CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Should US gun laws be made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?
More Strict  0%  [ 0 ]
Less Strict  0%  [ 0 ]
Remain as They Are  0%  [ 0 ]
Unsure  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 0

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:17 pm
 


The simple uncomplicated principle that these pro-guncontrol, AGW/KYOTO/UN supporters overlook/deny/dismiss is the simple fact that crimals do not take a knife to a gun-fight-----they do not take guns to gun fights---they simply do not show up to a gun fight------but emboldened by the knowledge that the politically correct have virtually guaranteed them freedom from the prospect of an armed homeowner they will simply kick your door open and charge in fearlessly.

Shall carry legistlation has virtually eliminated this and car-jackings because the criminals are not keen on engaging armed citizens----they prefer unarmed helpless victims which the handwringers are bent on providing them----if they are apprehended---they get a slap on the wrist--or an absolute discaharge because somebody overlooked crossing a T.

The deterant effect of the prospect of an armed response---in the past AND IN "SHALL CARRY "states prevent(s)(d) this situation.

Even George123's unsupported BS declaration that successfully defending yourself will somehow result in a murder charge is indicative of how extensive and thorough this BS campaign has gone.

IT IS PREFERABLE TO BE JUDGED BY TWELVE THAN CARRIED BY SIX.
:roll:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:39 pm
 


sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
The simple uncomplicated principle that these pro-guncontrol, AGW/KYOTO/UN supporters overlook/deny/dismiss is the simple fact that crimals do not take a knife to a gun-fight-----they do not take guns to gun fights---they simply do not show up to a gun fight------but emboldened by the knowledge that the politically correct have virtually guaranteed them freedom from the prospect of an armed homeowner they will simply kick your door open and charge in fearlessly.

Shall carry legistlation has virtually eliminated this and car-jackings because the criminals are not keen on engaging armed citizens----they prefer unarmed helpless victims which the handwringers are bent on providing them----if they are apprehended---they get a slap on the wrist--or an absolute discaharge because somebody overlooked crossing a T.

The deterant effect of the prospect of an armed response---in the past AND IN "SHALL CARRY "states prevent(s)(d) this situation.

Even George123's unsupported BS declaration that successfully defending yourself will somehow result in a murder charge is indicative of how extensive and thorough this BS campaign has gone.

IT IS PREFERABLE TO BE JUDGED BY TWELVE THAN CARRIED BY SIX.
:roll:

"IT IS PREFERABLE TO BE JUDGED BY TWELVE THAN CARRIED BY SIX"
that is wisdom...its even more preferable if theyre people who are fed up with crime


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:43 pm
 


george123 george123:
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
"firearms are dangerous weapons"??..uh i thought for the longest time thats what weapons are supposed to be...oh but of course..if some burglar breaks into my house his safety should be my highest priority


If you use a gun for home safety, you are just as dangerous as a criminal using a gun for crime.

First off, stray bullets can hurt other people you don't intend to. You miss that burgler, the bullet tears through a wall, and your kid or wife is dead. It happens often when someone uses a gun to defend their home. It is more dangerous to you and yours if you pull a gun.

Secondly, if you have that gun taken from you by the intruder, you are dead. They will kill you with your own gun because you have now irevocably threatened their life. Even if they did not intend to hurt anyone, just a smash and grab, they would kill you out of sheer fear and anger.

Thirdly, if you can get to a loaded gun fast enough to stop someone in your house, you obviously do not secure them properly. The entire point of securing your guns is to make it time consuming to get them. This deters theft and crimes of passion, ie: you find your wife in bed with another dude and you just whip out your gun right there and shoot them both. If you can pull out a loaded weapon in the time it would take to get to an intruder who has heard you moving around, you are not securing your guns properly, and you are breaking the law. You should not own guns in that case.

Fourth, if you shoot a dude in your home, you go to jail. It is called assault with a deadly weapon, and probably murder in the second degree. Self defence will not cut it unless there is evidence he had a gun, or was a real life threatening threat to you. You can't just go shooting people who invade your home, no matter how much they may deserve it.

Oh, and yes, his safety should be your priority. If he gets hurt in your home, he will sue your ass. :lol:

one more thing..how is a gun unsecure if its right beside you even if it doesnt have a trigger lock on it..the purpose for the trigger lock is if someone breaks into your house while youre gone and then steals it and can use it anyway he wants..an unlocked gun right at my side isnt unsecure


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 113
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 3:19 pm
 


george123 george123:
The problem is that your firearms can become weapons.


A weapon is anything used to threaten or inflict violence against a human being. Anything can be a weapon, and in Canada, legal firearms are used as weapons of murder less often than knives and bats and even less than suffocation. Canadians don't use firearms as weapons against each other very often. You hear about it because it's so rare, not because it's common.

There's no 'problem' with firearms being useable as weapons if there is no 'problem' with the people who own them. Training, testing and licencing makes sure that the people who legally own firearms are responsible enough to go to the troble of getting certified. These people *want* to obey the law. They are statisticallly unlikey to ever commit a crime with thier guns, so any guns they own are extremly unlikey to ever be weapons.

george123 george123:
Theft is a major problem firearms owners face. If your weapons are registered, and then are subsequently stolen, you have more protection for you in the situation. There will be less paperwork, and the process of reporting the stolen weapon will be faster. You call the cops, tell them which weapon is stolen, it goes into the data-base. That will cover you more quickly if the weapon is used in a crime.


I dont see how you can claim any of that. Logically, a resitered firearm will have more paperwork and govornment overhead attached to it because it has to be recorded and filed as 'stolen' with the govornment as opposed to just the police.

If someone steals my guns the police will know they've been stolen because my house will have been burgluized and my gun lockers will have been cut open. That's thanks to the safe storage laws alone. No registration needed.

Gun registration is an unnccisary and wasteful violation of a person's right to privacy.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 5:59 pm
 


george123 george123:
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
"firearms are dangerous weapons"??..uh i thought for the longest time thats what weapons are supposed to be...oh but of course..if some burglar breaks into my house his safety should be my highest priority


If you use a gun for home safety, you are just as dangerous as a criminal using a gun for crime.

First off, stray bullets can hurt other people you don't intend to. You miss that burgler, the bullet tears through a wall, and your kid or wife is dead. It happens often when someone uses a gun to defend their home. It is more dangerous to you and yours if you pull a gun.

Secondly, if you have that gun taken from you by the intruder, you are dead. They will kill you with your own gun because you have now irevocably threatened their life. Even if they did not intend to hurt anyone, just a smash and grab, they would kill you out of sheer fear and anger.

Thirdly, if you can get to a loaded gun fast enough to stop someone in your house, you obviously do not secure them properly. The entire point of securing your guns is to make it time consuming to get them. This deters theft and crimes of passion, ie: you find your wife in bed with another dude and you just whip out your gun right there and shoot them both. If you can pull out a loaded weapon in the time it would take to get to an intruder who has heard you moving around, you are not securing your guns properly, and you are breaking the law. You should not own guns in that case.

Fourth, if you shoot a dude in your home, you go to jail. It is called assault with a deadly weapon, and probably murder in the second degree. Self defence will not cut it unless there is evidence he had a gun, or was a real life threatening threat to you. You can't just go shooting people who invade your home, no matter how much they may deserve it.

Oh, and yes, his safety should be your priority. If he gets hurt in your home, he will sue your ass. :lol:

yes thats what you liberals are all about...protecting criminals..anyone who is injured during the commission of a crime isnt entitled to any protection or compensation...should be just like in the old wild west


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1405
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:27 am
 


Its scumbag lawyers looking for a good buck that protect criminals, not the liberals.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:34 am
 


The simple fact that most of us responsible folk insure our property against all possible hazards---the insures already possess a reasonably complete list of our firearms and S#.

:lol:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:55 am
 


LightStarr LightStarr:
Its scumbag lawyers looking for a good buck that protect criminals, not the liberals.

i always thought it was only liberals and criminals who supported gun control..now we can add scumbag lawyers..thanks for the correction


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 265
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:55 am
 


Well, the dodging continues, as you have not shown me proof that the gun registry can be, or has ever been, hacked.

As for your other comments, when you kill someone in your family by shooting at a burglar in your home, I will not cry for you or them. You will have done a very stupid thing, and your loved ones will pay for it. Too bad you are too pig-headed and blood-thirsty to care about the lives of those you love and care about to be rational.

Oh, and the protection of criminals? I could care less. I think they should have no rights once convicted, and serve their entire sentence. No early paroll, no suspended sentance or house arrest. They must be punished under the laws that govern the conduct of this country, so don't start that "Liberals only care about the rights of criminals" bullshit. People like you make me sick.

You want to use a gun for home defence? I'll tell you what. You do that in a condo and kill your neighbor's kid or wife/husband, or happen to kill someone outside on the street when you miss, you deal with the consequences. You will be tried, go to prison, and if it wasa a kid you killed, will die there. That's one thing you can count on the garden variety criminal for, anyone in prison who killed or hurt a kid dies, as even most of them have at least that much in the way of morals. Obviously, you do not, as at least then you would consider the consequences of using a gun in an uncontrolled situation around your family.

All of your arguments are weak when held up against the light of reason. I would rather learn how to fight with my hands and feet to defend my home, as with the close quarters you are in, that is the most effective way to fight. I can disarm someone holding a gun, with my hands, at 2 meters, which is about where you will be when you encounter the intruder. Then you take him to school with necesary force to incapacitate him, and it will be all nice and legal. Chances are, when you disarm him, he will run anyways. Simple.

If you want to argue about it, go ahead. I have made up my mind about you, and find that I will get more inteligent conversation on this topic from a lobotomised chimp (and less dodging at that).


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:19 am
 


george123 george123:
Well, the dodging continues, as you have not shown me proof that the gun registry can be, or has ever been, hacked.

As for your other comments, when you kill someone in your family by shooting at a burglar in your home, I will not cry for you or them. You will have done a very stupid thing, and your loved ones will pay for it. Too bad you are too pig-headed and blood-thirsty to care about the lives of those you love and care about to be rational.

Oh, and the protection of criminals? I could care less. I think they should have no rights once convicted, and serve their entire sentence. No early paroll, no suspended sentance or house arrest. They must be punished under the laws that govern the conduct of this country, so don't start that "Liberals only care about the rights of criminals" bullshit. People like you make me sick.

You want to use a gun for home defence? I'll tell you what. You do that in a condo and kill your neighbor's kid or wife/husband, or happen to kill someone outside on the street when you miss, you deal with the consequences. You will be tried, go to prison, and if it wasa a kid you killed, will die there. That's one thing you can count on the garden variety criminal for, anyone in prison who killed or hurt a kid dies, as even most of them have at least that much in the way of morals. Obviously, you do not, as at least then you would consider the consequences of using a gun in an uncontrolled situation around your family.

All of your arguments are weak when held up against the light of reason. I would rather learn how to fight with my hands and feet to defend my home, as with the close quarters you are in, that is the most effective way to fight. I can disarm someone holding a gun, with my hands, at 2 meters, which is about where you will be when you encounter the intruder. Then you take him to school with necesary force to incapacitate him, and it will be all nice and legal. Chances are, when you disarm him, he will run anyways. Simple.

If you want to argue about it, go ahead. I have made up my mind about you, and find that I will get more inteligent conversation on this topic from a lobotomised chimp (and less dodging at that).

i'm proceeding with this on the assumption that youre addressing me..1) i dont live in a condo 2) i am a gun collector and know exactly which gun to use and what its capable of doing 3) on an occaison i've had a few ppl ask me what gives you the right to kill someone just because theyre violating you..are you god..the answer to that question is yes i am god..each time i walk into my home thats the only time in my life that i am god..its a good thing you dont live in texas where trespassers get shot with impunity since i'm sure that'd put you in the looney bin seeing these poor criminals who are guilty of nothing more than being a victim of a society that oppressed them into becoming what they are getting blown away just as they deserve


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:30 am
 


george123 george123:
You want to use a gun for home defence? I'll tell you what. You do that in a condo and kill your neighbor's kid or wife/husband, or happen to kill someone outside on the street when you miss, you deal with the consequences. You will be tried, go to prison, and if it wasa a kid you killed, will die there. That's one thing you can count on the garden variety criminal for, anyone in prison who killed or hurt a kid dies, as even most of them have at least that much in the way of morals. Obviously, you do not, as at least then you would consider the consequences of using a gun in an uncontrolled situation around your family.


Spoken like a true Liberal thats never fired a gun.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 265
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:52 am
 


hwacker hwacker:
george123 george123:
You want to use a gun for home defence? I'll tell you what. You do that in a condo and kill your neighbor's kid or wife/husband, or happen to kill someone outside on the street when you miss, you deal with the consequences. You will be tried, go to prison, and if it wasa a kid you killed, will die there. That's one thing you can count on the garden variety criminal for, anyone in prison who killed or hurt a kid dies, as even most of them have at least that much in the way of morals. Obviously, you do not, as at least then you would consider the consequences of using a gun in an uncontrolled situation around your family.


Spoken like a true Liberal thats never fired a gun.


Pardon? Army, right here. Trained to kill an enemy, and not too bad a shot. Fired assault rifles and machineguns, 5.56 and 7.62mm. Carried a rifle in a theater of war. Trained on Carl G. and m-72, as well as grenades.

Fuck off.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:01 pm
 


The right to keep and bear arms in the USA is the enumeration of the rights found inEnglish Common Law that freemen should not be debarred the use of arms to defend themselves or to stand against the government if needed.

We will not be changing this anytime soon. Deal with it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:20 pm
 


George123, as a member of the CF myself (coming up to retirement in Nov) I can only ask why you would want to deny anyone the right to defend their loved ones? It seems you have no weapons of your own, other than an issued rifle, but you have a problem with people defending themselves. Just curious.

$1:
Trained to kill an enemy, and not too bad a shot. Fired assault rifles and machineguns, 5.56 and 7.62mm. Carried a rifle in a theater of war. Trained on Carl G. and m-72, as well as grenades.


Also trained to kill the enemy and an EXCELLENT shot. Also trained on every infantry weapon in the CF catalogue from Browning 9mm pistol up to 81mm mortar, TOW and Eryx. By the way I also own a few weapons that the CF uses, pistols, rifles and shotguns. You would wish that I let home invaders just help themselves to my property whereas I prefer to defend it.

In closing maybe you should take some of your own advice and
$1:
Fuck off.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 265
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:24 pm
 


Excuse me, but you are probably also capable of doing serious harm to someone with your bare hands, and are not afraid to do it. As I have said, go ahead and beat the guy stupid, but if you fire a gun in your home and miss, especialy when it is basicaly combat conditions it is very likely, you could kill the ones you are trying to protect.

Take my advice before you kill the people you are trying to protect.

Or do you not acctualy care about them?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.