The right to keep and bear arms?

[pathfinder 0]

The only reason that I chose #1 is because I live in the country that invented the kneejerk reaction.    Hey don't get me wrong ,#3 is great and all if it remains #3.  But it wouldn't take much for #3 to become #4 if many politicians and movie stars had their way over here.   I believe some people call it the slippery slope.

I'm sure the day we are told to hand in all our guns will never come , as it would be like pulling teeth on a shark.....in other words ,kinda dangerous to anyone who tried to enforce it.

But IF I lived in CA a few years back, I would have thought gun registration and evil weapons bans could have never happend either.  Guess I would'ev been wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------

Ralph have you, or your family ever been the target of a smash and grab robbery?  It looks like you talk from experience.  It happens alot in the city where people can group together and rob your house.    

To bad many criminals are repeat offenders.  Maybe we could change the legal system..........drifts off into a day dream.................Death penalty for all lawbreakers including petty crimes.  Slaughter house boltguns used instead lethal injection.    Streets are safe to walk again and everyone is smiling ,and to afraid to break the law!!!   The president off the movie ESCAPE FROM LA will look like a pansy compared to my rule.                  A little white-out here and there on the Bill of Rights is all ya need  .................................................................................Sou

nds a bit extreme doesn't it?  But if your willing to circumvent one of your rights the rest will follow eventually.

Did I mention I'm running for PRES in 2012    

Now If ya don't mind I'm gonna see whats so great about eating glue....mmmm super glue!!!......gulp.........aw shmit!

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A forward grip provides more accuracy?  I guess that's why most precision rifles have forward grips... oh wait, no they don't.  Even if it did help with accuracy, would you want to ban a gun because it's accurate?  And a folding stock can only hurt your accuracy.  A flimsy plastic or wire stock is not as solid as a fixed stock.  You ignored all of the other features. <span id='postcolor'>

so US army, with it's M4 variations with folding stocks is compromising accuracy, right?

instead of making me explain rest of the features why don't you do that? your responds has been shorter and shorter and more defensive.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rimfire .22 pistols happen to be used a lot in crimes.  They are also generally cheap.  So the California law which tried to ban cheap guns failed.  The assault weapons ban had no effect on crime because the scary looking guns aren't used in all that many crimes.  So basically California's gun control laws couldn't have had any effect on the crime.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, they are cheap, around 250 bucks but not as cheap as SNSs who ran about 70-150 bucks. another sign that you don't understand my post shows here. SNSs, along with its cheap price was easily concealable and was favorites of criminals for that matter. THAT's why it was banned.

you constantly argue that gun contorl doesn't work, but crime rate reduction says it all.

also, the link you provided is basically from biased source. it's same as Al Qaeda saying america is wrong by quoting from PLO site. <span id='postcolor'>

The US Army is compromising its accuracy for a lighter weight weapon. They shortened the barrel and added a collapsing stock so that it could be easily wielded in an urban setting.

California's law did not ban SNS's. It tried to, but it failed. If you look on the California DOJ site you will find several types of SNS's. Therefore you cannot claim that it had any effect on crime rates.

The reduction in crime rate began after states started easing up on gun controls and allowing concealed carry of weapons. The states with the most lax gun controls have the lowest crime rates. You just can't refute that.

The link I provided uses information from published law enforcement reports and surveys done by nationally accredited scholars.

[Guest]

I am not going to get involved in this thread, but there are two points that I would like to make.

1) Comparing different states within the US is pointless since it is very easy to bring guns over the border.

2) Most so called 'illegal' guns are stolen legal guns.

[Renagade 0]

Even if u ban ban them completely they willl stilll be around like the UK like pistols were.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Sep. 02 2002,22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if u ban ban them completely they willl stilll be around like the UK like pistols were.<span id='postcolor'>

Well we still have shotguns and small caliber rifles, pretty deadly, while gun crime is rising.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They shortened the barrel and added a collapsing stock so that it could be easily wielded in an urban setting.<span id='postcolor'>

definitely. and why does an anverage joe need to use a carbine in urban setting?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">California's law did not ban SNS's. It tried to, but it failed. If you look on the California DOJ site you will find several types of SNS's. Therefore you cannot claim that it had any effect on crime rates.<span id='postcolor'>

LA county has ban on the SNSs for sure, and there crime rate has been going down hill, while there was a slight increase in crime rate last quarter, by 0.1% or so. so SNSs ban is not unuseful as you claim.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reduction in crime rate began after states started easing up on gun controls and allowing concealed carry of weapons. The states with the most lax gun controls have the lowest crime rates. You just can't refute that.

<span id='postcolor'>

no, as you guys claimed, CA is increasingly strengthening gun control laws and yet sees reduction in crimes. then how can you explain that? the states that have strongest gun control laws have it cause they need it. look at CA. so many urban areas and that is far different from Montana.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The link I provided uses information from published law enforcement reports and surveys done by nationally accredited scholars.<span id='postcolor'>

and interpreted by pro-gun nuts. datas can be manipulated to show one thing by limiting the stuff. i read some of the methods that were done interms of doing research and Kleck is not realizing that his method can be as bad as the ones he pointed out from fedral statistics.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pathfinder @ Sep. 02 2002,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only reason that I chose #1 is because I live in the country that invented the kneejerk reaction.    Hey don't get me wrong ,#3 is great and all if remains #3.  But it wouldn't take much for #3 to become #4 if many politicians and movie stars had their way over here.   I believe some people call it the slippery slope.<span id='postcolor'>

no...i think anything after #3 will get ppl pissed off and have counter reaction. one of the things that ppl worry about is that legislatures do it a little by little to limit it completely. that's not true. once you get to a certain point, ppl will not tolerate any further, and even ACLU will protect 2nd amendment.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Ralph have you, or your family ever been the target of a smash and grab robbery? It looks like you talk from experience. It happens alot in the city where people can group together and rob your house.

<span id='postcolor'>

uhm..yeah..experience......no on the recieving side though....

just kidding. but from all the home invasion crimes i seen, i see that it takes really short time to get upper hand on families. especailly at night. and i doubt if anyone can react fast enough to counter that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now If ya don't mind I'm gonna see whats so great about eating glue....mmmm super glue!!!......gulp.........aw shmit!p<span id='postcolor'>

what? you don't like the great taste of glue?!?

what's wrong with you!

[drewb99 0]

Countries that don't have guns ain't American.

[pathfinder 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (drewb99 @ Sep. 02 2002,23:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Countries that don't have guns ain't American.<span id='postcolor'>

Ah someone has been playing GTAIII LASLOW

Ya know if more people had guns there would be less shootings.....dripping wet with sarcasm

I can listen to that show for over an hour and it's still funny

[billytran 0]

Why do people need a carbine? Just look at the LA riots. Several Korean shopowners stood on top of their stores with AK's to defend against the many rioters who were trying to kill them and loot their stores. During hurricanes, floods, and other emergencies people have defended themselves and their property against criminals trying to take advantage of a crisis situation.

I claimed that the nationwide crime rate went down because the majority of the states eased up on gun control. That caused a nationwide downturn in violent crime. There are other states with large urban areas that have lax gun control and low crime. Look at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, etc. Virginia is right next to "gun-free" Washington DC and has lax controls; yet, it has a much lower crime rate. You claim that gun control lowers crime, which might be said for California, but does not hold true for the rest of the US.

Most of the statistics listed under the individual states were taken right from crime reports published by the states. You cannot ignore that.

[Joe_1911 0]

Carbines are very useful. collapsing stocks is like a 1 fits all on rifles like an AR-15 or an HK-94. Instead of having to buy multiple rifles or stocks you can merely use the same stock and just adjsut it to different lengths depending on the person shooting it. carbines are also handy for people with shorter arms. Also, most competitions out there involving military look alike rifles don't go beyond 300-400m and thats the carbines effective range, so why have a gun thats effective out to 1000 yards when you only need a rifle effective out to 400?

[hntr3006 0]

ya, i DID do a search, but not for gun control, im not usually on the forums, so i didnt need a name, then i had a question so i registered, this came up on the search, anyway, i also think that a good number of gun control guys dont really believe in reducing crime, a good chunk of it is probly about disarming the public. you know Hitler believed in gun control, saying it would help the nation, instead he took away the defenses of jews making them helpless. in switzerland, every male is required to own a gun and the crime rate there is the one of, if not the lowest in europe. I would also feel better with a sane person with a gun next door than an anti-gun person next door. i dont trust'em. Ive lived around guns my whole life and ive never had any break-in, murder next door, or crime in my life, oh, cept for a stolen car, and the theif was un-armed

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Joe_1911 @ Sep. 03 2002,01:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes I do keep my .357 loaded and nearby. What gun owner wouldn't?<span id='postcolor'>

I know plenty of Gun owners who never keep their guns loaded. They have no ammunition in them, and they take the bolt out and hide it in a seperate place to their gun. In New Zealand it is Illegal to have a loaded gun when its not in use. You by Law have to store it in a sfae and secure place. In a country that has a descent police force, people should not have to have loaded guns around them to feel safe. Most of our murders in NZ are stabbings. They look very hard at you before they give out liscenses, and if someone is running around with guns threatning or trying to kill someone, we have a very good Armed Offenders Squad. NZ is a bit of a police state, and this proves it. If there is a hostage situation, they will turn up in all that sexy kevlar and lots of automatic weapons, and they DO NOT negotiate most of the time. They go in and drag you out kicking and screaming.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why do people need a carbine? Just look at the LA riots. Several Korean shopowners stood on top of their stores with AK's to defend against the many rioters who were trying to kill them and loot their stores. During hurricanes, floods, and other emergencies people have defended themselves and their property against criminals trying to take advantage of a crisis situation.

<span id='postcolor'>

and how many did those shopowners fire? barely one. let me ask how much you know about that particular incident that was broadcasted on international television? what was the supermarket's name? where in LA is it located?(it's still in the same place). and I pointed out that the core root of this problem was that it was Republican police commisioner that failed to act upon riot. all police forces were ready to roll, but Darrel Gates did not allow it. I already pointed out your fallacies of using LA riot as an example in someonther gun control thread. guess your brain is worse than mine. in crisis situation, you are better off trying to make a shelter to protect from a natural disaster than load your gun and wait for that 'intruder'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I claimed that the nationwide crime rate went down because the majority of the states eased up on gun control. That caused a nationwide downturn in violent crime. There are other states with large urban areas that have lax gun control and low crime. Look at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, etc. Virginia is right next to "gun-free" Washington DC and has lax controls; yet, it has a much lower crime rate. You claim that gun control lowers crime, which might be said for California, but does not hold true for the rest of the US.

<span id='postcolor'>

again, as you preached earlier, gun control laws are getting stricter. since late 80's the laws for firearms are getting stricter. if you claim right now that gun laws has been relaxed in last few yrs you just contradicted yourself.

i read from a forum member's post that in Michigan even getting some BB guns are pain in the ass, and now you mentioned Chicago.

and now you are claiming 'exception' argument, but i can tell you that a good portion of virginian are gov't related ppl. so even though Washington D.C. is right next door, virginians know what kind of things guns are, and they act maturely enough. unfortunately, not all can act mature like them, and to prevent accidents from those ppl, we have to have some control. and am i mistaken to claim that D.C police has been labeled as 'incompetent' in many cases?

and those were statistics of crime, not gun control.

[ralphwiggum 6]

well, welcome to the forum

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyway, i also think that a good number of gun control guys dont really believe in reducing crime, a good chunk of it is probly about disarming the public. <span id='postcolor'>

so are you saying all those moms who lost their kids to gun-related crime like Columbine are not for reducing the crime? excuse me, but easier access to guns, more accidents and crimes are waiting to happen. that's why we need strict control to distinguish a good owner and a bad wannabes. good owners handle firearms with caution, bad ones don't. and with bad ones, there are accidents waiting to happen.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you know Hitler believed in gun control, saying it would help the nation, instead he took away the defenses of jews making them helpless. in switzerland, every male is required to own a gun and the crime rate there is the one of, if not the lowest in europe.<span id='postcolor'>

nope, Hitler and Nazis gained popularity among most populations who were happy to blame Jews for all problem. do you think Jewish having guns would stop Nazi's propaganda? hells no. and the argument like "Hitler did not like ..." serves no purpose. these kind of arguments are to equate some figure A(in this case Hitler) with your cause, trying to win the argument. with that logic, i can claim that George Washington was a looser/sissie since he did not go for third term. thus everyone should forget about decency and be populist politician.(Washington did not want to be one, so he declined request to go for third term).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would also feel better with a sane person with a gun next door than an anti-gun person next door. i dont trust'em. Ive lived around guns my whole life and ive never had any break-in, murder next door, or crime in my life, oh, cept for a stolen car, and the theif was un-armed<span id='postcolor'>

the anti-gun person won't shoot you, but a sane person who can snap, with a gun can shoot you. you live with your guns and you feel safe, but even former police chief of NYPD never fired a round during his service.

[Mister Frag 0]

Anyone expecting the police to protect them in a riot or any other time of need ought to be aware of the fact that the police have no legal obligation to protect you.

It could be a sunny day at the beach, and there could be half a dozen cops around watching you having the snot beaten out of you by a couple of drunken bikers. They do not have to act, and you have no legal recourse, at least not in the United States:

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kasler-protection.html

This of course applies in your own home, too. Even if you can get a 911 call out in the event of a home-invasion robbery, and even if the cops can get there in time, they don't have to do squat. Heck, they don't even have to show up!

[ralphwiggum 6]

but they do show up....after a loooooong time !

police does not have constitutional obligation to show up. however, such action usually leads to community backlash, not to mention criticism.

thus police shows up as much as they could. of course, they can't be everywhere, and that's why we need to fund them more.

in robber vs. yourself scenario, there can be very conflicting arguments from both sides. but another person, a cop, can be somewhat of more objective 3rd party to sort things out.

so you can use your guns to whatever extent you can, but it's better to have police(professionals) deal with them. and i don't think amatuers can do better job in most cases.

[von Schnitzel 0]

Guns are fun. That's why they should belong only to the military and law enforcement with the exception of hunting.

But this will not work in US and never will.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Joe_1911 @ Sep. 01 2002,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes I do keep my .357 loaded and nearby. What gun owner wouldn't?<span id='postcolor'>

Pease tell me you don't have any kids

[ran 0]

my service gun is in a metal case and has a special trigger blocker made by a friend who's actually getting the patent pending

it blocks the trigger (by stopping it from the rear ) and the .... the thing on the rear bah what's the english name .........

this system can't be set without the pistol being on its safety

the system only works for the moment on french semi automatic police pistol Pamas G1 (it's in fact a beretta 92fs , as the test shown , you can put the system on almost any beretta 9X serie) the system needs a special key and a simple manual manipulation ,  i love it

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Sep. 01 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It looks to me like many ppl here don't realize what guns really are, the ppl who choose option one probable didn't really think about it......<span id='postcolor'>

Guns are those things that shoot bullets.  Criminals will always have guns, by taking guns away from the honest people it makes it all that much easier on the criminals. Guns are also fun to shoot, they are a great enjoyment. Hunters use guns to hunt, without guns what would they use?Bows?! We need hunters with gub to keep the animal population under control. Guns, in most cases, are a good tool.<span id='postcolor'>

I was trying to say that not much ppl seem to realize how dangerous guns are...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">by taking guns away from the honest people it makes it all that much easier on the criminals<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm, if you pull your gun when some criminals stand in front of you you'll be dead before you know it, you might survive a 1 on 1 if you're lucky but if there's more than 1 criminal you'll be dead. You're not Rambo, you know...

Over here in Belgium some ppl got executed in their house when a couple criminals housejacked them. The chance that this happens to you is small but pulling a weapon will make that chance a lot bigger.

Criminals with guns are dangerous criminals, a thief that isn't armed and just wants some money will probable run when he sees you, a serious criminal will not run. With some luck he'll just take your stuff and go, but if you don't do what they say bad stuff can happen.

Perhaps having a gun with you is a good way of selfprotection, but i believe not, shooting criminals is just mad, i can't believe you think having a gun is a solution. If every adult could have a gun there'd be more crime, every single lunatic could have a gun. Every criminal that hasn't done anything bad yet (officially) can buy a gun, basically that means that a killer who has been protected by, f.e., the maffia and who hasn't done anything bad yet officially can go to a gunshop, buy some guns, buy some ammo , etc.

That's just sick, solution nr 3 won't change a lot but it will change something.

A gun isn't a good weapon for defense, killing someone is a very serious thing, even if it is a criminal. Get a baseball bat, you'll be able to take down thiefs when they're alone or badly armed. It's the same as a gun, the only difference is that you don't kill them, a positive thing in case you didn't realize that!

Solution nr 3 doesn't take guns away from the honest ppl, it takes guns away from the lunatics, freaks, ppl that don't realize what they're doing, ppl that want to kill themselves and so on! Honest ppl can get a gun...

What's so bad about that? Nothing in my opinion, tell me why it's better that everyone (incl. lunatics and ppl like that) would be able to get a gun? If you think a bit logically number 3 is the best solution, i don't just say this because i think so, i say this because if you look at the facts, it's the one with less bad things connected to it.

Just think about it....

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 02 2002,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my service gun is in a metal case and has a special trigger blocker made by a friend who's actually getting the patent pending

it blocks the trigger (by stopping it from the rear ) and the .... the thing on the rear bah what's the english name .........

this system can't be set without the pistol being on its safety

the system only works for the moment on french semi automatic police pistol Pamas G1 (it's in fact a beretta 92fs , as the test shown , you can put the system on almost any beretta 9X serie) the system needs a special key and a simple manual manipulation ,  i love it<span id='postcolor'>

Very nice, good for everyone's safety

[hntr3006 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

so are you saying all those moms who lost their kids to gun-related crime like Columbine are not for reducing the crime? excuse me, but easier access to guns, more accidents and crimes are waiting to happen. that's why we need strict control to distinguish a good owner and a bad wannabes. good owners handle firearms with caution, bad ones don't. and with bad ones, there are accidents waiting to happen. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you know Hitler believed in gun control, saying it would help the nation, instead he took away the defenses of jews making them helpless. in switzerland, every male is required to own a gun and the crime rate there is the one of, if not the lowest in europe.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">nope, Hitler and Nazis gained popularity among most populations who were happy to blame Jews for all<span id='postcolor'>

No, i didnt say that EVERY person wanted disarmament, just some, a half, two-thirds of them, i dont know, but alot do want disarmament. i agree that there are people out there that truly believe no guns would be good for America. and about Hitler, of course he convinced the Germans that the Jews were the cause of there problems. i never said that that was the sole cause of his popularity. im just saying that  he took about the Peoples defenses, and they suffered, barly any Jews were able to defend themselves during the krystalnecht (i cant spell it) or any other attacks on them. I didnt say that the Nazis would never of risin to power, im just saying that they wouldnt of been sitting ducks. Im simply using a lesson in history. your saying that i wrote things that i never did. You also seem to think that just because a person owns a gun that makes them a dangerous murderer, thats about the farthest you can get from the truth.

some people are saying that a person would have no chance of defending off an attacker with a gun or that is stupid to defend a painting on a wall. well, defending a PAINTING is stupid! but defending your family isnt! just a few weeks ago a woman fought off a kidnapper after her child with a gun. a smart person should know when to defend hisself or when to surrender

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">thus police shows up as much as they could. of course, they can't be everywhere, and that's why we need to fund them more.<span id='postcolor'>

Funding is a government 'thang. You can lobby them for more money all you want, but I have seen snails move faster.

I would rather trust myself with a weapon than cower and wait for the police.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, if you pull your gun when some criminals stand in front of you you'll be dead before you know it, you might survive a 1 on 1 if you're lucky but if there's more than 1 criminal you'll be dead.  You're not Rambo, you know...<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree that guns may act as a deterrent in the short run. But this will be countered by criminals carrying more guns when breaking into houses or mugging, encouraging a more violent approach on both sides. This could very easily spiral completely out of control.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can give a civilian a gun and say he can protect himself, but if he suffers a hit and run attack, he might shoot off into a crowd of people because he's furious and wants to wax the guy,m plus his aim will probably suck ass. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, let's see. if i get robbed by 3 guys with handguns, and i have one handgun, I will win, right? nah...:D

there are always ways to overcome elevation of power. just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are safe, if you get sandwiched, then  you might be able to shoot one, but you are in no safe place either. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's a situation i can give you. If someone breaks in, would you rather get yourself killed by resisting? If it's to the point where robber was able to get in, your chance of resistance is quite low. <span id='postcolor'>

Bla Bla  Bla Bla  BlaBlaBlah!

What's with all these goddamn 'what if' scenarios?

What if, what if, what if......................

What if I could shoot flaming napalm jelly out of my ass?

I am getting a bit tired of all these self-made scenarios, not a single one can prove that guns should not be owned by civillians, or that stricter rules are needed for our protection. Hey, I can already protect myself, I don't need stupid laws to attempt to do that for me.

I would love to see the day when some anti-gun type can show me valid statistics, proving that guns are too dangerous to be owned. It can't happen today, because they dont exist! All you left-wing types do is come up with stupid scenarios, well, show me some valid numbers and I will listen to you.

Here's a good quote from page 10. He said what I felt like saying..... Joe_1911 says:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The people that say automatic weapons should be banned because they are "used in violent crimes all the time and kill lots of people" are utter dumbasses who haven't made any attempt to look at how many people have been killed by a LEGALLY owned automatic weapon. Since 1930 there has been ONE homicde with a legally owned automatic weapon. <span id='postcolor'>

[ralphwiggum 6]

the systematic rise of Hitler/Nazi would have proved fatal with or wihtout guns in Jewish hands. If Jewish had guns, it would brand them as 'dangerous minority', thus making them more hated by Germans.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You also seem to think that just because a person owns a gun that makes them a dangerous murderer, thats about the farthest you can get from the truth<span id='postcolor'>

well i'm an avid shooting hobbists and i eat glues...so i guess i'm a nut

on serious note, my position is that gun control laws need to be stricter so that we weed out incompetence when it comes to gun handling. i believe in 2nd amendment, but not the prolific abuse of it.

let me repeat this again: NRA claims "it's not the gun, it's the ppl." then why don't we have a system that make sure we reduce number of incompetent ppl? just letting everyone have access to guns is bound to lelt some incompetent fool to have one and that is a gunpowder keg next to a fire place. since NRA doesn't even budge to answer that question, next best thing is controlling gun sales.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a smart person should know when to defend hisself or when to surrender<span id='postcolor'>

yes, and also they know having guns, unless loaded and kept right next to them, and be able to have enough time to encounter intruder, doesn't do much.