 New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Debate Shrine. |
| User | Post |
| Trigger Happy Jones Posts: 85/306 |
You know, after watching pissed off activists throwing molotovs outside the San Francisco Cronicle, I have to agree. Most of them don't need a gat. I'd show you the pic, but the link is dead, I think.
I just feel sorry for those responsible few. Just because a few gangs going around capping you roofs, you want to ban guns outright? I just don't know. As long they don't start banning them aeverywhere, me and 4,000,000 others won't storm the White House lawn and protest our asses off. Well, it's your town, what you do to it is entirely your business. I just don't want it to spread. And hippies scare me. *shudders* |
| Elara Posts: 2868/9736 |
You have to remember THJ, that where I live it's heavily gang infested and kids turn up in high schools carrying guns everyday. Dumbasses shoot into the air on New Years Eve every year without fail... we've pulled bullets out of our roof. Most of the people in southern California... hell, in most of California, are not responsible enough to own a gun. I agree with Rogue on the testing thing for that reason... we are that 1/10.
|
| Trigger Happy Jones Posts: 43/306 |
Exactly, Rogue. Some folks (Ex: the Beltway Snipers, obviously) don't need a gun. Last thing we need is to get shot at by some wacko while getting a burger at McDonalds.
And Chalarton H. kicks ass, 'kay ya'll? (cue Beverly Hillbillies theme song)... If ya'll read anything about him, it just shows that he's just opinionated, just like any celebrity. You thought that stunt was stupid? Remember Tom "I love her! She completes me!" Cruise? LOL! I never get tired of that one. But licensing guns? Beyond unneccesary, dudes. If the same stunningly rediculous bueracracy coming from the DMV is applied to firearm ownership, then we'll will give those pricks political hell... Or learn Judo or roundhouse kicking. Some states already have gun-licensing courses. |
| Rogue Posts: 1335/11918 |
Originally posted by Sajin of the Gorotto Sea If we can have so much testing and nonsense over getting a license to drive a car, why not at least put some stipulation on owning a firearm? Sure it puts a little restraint on bearing arms, but I think if you're going to be owning them you should know when, where, and how it is appropriate to use them as well as the proper storage and so on for safety reasons. I'm sure anyone on the board who has their own guns knows the proper usage, so this shouldn't be an issue. But like Trigger Happy said, "9/10 of those are in the hands of sane, responsible people," implying there are a tenth of those who shouldn't have them. |
| Bitmap Posts: 1698/7838 |
Originally posted by Rogue WHAT? Question: Would you like to own a Firearm? Yes... Congrats, you are now able to own a firearm... Joking Rogue, I somewhat know what you mean...I just dont see how there can be a test...I think there should be more like a history of yourself to qualify to see if you can own a gun... |
| Rogue Posts: 1333/11918 |
Ah, the NRA. It's hard to take old Charlton seriously when he's holding a rifle over his head and saying, "Not from my cold, dead hand."
Either way, I support the right to bear arms, but sometimes I think there should be a test involved if you want to own a firearm. A simple test like knowing where the safety is, how to keep the gun out of the reach of children, and basic care. A competant person should be able to breeze through such a test, weeding out (with any luck) those who shouldn't be allowed to own one. |
| Trigger Happy Jones Posts: 42/306 |
Let me tell ya'll why I started this thread. I'm adamantly against government involvement pertaining to anything unless absolutely neccessary. Not just this government, any government. Regulations and laws restricts the freedoms of the people. Not offense, Elara, but most people who own firearms in the cities are not idiots, a 9/10 of those are in the hands of sane, responsible people. You want to take away the people's specified right to defend themselves over the actions of a select few? And I do agree with you on the requiters on highschool campuses, but the new legislation regards them on college grounds, and that's a horse of a different color. By then, collegeians should know that if you sign up, you might just get shot.
I value freedom over security any day. I rather defend myself than allow an ineffient bueracracy to assume that role for me. Call it distrust, hell, call it paranoia,. but I don't care. I call it freedom. www.stopsanfranban.com. I know, it's a NRA-oriented sight, but their stats and claims are legit. |
| Elara Posts: 2821/9736 |
I see nothing wrong with the laws. I think it's wrong for military recruiters to be on school campuses trying to enlist people that haven't even graduated high school yet... these kids are young, they don't know what they want and getting them to agree to such a huge commitment at that age is a bad idea. The gun thing... I see both sides. Most people with guns in cities are idiots who don't know how to use them, and I'm sure there was a list of events that resulted in Prop H. However, I can see why the police would not like it: if it's illegal then it's black market and if it's used in a crime it's a LOT harder to trace to a person.
|
| Rogue Posts: 1323/11918 |
It's quite an amusing thing. The party that least tolerates protest is the more liberal side.
Look at it. Everytime there's a protest, usually it's for a liberal cause. However, whenever you see a conservative try to raise a hand in protest, they are called ignorant or put down for their cause, be it pro-life or keeping a plaque with the 10 commandments chiseled into it in a public area. San Francisco and most of Northern California has also been ultra-liberal in recent memory, so these new regulations are of no surprise to me. There's a reason why Bush didn't even bother setting up a Republican campaign arena here. |
| Trigger Happy Jones Posts: 37/306 |
I've been watching the news as of late, and witnessed many unusual events taking place in San Francisco. Don't get me wrong, S.F. is a beautiful city and has good people, but their increasing resentment towards those not alligned with their party has me worried. It's not like they're beating people up (excluding the more fanatical fringe), but they are throwing regulation apon regulation that stifles freedom in the city. Multiple laws have been passed, like a complete ban of military recruiters on school campuses. They have so many reasons to do this, that I'm not going to get into them. An official has even been overheard saying that "the US dosen't need a military.". A complete ban on handguns in civilian hands, otherwise known as Proposition H, has also been passed but failed to go into effect because of the backlash it has caused. Surprisingly, Law enforcement are said to despise the ban, even though it doesn't effect them. There other laws I haven't even mention that are just as outrageous.
Point being, just why do they need all these laws and regulation? From my point of view, it seems like they're trying to silence political opposition and futher their agenda. It just seems like a socialist fervor is going through the town. Maybe it's temporary, or it could be the beginning of their "revolution" they've been yelling about since the 60's. Who knows? Either way, not a bad idea to eye CNN or Fox (Some like to call it Faux... Witty.) every once in a while. Whether your red or blue, this isn't right to me. Your thoughts? |
