How do you stand?

[The GWD]

With the upcoming election, where do you stand on a few long-running issues?

[ruffdog]

go banana

[ruffdog]

up gwd's ass

[The GWD]

Take care of that rectal itch.

[}{arlequin]

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

[ruffdog]

"pro gay marriage means you're a faggot"
- lulz

[Mr. Brown]

I don't fear guns, I fear those who carry them
~ Me

[Jericho]

"pro gay marriage means you're a faggot"
- lulz
I just don't care. It doesn't affect anyone except the gays

[Mr. Brown]

I just don't care. It doesn't affect anyone except the gays
^Yup also it would allow them to adopt which is a big cause for me. For all those who are pro life they should by extension be pro adoption b/c the unwanted babies have to live and be cared for by someone.

[The Dude]

i'm not against civil unions and "spousal benefits" etc for gay couples but where i draw the line is the term "marriage" and the concept of "holy matrimony".

[Jericho]

^Yup also it would allow them to adopt which is a big cause for me. For all those who are pro life they should by extension be pro adoption b/c the unwanted babies have to live and be cared for by someone.
I'm totally pro adoption. I'm sure there are gay couples treating their kids with more love and respect then a lot of motherfuckers I've seen

[Kerjack]

I think marriage and holy matrimony have long been separated, look at how many people get divorced and remarried.

[Mr. Brown]

i'm not against civil unions and "spousal benefits" etc for gay couples but where i draw the line is the term "marriage" and the concept of "holy matrimony".
Only those whom get married in the church does "Holy Matrimony" apply.

[Archangel]

^Yup also it would allow them to adopt which is a big cause for me. For all those who are pro life they should by extension be pro adoption b/c the unwanted babies have to live and be cared for by someone.

Please. As if "pro-life" is anything but an empty slogan these days. You expect their ideas to make sense?


Pro-lifers support the death penalty, wars of aggression, assault weapons etc, which kill far more people than all abortions combined; is it any surprising that they would force you to keep an unwanted baby, but do NOTHING to help you avoid them (or make life easier for both the mother and the baby once it's born)? Yeah, let's keep sex ed and condoms from a generation grown up on Christina Aguilera videos, and call them murderers when the inevitable happens.



As a Christian, I'm against abortion. Morally. Also as a Christian, I'm ashamed to fucking death of what pro-lifers have made out of my morals.

[Tar Heel]

I'm pro choice. I don't care if Gay people get married... Of all the issues out there, gay marriage affects me the least. Seriously, it really doesn't concern me at all. So let them have their cake... or butt pie... or whatever the hell fags eat.

I'm all for the lowest possible form of gun control. Keep the 2nd Amendment strong.

[}{arlequin]

I don't fear guns, I fear those who carry them
~ Me
i figure since gun control isn't working as intended, might as well do away w/ it alltogether

[The GWD]

i figure since gun control isn't working as intended, might as well do away w/ it alltogether

Preschool Drive-bys FTW?

http://gadgets.infoniac.com/uimg_new/guns-don-t-kill-people-hello-kitty-ak-47s-do.jpg

[Kerjack]

I'm totally pro adoption. I'm sure there are gay couples treating their kids with more love and respect then a lot of motherfuckers I've seen

I agree, the only thing that might go wrong is that some of the kids will feel like freaks until it becomes more common. But luckily I don't think that would be very long, at least not in most western country's.

[}{arlequin]

they should be called "goodbye kitty" rifles

[Archangel]

I didn't vote on gun control because I'm ambivalent.


I think they should be laxer here (fuck jumping through hoops to go sport shooting) and somewhat stricter over there - by all means, have a pistol to protect your home and a shotgun to go hunting, but NOBODY in a civilised society needs fully automatic .223 carbines around the house. If you want to shoot machine guns, join the bloody army. Make getting a gun permit a little harder than a driving licence. On both sides of the pond.

[Kerjack]

You know what I hate about the Pro-Life crowd? That most of the ones I talk to call the other side 'Pro-abortion' and they don't even realize it.

[Mr. Brown]

i figure since gun control isn't working as intended, might as well do away w/ it alltogether
So if somethings not working you just give up. Well then, rape party on UMD campus b/c the laws aren't protecting the co-eds there.

[Kerjack]

I didn't vote on gun control because I'm ambivalent.


I think they should be laxer here (fuck jumping through hoops to go sport shooting) and somewhat stricter over there - by all means, have a pistol to protect your home and a shotgun to go hunting, but NOBODY in a civilised society needs fully automatic .223 carbines around the house. If you want to shoot machine guns, join the bloody army. Make having a gun permit a little harder than a driving licence. On both sides of the pond.


I needs them to protect my jarb from foreign occupiers. Same reason the Iraqi's need them.

[Archangel]

You know what I hate about the Pro-Life crowd? That most of the ones I talk to call the other side 'Pro-abortion' and they don't even realize it.

As I said: Like with all fanatics, sense is a rare good among that crowd.

[Mr. Brown]

You know what I hate about the Pro-Life crowd? That most of the ones I talk to call the other side 'Pro-abortion' and they don't even realize it.
yeah I'm not for abortions, i'm for the freedom to make the choice

[TheImpossibleMan]

Pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-guns.

[Tar Heel]

I didn't vote on gun control because I'm ambivalent.


I think they should be laxer here (fuck jumping through hoops to go sport shooting) and somewhat stricter over there - by all means, have a pistol to protect your home and a shotgun to go hunting, but NOBODY in a civilised society needs fully automatic .223 carbines around the house. If you want to shoot machine guns, join the bloody army. Make getting a gun permit a little harder than a driving licence. On both sides of the pond.


But the point of our 2nd amendment isn't so much to protect our homes, but to ensure the ability to have a strong militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Kerjack]

Pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-guns.

hehe, pro-gay.

[Kerjack]

But the point of our 2nd amendment isn't so much to protect our homes, but to ensure the ability to have a strong militia.

Can of worms my friend, another thread please.

[Archangel]

Why? Gun control IS a topic of this thread.

But the point of our 2nd amendment isn't so much to protect our homes, but to ensure the ability to have a strong militia.

I've said it dozens of times:


When the US government decides to go after its own people, good luck defending your homes from the tyrants' stealth bombers and Abrams tanks with a shotgun and a .45.

[}{arlequin]

So if somethings not working you just give up. Well then, rape party on UMD campus b/c the laws aren't protecting the co-eds there.
now you just took what i said and went too far w/ it... granted, my statement was overly bombastic too so it invited the response.

what i meant was, that if something does not bring about the desired result (ie: guns out of criminals' hands), then it should be looked into, and changed, instead of left alone. it's akin to knowing all your traffic lights are not timed correctly and they don't prevent accidents but leaving them that way anyway

[Satan]

Why? Gun control IS a topic of this thread.



I've said it dozens of times:


When the US government decides to go after its own people, good luck defending your homes from the tyrants' stealth bombers and Abrams tanks with a shotgun and a .45.That's like putting out thousands of brush fires with a firehose, very inefficient.

[Kerjack]

Why? Gun control IS a topic of this thread.



I've said it dozens of times:


When the US government decides to go after its own people, good luck defending your homes from the tyrants' stealth bombers and Abrams tanks with a shotgun and a .45.

Unless they move our military out of our own borders or with other countries offering support the military would quickly find themselves out of supplies and all their shipping routes shut down. They could never maintain a conflict against their own people.

[Kilgore]

Pro Gay, I really could give a shit if gays want to marry, and don't see a problem with it if they do.

Pro Choice, This out of the three I'm most on the fence about.

Anti Guns, rip the 2nd out and have no guns what so ever.

[Archangel]

Pipe dreams...


A) No country is ever going to militarily invade North America.

B) If your own government should turn on you, I guarantee you that half of you will cheer them on. Propaganda is far more effective than armed oppression.

[Kerjack]

Pipe dreams...


A) No country is ever going to militarily invade North America.

B) If your own government should turn on you, I guarantee you that half of you will cheer them on. Propaganda is far more effective than armed oppression.


A) Never is a long time. Foreseeable future I agree with you.

B) Probably but unless they feel so strongly that they themselves stand up to fight too it might extend the fight but the outcome should be the same.

[Tar Heel]

Can of worms my friend, another thread please.


Shut the fuck up.

[Kerjack]

Well there are plenty of other threads on the topic and this one is going to end up smothering the other topics out... but whatev's

[Stax]

i'm not against civil unions and "spousal benefits" etc for gay couples but where i draw the line is the term "marriage" and the concept of "holy matrimony".

As others have said, state marriage is not religious marriage, so holy matrimony has nothing to do with it. Churches can do what they want.

[Kerjack]

Pipe dreams...


A) No country is ever going to militarily invade North America.

B) If your own government should turn on you, I guarantee you that half of you will cheer them on. Propaganda is far more effective than armed oppression.


Beside the enemy of an enemy is a friend, the people are the ones that would probably be getting at least covert support.

[}{arlequin]

i think most can easily agree that the original purpose of the right to bear arms isn't really around anymore. nor is it likely to ever come up.

what we have are its remnants, in the form of simply having the ability to have guns in our homes. nothing more nothing less. they're not even for protection. sure, if you have a forced entry they would be good to have around, but seriously, how many of us have had that happen to them?

so the question that remains, i think, is, are we responsible enough to be permitted to have guns?

[Archangel]

i think most can easily agree that the original purpose of the right to bear arms isn't really around anymore. nor is it likely to ever come up.

what we have are its remnants, in the form of simply having the ability to have guns in our homes. nothing more nothing less. they're not even for protection. sure, if you have a forced entry they would be good to have around, but seriously, how many of us have had that happen to them?

so the question that remains, i think, is, are we responsible enough to be permitted to have guns?

Hear, hear: the voice of bloody reason.


Beside the enemy of an enemy is a friend, the people are the ones that would probably be getting at least covert support.

So if your government decides to (probably a stupid example, but I need to be at the pub) privatise social security and awards the contract to a Saudi or Chinese corporation, whom are you gonna shoot?

[Tar Heel]

I've said it dozens of times:


When the US government decides to go after its own people, good luck defending your homes from the tyrants' stealth bombers and Abrams tanks with a shotgun and a .45.
__________________

I'm all for automatic weaponry as well. Maybe ban them in cities, but who cares if a hillbilly shoots off an ak on his own land in the middle of nowhere. I do however agree with strictly regulating who is allowed to own them.

You can only use tanks and heavy artillery against your own people for so long until the propaganda wears off and everyone is pissed. You can't control your own armies if the families of that military are getting mistreated. The guns are only a small part of a would be uprising, but they are an important part. It is also something that our founding fathers thought would be essential in maintaining a sense of ownership in this country. The force of the militias in the Revolutionary war aren't the forces that won the war. They just stalled long enough for the French to help us. That's the point.

[Da Raider]

If homosexuals want to get married, let 'em.
If you want to abort an unborn child, do it.
If you want a hand cannon, get one.

If you are against it due to religious reasons, just remember, if there really is a God and it's against God's Will, we will get to answer for our sins after the flesh dies. What I'm trying to say is, I'm going to just stay out of other people's business that is really just between them and God and I'd like the same for me.

[Tar Heel]

So are you saying that... you're gay?

[Kerjack]

Hear, hear: the voice of bloody reason.




So if your government decides to (probably a stupid example, but I need to be at the pub) privatise social security and awards the contract to a Saudi or Chinese corporation, whom are you gonna shoot?


I don't think that would come down to shooting at all. Now lets say in the interest of national security Homeland decides papers are needed to cross state lines, or that random home searches are required to combat 'x' threat... Both of which if we aren't careful I could see come to pass within 150 years or less.

[Da Raider]

So are you saying that... you're gay?

I'm saying that if two homosexuals want to get married, it doesn't affect me in the least. If your wife aborts the milkman's baby so you don't find out, again, it doesn't affect me in the least. If EG wants to buy a machine gun to shoot deer, it doesn't affect me either.

[Summer]

These discussions never end well. They never end period.

[}{arlequin]

So are you saying that... you're gay?
he was the priests' favorite.

[Kerjack]

i think most can easily agree that the original purpose of the right to bear arms isn't really around anymore. nor is it likely to ever come up.

what we have are its remnants, in the form of simply having the ability to have guns in our homes. nothing more nothing less. they're not even for protection. sure, if you have a forced entry they would be good to have around, but seriously, how many of us have had that happen to them?

so the question that remains, i think, is, are we responsible enough to be permitted to have guns?


Once you give up a right its near impossible to get it back.

[Kerjack]

These discussions never end well. They never end period.

Its America's Israeli/Palestinian conflict

[}{arlequin]

Once you give up a right its near impossible to get it back.
i don't think about, nor want to, give up jack shit. i'm just saying that there are laws that don't really have the intended result. those laws should be laughed at.

[Kerjack]

Who the fuck owns machine guns anyway? You can't own a fully auto anything without a class 3 FFL.

Sure you can own a bastardized Ak which shoots semi auto. Semi auto is simply 1 pull of the trigger, one bullet fires. What is the big deal with that?

And clip sizes are mandated too.

[Da Raider]

Once you give up a right its near impossible to get it back.

I agree with this statement strongly.

How many freedoms have we basically surrendered during the war on terror? Even though I highly doubt that we will ever have another attack via airplane ever again, we will probably be subject to finger print, retinal scan and full body x-rays before we get on a plane within the next few years. Hell, or even cross borders. And people will say.."well, it's to protect our freedom!"

[Kerjack]

i don't think, nor want to, give up jack shit. i'm just saying that there are laws that don't really have the intended result. those laws should be laughed at.

Like gun control making us safer?

[}{arlequin]

Like gun control making us safer?
yes.

same goes for traffic cameras (at intersections) as a means of reducing accidents. it's laughable

[Da Raider]

Like gun control making us safer?

Washington DC comes to mind...

[}{arlequin]

while we're at it, they should also bring back (legalize) duels.

[Kerjack]

Washington DC comes to mind...
I will concede that is a little different issue since you can legally obtain a gun a few steps away and there is no baggage check before entering DC.

I'm saying even if you completely get rid of guns, for real. People who want to kill people will find a way to do it, and to kill lots of people. In fact look at it this way at LEAST with guns the people that go psychotic with automatic weapons always get caught or killed. And their kill counts aren't even all that impressive.

Compare that to the bombers our country has had.

[Jericho]

while we're at it, they should also bring back (legalize) duels.
On PPV, even!!!

[Tar Heel]

Who the fuck owns machine guns anyway? You can't own a fully auto anything without a class 3 FFL.

Sure you can own a bastardized Ak which shoots semi auto. Semi auto is simply 1 pull of the trigger, one bullet fires. What is the big deal with that?

I've shot a semi AK. It was fun as hell.

[Claydon]

I am a pro gay marriage, lax gun law, pro choice Republican.

[ruffdog]

I am gay

fag

[Claydon]

The stabbings in England since the gun ban have sky rocketed.

A guy even hacked some people up on the roads with a samurai sword.

Good thing they banned those guns eh!

[Kerjack]

The stabbings in England since the gun ban have sky rocketed.

A guy even hacked some people up on the roads with a samurai sword.
To which they are trying to ban or did, not sure, sword replicas. Mind you not real swords, just ones that are cheap and break easy.

[Claydon]

To which they are trying to ban or did, not sure, sword replicas. Mind you not real swords, just ones that are cheap and break easy.

To keep Her Majesty's Vassals pleased?

[Claydon]

fag

you are confusing with the boy hooker you picked up last night.

[Kerjack]

I can't get behind someone who uses the word 'vassals'. Might I suggest Crack (http://forum.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=714).

[Tar Heel]

i don't think about, nor want to, give up jack shit. i'm just saying that there are laws that don't really have the intended result. those laws should be laughed at.

There is an intended result with the 2nd amendment. It even says what it is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It has nothing to do with hunting and little to do with individual home security.

Also, I think anyone who believes that this is so people can rise up against their government are also missing the point. Our nation was founded on the principles of the power of the people. In numbers, people are always more powerful than propaganda and military force. Especially if the force that the governmet is battling is its own people.

also...


It is also something that our founding fathers thought would be essential in maintaining a sense of ownership in this country. The force of the militias in the Revolutionary war aren't the forces that won the war. They just stalled long enough for the French to help us. That's the point.

[Claydon]

I can't get behind someone who uses the word 'vassals'. Might I suggest Crack (http://forum.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=714).

you do know what the word vassals means? yes?

[Kerjack]

Yes.

[Tar Heel]

Stop saying vassals.

[Kopek]

Gays can be just as miserable with the "holy matrimony" as straight people are and still have the right to divorce when the shit stops being fun.

Ladies don't tell me to stop masturbating. So I can't tell them to do anything with their body.

Who needs any type of machine gun to go out hunting? Bow and arrow, fuck faces.

[Poop Sailboat]

ABORTIONS FOR ALL!!!

[VoxAngelikus]

I'm Anti DiddyBlog

Alaska, motherfucker? There's no black people in Alaska.

[The GWD]

Diddy says BK's open late.

[Face]

I don't like to stand, I prefer to sit

[The GWD]

Your jokes would be really funny in an episode of Reading Rainbow.

[Kopek]

Even they have standards.

[Mr. Brown]

I'm Anti DiddyBlog

Alaska, motherfucker? There's no black people in Alaska.
James C. Hayes former mayor of Fairbanks Alaska black

[Void]

Ah, the "wedge issues". How the Republicans love them!

[Jason]

Damn Barack Obama trying to make gun control more strict. We need guns.

[Candycane]

I'm not "pro" anything, but I believe in people; men and women having choices. So what if two people are lucky enough to find love and happen to be the same sex? I absolutely know it's been happening for thousands of years if not longer, so why is it "wrong" now? Because it makes some people feel icky? "Pro" choice to me is just having options. There is no black or white on this issue for me. I would never impose my personal opinion on any woman who has to go through being pregnant on her own or maybe having a lack of a support system. People are not perfect by design and also for that reason I'm not a big advocate of everyone being able to run around with guns. I don't know what a perfect answer to gun control would be , but I suspect somewhere in the middle like most things in life is probably better than either extreme.

I will say this, that if most people just worried about their own problems and not other people's lives all three issues wouldn't be such hot spots.

[ruffdog]

I'm not "pro" anything, but I believe in people; men and women having choices. So what if two people are lucky enough to find love and happen to be the same sex? I absolutely know it's been happening for thousands of years if not longer, so why is it "wrong" now? Because it makes some people feel icky? "Pro" choice to me is just having options. There is no black or white on this issue for me. I would never impose my personal opinion on any woman who has to go through being pregnant on her own or maybe having a lack of a support system. People are not perfect by design and also for that reason I'm not a big advocate of everyone being able to run around with guns. I don't know what a perfect answer to gun control would be , but I suspect somewhere in the middle like most things in life is probably better than either extreme.

I will say this, that if most people just worried about their own problems and not other people's lives all three issues wouldn't be such hot spots.

I wanna stick it in your butt

[}{arlequin]

I wanna stick it in your butt
some time ago i read a book that had a lesbo hot tub scene that involved one girl sticking an unloaded revolver into the other's pussy and as she climaxed the other started pulling the trigger and the rotating drum added an extra dimension of pleasure



it was fiction.

[TheImpossibleMan]

I wish we treated guns the way we treat tits, and treated tits the way we treat guns.

[ruffdog]

I wish you would stfu

[Da Raider]

It's pretty embarrassing how up in arms some people got over Janet Jackson's nipple slip.

[Axel]

Those of you who chose “Pro-life”, chose also “Lax Gun Control” – that seems a total contradiction to me.

USA are far ahead amongst the Industrial nations by firearm-related death rate per capita, and by far the largest part of them are not homicides, but suicides and incidents.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Gun Control doesn’t equal to Gun Ban, but to a stricter legislation about ownership and use of guns, right?

I’m amazed how kids that committed school shootings in USA were able to pile up whole fucking arsenals of guns before they went for killing-suicidal sprees.

Guns owners can choose between life and death daily – so much more under a lax gun legislation – including all those psychopaths and criminals roaming around. Do you think that an average American can outgun them?

Guys, you’re actually liberal about taking a real human life – legally, a birth constitutes one - and conservative about taking a latent form of life - in any case? C’mon, we all jerk/fuck off millions of these forms daily.

Craig, EG, GTSCH, Jericho, Zaph, I can’t get it.

***

EDIT: wait, masturbation and contraception are sins as well. I got it.

[vasili denisov]

In a lazy, bored slouch. My eyes fix on you, then, indifferently move on. I'm like a sex rifle loaded with sex bullets, or a poem where every word is "yeah?" That, is how I stand.

[Kerjack]

USA are far ahead amongst the Industrial nations by firearm-related death rate per capita, and by far the largest part of them are not homicides, but suicides and incidents.

Is that per capita of gun owners? Because if not that really does not mean anything.

[redsox39]

You know what I hate about the Pro-Life crowd? That most of the ones I talk to call the other side 'Pro-abortion' and they don't even realize it.

Well, being as I don't give a fuck about normal abortion, isn't pro-choice "Pro-abortion"? If you feel bad about it, maybe you should think about how you really feel.

the only abortions I can't defend are the end of the third trimester, like you couldn't decide in the first 6 months, and live birth abortions. if the baby is born alive, umm, it is a baby and if you kill it, it is murder.

But if you get knocked up, and cannot afford or cannot handle the responsbility of a human being, by all means, abort away. The last thing we need is another whiny lib running around talking about how life isn't fair and I need a hand out.

[redsox39]

I'm not "pro" anything, but I believe in people; men and women having choices. So what if two people are lucky enough to find love and happen to be the same sex? I absolutely know it's been happening for thousands of years if not longer, so why is it "wrong" now? Because it makes some people feel icky? "Pro" choice to me is just having options. There is no black or white on this issue for me. I would never impose my personal opinion on any woman who has to go through being pregnant on her own or maybe having a lack of a support system. People are not perfect by design and also for that reason I'm not a big advocate of everyone being able to run around with guns. I don't know what a perfect answer to gun control would be , but I suspect somewhere in the middle like most things in life is probably better than either extreme.

I will say this, that if most people just worried about their own problems and not other people's lives all three issues wouldn't be such hot spots.

For all this "people having choice", You sure seem to be "Pro gun ban's"...

I am all about people having choice, and government taking a back seat.

[Axel]

You don't have to get it. I side with babies. I also side with people who want a gun to protect themselves, or hunt, or shoot in competitions, and YES gun control in America does equal gun bans. Every year there tons of bills introduced banning guns. As well as the UN trying to ban private firearm ownership in America.

You seem to think the only reason someone would own a gun would be to kill someone. That is just stupid.

Besides tell me that someone was raping your girlfriend, that you would just let him because harming a person is wrong right?
Hey, I love kids as much as you and Claydon do... wait

Seriously, I really do, but than again, I can relate to a cluster of embryonic cells as much as to a real child.

I don’t know what gun control means in USA, but a term doesn’t suggest a gun ban.

I’m not standing for ban of guns or abortions, but for a strict regulation about who, when and how can use them. I’d prefer that laws (& law enforcement) would limit access to guns for criminals, sociopaths, psychopaths and kids as much as possible and that abortion wouldn’t be a mean of birth control, but an urgency exit.

If I’d found somebody trying to rape my girlfriend, I’d deal with him in our traditional way. I’d do my best to smash his head and tore his balls off – I’m not pacifist at all. But I’d surely not shot at him - for her sake, not his.

Now, what would you do, if you’d get outgunned / outnumbered since you wouldn’t carry automatic gun on a date, but bad boy(s) would - and your girlfriend would get raped and impregnated by her rapist? Would you let her have an abortion?

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerjack http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/solido/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=85195#post85195)
Once you give up a right its near impossible to get it back.



I agree with this statement strongly.



x2

[Axel]

Is that per capita of gun owners? Because if not that really does not mean anything.Umm, you either can't read or understand the term “per capita”.

USA are far ahead amongst the Industrial nations by firearm-related death rate per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate), and by far the largest part of them are not homicides, but suicides and incidents.

Once you give up a right its near impossible to get it back.As much as I understand, Americans already lost quite some civil rights in accordance to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, so maybe to give up a right for unrestricted purchase of machine guns in supermarkets (in some states) wouldn’t even be the worst case. Hey, I said maybe…

[Muji]

but without guns, how are americans going to be able to hunt and provide food for their families? this is 1832 and EG must have to sell alot of raccoon pelts to support his lifestyle

i have no problem with people having guns, knifes, swords, chinese stars, or whatever else they want to have, but i dont understand how people can argue with waiting periods and back ground checks to get guns

should kids, the mentally unhealthy, felons, or anyone else that is a danger to society be allowed to buy and own weapons? probably not the best idea

i feel alot better about the people on gmf when i look at the voting numbers for the pro choice and pro gay marriage options

[Mustard]

pro-gay marriage: because I think even gay people should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. also, who the fuck am I to say who can and who can't wed? thats a pact between those two individuals and God, and thats it, end of fucking list.

pro-choice: because who the fuck am I to tell anybody else what they can or cannot do with themselves with regards to their reproductive choices? besides... one less unwanted mouth to feed.

less stringent gun control: because I feel that everybody should know how to use, and have the freedom to choose to use, any type of firearm they please "in a responsible manner". that is my only caveat, more on that later... but its sorta like everybody should know how to change their own oil, do their own tune ups, and change and rotate their own tires. i mean... how hard is it to be responsible for one's self and one's means?

ok, back to "in a responsible manner". My suggestion is simple. Government regulated standards for understanding firearm safety and usage. We go through these tests in order to prove that we are responsible enough to legally operate a car, we should also go through these tests to prove that we are responsible enough to use firearms. So after you get your "general" firearm license, head on back home (or to a private instructor) and learn yourself from a licensed practitioner how to safely and responsibly use a specific type of gun (sorta like getting a motorcycle endorsement or a class B or A license). then you head down to a Gov't gun range, prove to them you can use certain guns of your choice, and they give you licenses that says you can legally have and shoot those types of guns you trained for.

Then you want to buy a gun? no problem. you're already registered with the Gov't, so no waiting list, just present your state issued gun license for they type of gun you want, pony up the dough, and leave with your gun instantly.

I think this method would help to ensure that guns of all kinds stay out of the wrong hands (by also levying heavy and hard-hitting penalties to criminals who use a gun in a crime), and the rate of accidents would also go down as a result of a better regulated testing system.

It seems like I am sounding like I'm in favor of stricter gun laws, but that assumption is false. Under this plan, those who follow the really fucking simple rules gain favorable legal protection from the use of their guns if they use them in defense of life or property, and those who don't follow the really fucking simple rules (i.e. criminals who shouldn't have guns in the first place) are penalized heavily for it.

Oh, and all veterans who can prove they can use "x" firearm/s should automatically be grandfathered into the program, straight to the front of the line, no exceptions.

I completely understand what the second ammendment is all about. I think now, over 200 years since its inception, that every person should have the privilidge of knowing how to responsibly use and own any type of firearm they please. I don't care what it is... whether it be a ..357, 22, shotgun, semi-auto rifle, full-auto assault rifle, grenade launcher, mini gun, i don't fucking care, have a ball. Just as long as the person knows how to use it responsibly and proves it to a licensed professional, honestly, thats all that matters to me, because I'm not the slightest bit worried about the millions of educated people who use their guns for sport or hunting... I'm worried about the handful of retards who don't know what awesome power they irresponsibly weild in their hand.

[Kerjack]

Umm, you either can't read or understand the term “per capita”.
I do, but it can mean incidents per 1000 people, or incidents per thousand gun owners.


As much as I understand, Americans already lost quite some civil rights in accordance to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, so maybe to give up a right for unrestricted purchase of machine guns in supermarkets (in some states) wouldn’t even be the worst case. Hey, I said maybe…

Gonna slap you so hard...

[Mr. Brown]

less stringent gun control: because I feel that everybody should know how to use, and have the freedom to choose to use, any type of firearm they please "in a responsible manner". that is my only caveat, more on that later... but its sorta like everybody should know how to change their own oil, do their own tune ups, and change and rotate their own tires. i mean... how hard is it to be responsible for one's self and one's means?

ok, back to "in a responsible manner". My suggestion is simple. Government regulated standards for understanding firearm safety and usage. We go through these tests in order to prove that we are responsible enough to legally operate a car, we should also go through these tests to prove that we are responsible enough to use firearms. So after you get your "general" firearm license, head on back home (or to a private instructor) and learn yourself from a licensed practitioner how to safely and responsibly use a specific type of gun (sorta like getting a motorcycle endorsement or a class B or A license). then you head down to a Gov't gun range, prove to them you can use certain guns of your choice, and they give you licenses that says you can legally have and shoot those types of guns you trained for.

Then you want to buy a gun? no problem. you're already registered with the Gov't, so no waiting list, just present your state issued gun license for they type of gun you want, pony up the dough, and leave with your gun instantly.

I think this method would help to ensure that guns of all kinds stay out of the wrong hands (by also levying heavy and hard-hitting penalties to criminals who use a gun in a crime), and the rate of accidents would also go down as a result of a better regulated testing system.

It seems like I am sounding like I'm in favor of stricter gun laws, but that assumption is false. Under this plan, those who follow the really fucking simple rules gain favorable legal protection from the use of their guns if they use them in defense of life or property, and those who don't follow the really fucking simple rules (i.e. criminals who shouldn't have guns in the first place) are penalized heavily for it.

Oh, and all veterans who can prove they can use "x" firearm/s should automatically be grandfathered into the program, straight to the front of the line, no exceptions.

I completely understand what the second ammendment is all about. I think now, over 200 years since its inception, that every person should have the privilidge of knowing how to responsibly use and own any type of firearm they please. I don't care what it is... whether it be a ..357, 22, shotgun, semi-auto rifle, full-auto assault rifle, grenade launcher, mini gun, i don't fucking care, have a ball. Just as long as the person knows how to use it responsibly and proves it to a licensed professional, honestly, thats all that matters to me, because I'm not the slightest bit worried about the millions of educated people who use their guns for sport or hunting... I'm worried about the handful of retards who don't know what awesome power they irresponsibly weild in their hand.
The main problem with this that people don't want the gov knowing what and how many guns they have. It's from the belief that the gov will come after them and take their guns when the NWO decides to make it's move.

[Mustard]

The main problem with this that people don't want the gov knowing what and how many guns they have. It's from the belief that the gov will come after them and take their guns when the NWO decides to make it's move.
I suppose I see your point. But thats a real stretch, because it is my common sense belief that the powers that be really don't give a flying fuck about John Q. Public.

Anyway, maybe there can be some sort of confidentiality aspect that can be looked into and discussed?