a policeman, this is a modern world, not ****ing biblical times you barbarians.

Argument of self defense: **** THAT. Persecuting criminals is the job of the police, in NO CASE should a civilian even try to injure, kill or take the law into their own hands. You want to defend yourself against burglars, rapists, muggers? Get a ****ing tazer, it will disable whoever is attacking you until the cops are there, so THEY can do their job.

Do you know how many civilian casualties this amendment has caused? Just on haloween some retard shot an innocent kid with a legally purchased gun. A few weeks ago some retarded dad let his little kid hold and fire an UZI at a weapons fair. The kid wasnt strong enough for the recoil and shot himself in the head. Or how about those guys from virginia tech who murdered their classmates and teachers with legally purchased guns? Oh yeah, thats great guys.

Yeah you know what, Im gonna stock up, im gonna get 6 gattling guns which i will mount on every window of my house, an antiaircraft machine gun, 6 rpgs incase someone rapes me from a helicopter and enough assaultrifles to take down the entire israeli army.


Ketostix:
Is a handgun capable of shooting 60 bullets in a matter of seconds? NO.
Does a handgun have a magazine capacity of 60 bullets? NO.
Is a handgun fully automatic? NO.
Does a handgun have even remotely the same ammo as an assault rifle? NO.

You arguably have the worst arguments of this century.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

God you people disgust me. The amendment was made in a time where your country was still a baby and where civil war could break out at any time, as well as invasions from other countries. That is why everyone could have a weapon so that every able bodied man could fight for their country in case of riots, wars and disruptions. Now, its only an excuse for legally owning a weapon.

Why the HELL would you need an assault rifle capable of killing 100s of people? Are you afraid of a ****ING zombie invasion? I dont give a **** whether or not you want them as collectibles, get ****ing replicas. B_B posted a story of a woman taking the law into her own hands and ended up killing a man. Even if he was a rapist it doesnt justify that a civilian did the job of a policeman, this is a modern world, not ****ing biblical times you barbarians.

Argument of self defense: **** THAT. Persecuting criminals is the job of the police, in NO CASE should a civilian even try to injure, kill or take the law into their own hands. You want to defend yourself against burglars, rapists, muggers? Get a ****ing tazer, it will disable whoever is attacking you until the cops are there, so THEY can do their job.

Do you know how many civilian casualties this amendment has caused? Just on haloween some retard shot an innocent kid with a legally purchased gun. A few weeks ago some retarded dad let his little kid hold and fire an UZI at a weapons fair. The kid wasnt strong enough for the recoil and shot himself in the head. Or how about those guys from virginia tech who murdered their classmates and teachers with legally purchased guns? Oh yeah, thats great guys.

Yeah you know what, Im gonna stock up, im gonna get 6 gattling guns which i will mount on every window of my house, an antiaircraft machine gun, 6 rpgs incase someone rapes me from a helicopter and enough assaultrifles to take down the entire israeli army.


Ketostix:
Is a handgun capable of shooting 60 bullets in a matter of seconds? NO.
Does a handgun have a magazine capacity of 60 bullets? NO.
Is a handgun fully automatic? NO.
Does a handgun have even remotely the same ammo as an assault rifle? NO.

You arguably have the worst arguments of this century.

I just have one question.

You say that lady didn't have a right to kill that raper.
Are you suggesting she should have let him rape her and THEN call the police when he was through?


A few months back in my home city a group of guys broke into a family's house. They tied every one up and where going to murder/rape the family. The only thing that stopped them was the father managed to get free and get to his gun. He killed one and injured the other who was later picked up by police.

Do you think he should have not killed the one and just let the police come and pick up the mess after his familiy had been raped and killed?

What if it was your family?

This isn't biblical times. But people are still just as sick and barbaric and brutal.

And pleae In Motion, I would like a serious reply.

 

[PRMoon]

I just bought three desert eagles from this guy for 800 dollars! I got 2 .33's and a .45! Kinda pissed he didn't have a 50cal but dems the the brakes. I had to go to the police station with the guy to have them signed over to to me and now I'm one dangerous mother f*cker lol! Not really but I have a nickel plated .33 DE next to my bed! The matte black .45 is in my tactical vest holster. I love it!

 

[In Motion]

I just have one question.

You say that lady didn't have a right to kill that raper.
Are you suggesting she should have let him rape her and THEN call the police when he was through?

Like I said, if she had kept a tazer instead of a bloody shotgun she would have immobilized the rapist, had the chance to tie him up/secure him until the police got there so they could do their job.

That other scenario: There are a number of things I'd like to point out here.
1: When they broke into the house, they were most likely only interested in stealing their stuff. Not killing them, since that would make no sense at all.
2. Why would they rape/kill the family? No logic there at all.
3. The fact that the dad actually tried to resist is something that actually MIGHT trigger the criminals to injure or even kill him. He was just plain lucky that he didnt get hurt. Dont be a hero
4. This situation could EASILY have been avoided with a nice alarm system and non lethal weapons, leading to no lives being lost, and the criminals could have had a proper trial and a proper punishment.

 

[user43770]

Like I said, if she had kept a tazer instead of a bloody shotgun she would have immobilized the rapist, had the chance to tie him up/secure him until the police got there so they could do their job.

That other scenario: There are a number of things I'd like to point out here.
1: When they broke into the house, they were most likely only interested in stealing their stuff. Not killing them, since that would make no sense at all.
2. Why would they rape/kill the family? No logic there at all.
3. The fact that the dad actually tried to resist is something that actually MIGHT trigger the criminals to injure or even kill him. He was just plain lucky that he didnt get hurt. Dont be a hero
4. This situation could EASILY have been avoided with a nice alarm system and non lethal weapons, leading to no lives being lost, and the criminals could have had a proper trial and a proper punishment.

First of all, if they broke in knowing people were home they obviously had intentions of being violent. If they didn't, they would have broke in mid-day week day.

Second, do you know anything about stun guns? You do know that you have to be in close range to use it, right? Yeah, a 200 pound guy vs. some 120 pound lady with a stun gun...sounds even to me. What if he had a gun?

Do some research, kid. States with right to carry laws have all seen a decrease in violent crimes. Criminals are less likely to **** around if you might be armed.

Edit - Sorry if I came off offensive.

 

[j0n024]

Like I said, if she had kept a tazer instead of a bloody shotgun she would have immobilized the rapist, had the chance to tie him up/secure him until the police got there so they could do their job.

That other scenario: There are a number of things I'd like to point out here.
1: When they broke into the house, they were most likely only interested in stealing their stuff. Not killing them, since that would make no sense at all.
2. Why would they rape/kill the family? No logic there at all.
3. The fact that the dad actually tried to resist is something that actually MIGHT trigger the criminals to injure or even kill him. He was just plain lucky that he didnt get hurt. Dont be a hero
4. This situation could EASILY have been avoided with a nice alarm system and non lethal weapons, leading to no lives being lost, and the criminals could have had a proper trial and a proper punishment.

Wow like you said this isnt the MOVIES.

First a taser are you serious? You actually think the rapist would let the girl that is what 120lbs get close to him to taser him? NO he would have just overpowered her tasered HER and then raped her simple as that.

Then your list....I would have HATED to have you as my dad, you dont even have a backbone to protect your family if WE were tied up in the basment and the mom and sister were going to get raped...you would have just sat there like a fvcking moron.

Criminals go to jail and what they get a lawyer and then get out just to commit MORE crimes, it's unethical to even think of what kind of world your living in because that isnt the REAL world.

Now IF someone came into my home and was stealing **** , I would ask first to get the **** out of here and then maybe shot him (non lethal ) but if he OR she was fvcking with my wife or kid then I'm giving no quater and you should have known better then to bust into someones house and fvck with his family.

Oon Topic:

I was thinking about getting a Sig with the .50 cal bullets I think I am going to get 2 of them and have my parents hold and take care of them since they live in the farm land...but I am really thinking about trying to buy a Famas...and hell of a lot of ammo.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

Like I said, if she had kept a tazer instead of a bloody shotgun she would have immobilized the rapist, had the chance to tie him up/secure him until the police got there so they could do their job.

That other scenario: There are a number of things I'd like to point out here.
1: When they broke into the house, they were most likely only interested in stealing their stuff. Not killing them, since that would make no sense at all.
2. Why would they rape/kill the family? No logic there at all.
3. The fact that the dad actually tried to resist is something that actually MIGHT trigger the criminals to injure or even kill him. He was just plain lucky that he didnt get hurt. Dont be a hero
4. This situation could EASILY have been avoided with a nice alarm system and non lethal weapons, leading to no lives being lost, and the criminals could have had a proper trial and a proper punishment.

The other scenario happened in a poor part of town. Alarm systems are out of the question for 99% of these people who can't afford the extra few dollars a month.

The motives were clear. It happened to be a case of mistaken Identity (which was found out days later) where the intruding criminals thought they were going into a drug dealers house whom they had a vendetta against. It turned out to be an innocent family.

Either way, the logical thing is not to commit an armed intrusion. Logic doesn't apply to these situations any more than with women.

Non-lethal weapons are worthless in most cases. I've been through a non-lethal course and as such had to be subjected to them (Including chemicals but minus bean bag guns.) In almost all cases they will fail to immobolize a person and only serve to deter. Even most stun guns are not at all effective (speaking from experience.)

Tazers? okay. But you get one shot and you better hope you have only one assailant.

Self defense is an inaliable human right. I can agree with responding with like force but when a criminal delibrately tries to take your life then he has willfully put himself into a position where you are allowed to excercise your right to self defense.

He does not give you the choice to be a victim or not. To allow yourself to be killed because "it's not your job to uphold the law" is just crazy. If that's the way you feel then more power to you. But I would never sit buy and let my family be murdered or raped of tortured when I had the means to stop it.

 

[ketostix]

Like I said, if she had kept a tazer instead of a bloody shotgun she would have immobilized the rapist, had the chance to tie him up/secure him until the police got there so they could do their job.

I get it you're probably a limey (no offense to the sensible Brits on here). Dumbest thing England did was let the colonist keep their guns. You should keep your gun control opinions on that side of the pond .

But seriously even if you're not a Brit it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with gun control advocate. Their ideas are nuttier than the militia/survivalists types.There's just so many things you said that are off base. Ak's and Ar's are not fully automatic, they're rarely used in crimes especially against civilians, most terroristacts/mass killings are done by handguns and explosives which are illegal..

 

[BlakeW5]

B_B posted a story of a woman taking the law into her own hands and ended up killing a man. Even if he was a rapist it doesnt justify that a civilian did the job of a policeman, this is a modern world, not ****ing biblical times you barbarians.

Argument of self defense: **** THAT. Persecuting criminals is the job of the police, in NO CASE should a civilian even try to injure, kill or take the law into their own hands. You want to defend yourself against burglars, rapists, muggers? Get a ****ing tazer, it will disable whoever is attacking you until the cops are there, so THEY can do their job.

So B-B's story doesn't tell you anything? The guy had already been caught, got out, and went back to finish the job. The justice system failed! She had every right to do what she did. Instead you advocate that she once again become a victim and then trust the justice system to do their job right (this time around). She was completely justified in her actions. No one should have to fear physical assault/injury in their own home. If you can't feel safe at home where can you feel safe. You're right though, persecuting and catching criminals is the job of the police. It's the whole "stopping criminals" part that they suck at.

So don't use the "it isn't biblical times anymore" argument either. As progressive and civil as you think the modern world is there are still bad people out there intent to hurt others. Times may change but human nature doesn't.

FWIW, handguns kill just as effectively as any other gun, why not just ban them too?

But yeah, let's ban guns. Then only the criminals will have them. Genius idea!!!

 

[Corona]

"You know, if we had more guns, there'd be less shootings"

 

[Aragon034]

lol at the Tazers, most are one shot deals so if you miss, or there are more than one of them, you're screwed into a fist fight.

a stun gun isn't any better, most (civilian models) are somewhere around the range of 80k to 100k volts at 3mA.

anybody who knows electricity will realise that it might hurt like a mother for a second or two, but unless you get him in nads or throat, he's still coming at you. Sustained impact has a chance of killing him, and tbh you get used to the hit pretty fast once you're expecting it.

Some criminals might be detered by these things, but i can tell you personally, if i were threatened with either of those LTL weapons, i wouldn't be too scared, but if i even HEARD a gun ****ing, especially a shotgun, i'd be pissing my pants. And i'm not even a criminal.

Any criminal with a cheap glock is going to laugh and put a cap in your ass if you pull either of those 2 out.

Pepper spray is a good deter ant (it burns like you're about to become two face) but blowback and limited range are big negatives for it.

The military has been working on alot of LTL technologies, sonic cannons, pain beams, tazer bullets fired from shotguns (which are a great idea!) and even aphrodesiac weaponry (don't laugh too much, it was seriously considered)

Unfortunately, at the moment, it's just not well developed enough. these self-defence weapons are all very limited range, very limited ammo, not strong enough to deter a determined attacker, or aren't available to the general public.

Oh and just to put it out there, alot of people know how to build weapons out of everyday things, here's a perfect example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

 

[More Cowbell Please]

If it comes to it then they will have them, and no I don't mean one bullet at a time. I'm a law abiding citizen and intend to remain one.

I'm not trying to start a fight here I just want facts to be well, factual.

There's a pdf file on the internet on how to make a 9mm submachine gun. It's illegal to make, btw. So don't even think about it. I think the name of the book is Homemade Expedient Firearms.

We are armed to the teeth down here in the South, btw. I think we'll be able to take care of ourselves if worse comes to worse. There are people who drive around here with carloads full of heat for sale. You just have to know the right people. If Washington ever did do something as foolhardy as try to take our guns away you would have 1861 all over again. I don't think it's in the cards at this point. But they will try and use all sorts of sneaky backdoor ways of taking our guns away. Ways that rednecks like us will not be able to pick up on until it's too late. The pen is mightier than the sword is what they say.