Mock

Simple is right.

You won't listen to what an Australian has to say from first hand experience, but you'll listen to what an American has to say in regards to the Australian model.

Thanks for confirming.

At least the americans have a horse in the same race I do HotD.
I don't want to listen to someone that lives in a country and thinks its ok to require you to give a "genuine" reason for owning a firearm and also lumps air guns and paintball guns in the same category. That's just bull shit.

Just a note: The Japanese and the Germans had second thoughts of invading America during WWII because they were concerned about everybody having a gun................Please carry on nice people.

Australia is great they have a natural immigration fence. Their borders are secure via nature. The only thing stopping immigration is government regulations. They can trust in the government as much as they want and not worry about hoodlums hitting their dogs with hammers and entering their private dwellings. The police are seconds away.

I've always thought these are reasonable gun laws.

A person is generally prohibited from purchasing a firearm if:[22]
they are under indictment for a felony, or any crime which could result in more than a year in prison.
they have been convicted of a felony, or any other crime for which they could have been sentenced to more than a year in prison.
they are a fugitive from justice.
they are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, controlled substances, including marijuana.
they have been adjudicated mentally defective.
they have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
they have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
they have renounced their United States citizenship.

(10-08-2015, 09:14 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Just a note: The Japanese and the Germans had second thoughts of invading America during WWII because they were concerned about everybody having a gun................Please carry on nice people.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I've heard that and I've also heard it's a myth.

Factcheck:

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.

Linky:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

(10-08-2015, 09:08 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want to listen to someone that lives in a country and thinks its ok to require you to give a "genuine" reason for owning a firearm

You have no clue how moronic that sounds to a rational person, do you?

'Look Marge, I don't have a genuine reason to own a gun, but I want one anyway'

The frequency of mass shootings in US has grown to outrageous proportions! Drastic measures need to be taken to protect the public!

A possible far fetched remedy may be that "no one" has a gun, or conversely, that "everyone" has a gun! Just like it was in the wild wild west.

A sicko SOB carrying a gun has to have a feeling of uttermost superiority, knowing that the "defenseless" potential victims they are about to shoot, can't shoot back.

Therefore, since sicko having knowledge that the majority of the public had guns, (there will always be some non-carriers) the sicko might think twice before going on a shooting rampage. Knowing that many of the potential (once defenseless) victims now having guns just might shoot back!

Having said that, the majority of the public having guns, may turn out to be a major problem, just like the major "Texting" all the time, (even while driving) problem created.

Majority of people carrying guns potential problem, you cut me off road rage- BANG, you cut in line in front of me-BANG, you flipped me the bird-BANG, you looked/whistled an my girlfriend-BANG, so maybe the more people having guns may cause more shootings.

It really seems like there is no viable solution.

(10-09-2015, 05:50 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

Is he saying Crash doesn't have a right to voice his opinion in this thread because he's not an American? Seriously?

Ramsey, get that man of yours under control.

Oh for fucks sake. No I am not saying they cant voice their opinion. I am saying I don't have to listen to foreigners when it comes to American problems. Talk all you want but I do have selective hearing.


Get this under control. Insert pic of FU grabbing his crotch.

Chicago with all their restrictive gun laws has had 48 mass shootings or 4 or more people killed at the same time since 2013. the reason the media does not cover it or the President says nothing is because most were caused by criminals killing criminals and not soft targets that are in the suburbs.
Taking away guns from responsible gun owners is not the way to go. But as in the slippery slope or butterfly effect scenario everybody knows that it never stops at the original thought process.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.


Many restrictive laws concerning guns have been passed over the last 30 years and I would be interested in seeing the drop in homicides over the years because of it. As the gun laws in Chicago would have decreased the homicide rate in that city.
Now I'm off to see if the gun crime rate has dropped in Mass. and New York after stricter gun laws were introduced. But I better double check the sources for political affiliation beforehand.

I ran across this and thought I would post it. HotD and I had touched on fully auto firearms a few pages back. This shows how few states have even banned them. Federal law allows them if you pay them a $200.00 tax. Just a FYI.

(10-09-2015, 09:15 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]But I better double check the sources for political affiliation beforehand.

If you really don't want to be regarded as a consummate bullshit-peddler in serious discussion, you should probably just start considering accuracy instead, regardless of political affiliation.

Swallowing unsubstantiated rumors or claims on extreme (right-catering or left-catering) sites and positioning them as 'news' or facts because they lean in your direction is either gullible or short-sighted intentional deception.

Most people here aren't so ignorant or politically correct to pretend that a pile of crap smells like roses just because they like the poster who dumped it here, even if they wish the crap were true.

But, if you don't care, or taking a couple of extra minutes to double check for source is too much trouble, bring on the bullshit! It's part of most any debate/discussion and there are more than a couple of members here who know how to have fun scooping it up and tossing it back anyway. Sometimes it keeps things lively.

(10-09-2015, 10:19 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2015, 09:15 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]But I better double check the sources for political affiliation beforehand.

If you really don't want to be regarded as a consummate bullshit-peddler in serious discussion, you should probably just start considering accuracy instead, regardless of political affiliation.

Swallowing unsubstantiated rumors or claims on extreme (right-catering or left-catering) sites and positioning them as 'news' or facts because they lean in your direction is either gullible or short-sighted intentional deception.

Most people here aren't so ignorant or politically correct to pretend that a pile of crap smells like roses just because they like the poster who dumped it here, even if they wish the crap were true.

But, if you don't care, or taking a couple of extra minutes to double check for source is too much trouble, bring on the bullshit! It's part of most any debate/discussion and there are more than a couple of members here who know how to have fun scooping it up and tossing it back anyway. Sometimes it keeps things lively.

Yeah political sources are not reliable. I agree.

Maggot = Consumate bullshit-peddler.

A nice ring to it.

There's not one person here clamoring to take your precious guns.

My god, you want to go out to your local dump and shoot beer cans until darkness falls, be my guest.

None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.

I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.

You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.

(10-09-2015, 09:41 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I ran across this and thought I would post it. HotD and I had touched on fully auto firearms a few pages back. This shows how few states have even banned them. Federal law allows them if you pay them a $200.00 tax. Just a FYI.

Thank you F.U.

I posted about this a couple of months back. Fully auto/machine guns are essentially banned UNLESS one pays the tax required AND submits to the NFA registry.

Post 1798: Anyway, there is one federal gun registry exception. NFA weapons are required by law to be registered with the Feds. NFA weapons include machine guns, certain parts of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and destructive devices such as grenades or mortars. An additional category called "Any Other Weapon" is also included.

I don't think fully automatics are big part of the gun violence problem in America anyway though, at least not that I'm aware.

I have seen several crime stories where short-barreled weapons were used however.

What Presidential candidate Martin O'Malley is proposing is that those weapons listed above, along with semi-automatics, become banned altogether. That's my understanding.

And, all other guns would be part of a newly-established national gun registry.

Under his plan, if you want to own guns, you must register them with the Fed.

Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

(10-09-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Maggot = Consumate bullshit-peddler.

A nice ring to it.

There's not one person here clamoring to take your precious guns.

My god, you want to go out to your local dump and shoot beer cans until darkness falls, be my guest.

None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.

I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.

You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.

No such thing as to many guns. But they are rather easy to acquire.

Of coarse you don't care about OUR right's. Most anti gunners don't. I know I know. . . and you don't care about the rights of those poooooor defenseless children either. Save your breath/typing fingers, I have heard it all before.

(10-09-2015, 09:15 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Chicago with all their restrictive gun laws has had 48 mass shootings or 4 or more people killed at the same time since 2013. the reason the media does not cover it or the President says nothing is because most were caused by criminals killing criminals and not soft targets that are in the suburbs.
Taking away guns from responsible gun owners is not the way to go. But as in the slippery slope or butterfly effect scenario everybody knows that it never stops at the original thought process.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.


Many restrictive laws concerning guns have been passed over the last 30 years and I would be interested in seeing the drop in homicides over the years because of it. As the gun laws in Chicago would have decreased the homicide rate in that city.
Now I'm off to see if the gun crime rate has dropped in Mass. and New York after stricter gun laws were introduced. But I better double check the sources for political affiliation beforehand.

Yeah I know a few folks up there. It happens almost daily and guns are illegal there. But the whole idea that outlawing guns means only criminals will have guns is preposterous and unrealistic.