Illinois is becoming like most of Europe.
-
Yup - safer - just like Switzerlend.[^]
Damn, he had a carbine! I missed that on the first read-through. Now I'm jealous.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Each person (according to the Constitution) is free to decide what he "needs". Cost would be more of a barrier than anything else. I'd like to have a helicopter gunship, but they're way too expensive, become even more dangerous when not maintained well, and then there's the problem of fitting it in the gun safe. Back in the 1700's, people owned their own canon. I see no reason why I should be compelled to limit someone else's "needs" based on my own viewpoints.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997I'd rank pretty highly the need to sleep soundly, knowing that any Tom, Dick, and Harry who decided to burgle my house wouldn't be able to pick up a gun on any street corner.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Chris Quinn wrote:
I felt much safer afterwards, as he was an alcoholic and I wouldn't trust him with a pea-shooter after he had hit the sauce, never mind a lethal weapon.
And did he own a car?
No
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
No idea why this was removed. Did people actually report it, or did the admins remove it? If it was the former that is a really sucky indictment of the people that frequent here.
-
The Reincarnation wrote:
I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
That's only a negative if you believe it is never justified to kill or injure another human. If someone breaks into your house and threatens you and your family with a gun of their own, would it be acceptable to shoot them first? And you are not even required to shoot to kill, you could shoot to disable instead. Also, just because you own a gun, does not mean you have to use it. That would be like saying having health insurance means you have to get sick/injured. I guess this is how I see it: a criminal does not care if the gun is illegal, so they will have it either way (because a criminal, by definition, has already broken at least one law, another one isn't likely to stop them), the question is, to me: do I want to be on equal footing? And I can't see a situation where I'd rather they had the advantage.
But the fact that I live in a Country where it is near impossible for a petty criminal to obtain a gun, and if they did they would face a harsher sentence just for possessing the gun than they would breaking into my home. So the fact is I would be on an equal footing, and I live my life being less likely to be shot. Lanza's Mum was a law-abiding citizen with guns and look what good that did her.
-
No idea why this was removed. Did people actually report it, or did the admins remove it? If it was the former that is a really sucky indictment of the people that frequent here.
-
No idea why this was removed. Did people actually report it, or did the admins remove it? If it was the former that is a really sucky indictment of the people that frequent here.
Maybe CHM has a script running which automatically removes posts containing the words "US", "gun(s)" and "law" :-\ . Lets put a conspiracy theory up :suss::suss:.
-
I'd rank pretty highly the need to sleep soundly, knowing that any Tom, Dick, and Harry who decided to burgle my house wouldn't be able to pick up a gun on any street corner.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
But any (criminal) tom/dick/harry (or tom with a harry dick) CAN get a gun on pretty much any street corner. Cost and time to pre-flight would pretty much negate the utility of a helicopter gunship, so I keep a .45 handy. :)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
THEY SKY! THE SKY IS FALLING! NOW AT A PLACE NEAR YOU!
It wouldn't dare fall on me. I'm too well armed.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
I would like to point out that the President of the Illinois Senate is a registered lobbyist of the National Safety Council, so, it might not be that far off.
Defeated - FAIL for gun grabbers. And a police chief in Pennsylvania will be submitting a proposal for a 2nd Amendment preservation ordinance to his city council. Text of proposal[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Colin Mullikin wrote:
The People should be armed to a similar level as the government's military.
Then there's no point in having a military, because the people become a militia, and take care of protecting the country from external and internal threats. That was the point of the amendment: There was no military, so the people had to be a militia. The amendment has been null and void since a standing army was assembled.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
No. The point of the People being armed to the same extent is in order to protect themselves from the military if necessary. A military is still necessary as militias are part-time, and a full-time military presence is needed. And you are simply wrong in the fact that we didn't have a military when the second amendment was written. The United States Army was formed several years before the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, and it evolved from the Continental Army which fought the Revolutionary War.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
-
Yeah, it wasn't abusive, I don't understand why that was removed. Perhaps people are using 'report' as 'vote 1' and forgetting that it actually gets posts removed?
-
No idea why this was removed. Did people actually report it, or did the admins remove it? If it was the former that is a really sucky indictment of the people that frequent here.
-
Defeated - FAIL for gun grabbers. And a police chief in Pennsylvania will be submitting a proposal for a 2nd Amendment preservation ordinance to his city council. Text of proposal[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997Yeah, no vote, for now, it will come back up very soon here. Regarding your link, what I find interesting about the current climate. Dems want states to have the right to legalize marijuana, yet feel the Feds should restrict firearms. I think both should be left to the state to regulate (I would move then).
-
The strange thing is, I didn't receive a single 1 vote here. It must have been removed by admins.
Well that's their prerogative, their site an all, but why not move the whole thread to the Soapbox instead of deleting one post and making the whole thread meaningless to anyone else that comes along.
-
Well that's their prerogative, their site an all, but why not move the whole thread to the Soapbox instead of deleting one post and making the whole thread meaningless to anyone else that comes along.
-
If you make it harder to murder people, less people will be murdered. You can't escape the bleeding obvious.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
-
Yeah, no vote, for now, it will come back up very soon here. Regarding your link, what I find interesting about the current climate. Dems want states to have the right to legalize marijuana, yet feel the Feds should restrict firearms. I think both should be left to the state to regulate (I would move then).
The states don't have any business restricting *any* rights enumerated in the Constitution. I refuse to obtain a state's "license" to carry, because it implies the right to carry is a privilege GRANTED by the state. Further, charging a fee or tax for the license reinforces the concept that it is a privilege. If I can legally possess a firearm, I should be able to carry said firearm, and without any interference or undue attention from the state and its appointed agents.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
And it's difficult to steal guns from people who don't own them.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
