stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lots of folks sure do think they know what I need. I'll be the judge of that, thanks. I don't need big brother or anyone else to tell me.

When what you claim to 'need' can easily kill someone with little to no training and, also, can easily kill someone not even related tot he incident at hand (AKA 'innocent bystander') then yes, Big Brother SHOULD have a say in the matter.

How many people have been killed in driveby shootings, mall-type killings, etc?
How many people have been killed by accidental shootings?
How many of those killings were by handguns?
How many people were killed killed in driveby knifings, mall-type knifings, etc?
How many people were killed by accidental stabbings?

This isn't even a numbers issue, it's a common sense issue. Guns should be allowed, but allowed in residences only. Handguns should be permitted, but with full registration and a legitimate reason. There is no legitimate for assault rifles to be carried outside a home, and the ONLY reason I'm willing to accept assault ownership AT ALL is because I'm a realist and understand that in a worst-case scenario, they may be needed to defend citizens from a corrupt government (or zombies, always think of the zombies).

[Faron]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When what you claim to 'need' can easily kill someone with little to no training and, also, can easily kill someone not even related tot he incident at hand (AKA 'innocent bystander') then yes, Big Brother SHOULD have a say in the matter.

No, actually. Myself, and the vast majority of us out there are responsible adults and responsible firearm users. We do not need big brother to reach any further into

How many people have been killed in driveby shootings, mall-type killings, etc?
How many people have been killed by accidental shootings?
How many of those killings were by handguns?
How many people were killed killed in driveby knifings, mall-type knifings, etc?
How many people were killed by accidental stabbings?

This isn't even a numbers issue, it's a common sense issue. Guns should be allowed, but allowed in residences only. Handguns should be permitted, but with full registration and a legitimate reason. There is no legitimate for assault rifles to be carried outside a home, and the ONLY reason I'm willing to accept assault ownership AT ALL is because I'm a realist and understand that in a worst-case scenario, they may be needed to defend citizens from a corrupt government (or zombies, always think of the zombies).[/QUOTE]

Tell me why you think that a law restricting gun ownership to the home is going to stop any criminal. You also just effectively banned hunting.

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, actually. Myself, and the vast majority of us out there are responsible adults and responsible firearm users. We do not need big brother to reach any further into

[snip]

Tell me why you think that a law restricting gun ownership to the home is going to stop any criminal. You also just effectively banned hunting.

I agree that the responsible gun owners, whether I agree with their overzealous need for guns or not, will get the short end of the stick but the unfortunate fact is, you have to plan for stupid. You have to plan for the crazies who do things they shouldn't. In addition, you will never convince me a 'responsible gun owner' will carry anything larger than a handgun on their person outside of their own home.

Hunting and sport shooting are exceptions to this. By law, these activities have to take place in specifically designated areas, or unpopulated areas. You can carry a RPG into the woods and I wouldn't care, but if you carry one on your person in the city, you should be arrested on the spot. Same thing for anything larger than a handgun.

Personally, I think they need to cap the handgun size as well to make .45 and .50 caliber handguns illegal as well, but that's a hair I won't argue about splitting... it's a smaller issue in the overall scheme of things and not worth the hassle.

[Goofier]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree that the responsible gun owners, whether I agree with their overzealous need for guns or not, will get the short end of the stick but the unfortunate fact is, you have to plan for stupid. You have to plan for the crazies who do things they shouldn't. In addition, you will never convince me a 'responsible gun owner' will carry anything larger than a handgun on their person outside of their own home.

Hunting and sport shooting are exceptions to this. By law, these activities have to take place in specifically designated areas, or unpopulated areas. You can carry a RPG into the woods and I wouldn't care, but if you carry one on your person in the city, you should be arrested on the spot. Same thing for anything larger than a handgun.

Personally, I think they need to cap the handgun size as well to make .45 and .50 caliber handguns illegal as well, but that's a hair I won't argue about splitting... it's a smaller issue in the overall scheme of things and not worth the hassle.

Yeah, see, to me that's just this side of being institutional-grade retardation 'cause it sounds like you're saying a .45 is more dangerous/deadly than a .22LR.

And why is it okay to carry an RPG in the woods, but not the city? Country folk are immunte to shaped charges?

But hey, cool, let's do it.

But now let's also make parking spaces illegal within 1500 feet of all bars 'cause that'll save us from drunk drivers.

[Hitchens]

It's Naez, he's ready for anything. Whether it be ATF agents, a confused elderly woman or a burglar. They're all goin' down.

[patriot1776]

h0h0h0

[OforOppression]

ITT: lots of people think they're going to be the target of a government funded assault on their homes.

[OforOppression]

you're all a bunch of shithouses

[Hitchens]

The Second Amendment wasn't intended for arming citizens to protect them against the government. It was to protect the government from standing armies by maintaining a well regulated militia that would fight for said government.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[OforOppression]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Second Amendment wasn't intended for arming citizens to protect them against the government. It was to protect the government from standing armies by maintaining a well regulated militia that would fight for said government.

Amen.