BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

i would merk the fuck out of you fucks

he'll shoot your plane down

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

13rin wrote:

Thanks for proving a point.  For those that may not be able to defend themselves as you provided in your pictorial above (a petite pretty thing and an obses man) a gun is the ultimate equalizer.

GG, NEXT!

I can't protect myself from falling down on my head, but I don't wear a helmet around every day.

But you certainly have the right to

Clearly you don't have this cool laser beam shooting helmet:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The citizens need small-arms to protect against tyranny:

WRONG

Supreme Court recently ruled (in 2010) that there are other reasons to own a firearm rather than a militia to protect against tyranny.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its worth having a high murder rate to defend freedom:
See above.

WRONG

Never seen this argument made before...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Accepting having a country awash with uncontrolled guns any idot teenager or gang-banger can get hold of with ease and the consequential death rate in order to maintain a delusion is doubly delusional.

WRONG

The country is not awash with uncontrolled guns.  Or maybe it is... Just ask Rom Emanuel, his city is plagued with firearm violence.  Oh, but wait... There is a firearm ban in the windy city....   

Criminals don't pay attention to sane laws, save those laws scoped with gun restriction.  We all know you hate the US.  I submit that you'd love to see more US citizens harmed by having the law abiding populous disarmed. 

Dilbert_X wrote:

But if everyone has a gun then crime will be zero:

Thats what you have now, it doesn't seem to work.

WRONG

No, the US doesn't have that now.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its OK, we have capital punishment to deal with murderers, that'll fix it and then everyone can have a gun:

See above.

WRONG

That argument never applied to firearm ownership, but thanks for playing.  That argument was used as a punitive deterrent to those who were considering 1 REDRUM.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Gun Control is the Mark of the Devil:

No it isnt. Preventing criminals, the mentally unsuitable and children getting hold of lethal weapons is not the work of Satan. People needing licenses, registering their firearms and storing them securely are perfecly reasonable steps which are just not a problem for a normal law-abiding person - they are a problem for people who shouldn't have access to guns - which is how it should be. People have driving licenses and have to register their car, you can argue license/register nothing or everything, guns aren't a special case.
Would it be OK for a citizen to have a right to buy a car, not register it, not insure it and head for the freeway with zero training? If the NRA were funded by the car lobby thats what you'd have. Its beyond idiotic but there you go.
Reasonable gun control, applied in the right areas, would mean more freedom for the law-abiding.

WRONG

Amusing that your most absurd argument bears the longest inapplicable rant in opposition of owning a firearm.  You clearly have zero concept of what the "Bill of Rights" does and who it applies to.  Further, you don't need a license to buy a car.  In most States it is illegal to carry without a permit.  Think of that as your "driving license for a gun" -der....

Reasonable gun restrictions have all ready been enacted and more would simply be less freedom for the law-abiding.

And now more American bashing brought to you by......

Dilbert wrote:

Having said that I don't think its unreasonable for a responsible person to own a weapon, the citizenry of most countries have done so without much problem since before gunpowder was invented  - its just Americans who can't seem to get the hang of it.
Skill-at-arms is both fun and a social duty, although the average gun-nut I've come across isn't interested in skill, being sociable or duty.
If its well regulated so much the better

There it is... According to dilbert, only he should have as gun enthusiasts are really nuts and not interested in responsible gun ownership.  Yea, 'gun-nuts' could care less about learning to shoot properly using good form, while adhering to the local's policy on carry laws.  I know I hold all of my pistols sideways when shooting, cause I saw a movie where the guy doing it looked really cool.   Jesus dil, where did you meet your average 'gun-nut', Chicago?

Dilbert wrote:

Even self-defence is reasonable in some situations, in your own home for example. But then if you have a gun for self-defence then so does everyone else, people get drunk and/or old and end up shooting the postman or having their gun stolen by kids because they forget to lock it up when they went to the bingo.
Cruising the streets in an SUV or wandering the subway looking for someone to look at you funny is not reasonable, nor if you don't recognise the person on your neighbour's property.

Monday Morning quarterback much?

Translation:
Some times you should be able to defend yourself (really only me though) but only as long as you have given that wrongly societal made and labeled "criminal" every opportunity to rethink his/her current actions/station in life, have exhausted in offering all of one's possession to said 'poor soul', attempted flight,  and played dead in hopes he/she will just leave you alone.  Also people, I love to play the what-if game and the entire concept of community policing and neighborhood watch is completely lost on me.

Bottom line is you have zero knowledge of current US Federal (let alone individual State) gun laws and merely spouted off some old, tired debunked anti-gun myths, arguments that don't even apply to gun rights, and ones that are truly bizarre which I believe you just pulled out of your ass.

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

This has actually gotten me thinking how funny it would be to watch a bunch of libertards with AR15s try to take down an Apache gunship.

I'd watch that movie, it'd be sweet.

Hey, you know what? In the 1:1,000,000 chance that someone did try to set up a dictatorship in their lifetime, they would at least fight. You'd write a smug post on a dead video game forum mocking them, maybe you'd watch a half hour long video and then donate money to Libertard2030, but probably not.

But that's besides the point. When was the last time an AR-15 was used in a crime? They're rather hard to conceal you know, and the .223 ammo it fires is preferred by the military because the ammo is cheap, not because it has stopping power. If they wanna run around in the woods plinking targets, more power to 'em. They're not hurting anyone, but the rage they induce in people like you is uproariously funny

13rin wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

This has actually gotten me thinking how funny it would be to watch a bunch of libertards with AR15s try to take down an Apache gunship.

I'd watch that movie, it'd be sweet.

Doubtful trollboy.

Oh, my new AR is tits.  Owning one and advocating one's Constitutional right does not automatically place him/her in a militia.  Do you own any firearms, or are you 'civilized'?

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/250.02 Technically already part of a militia.

ROGUEDD wrote:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/250.02 Technically already part of a militia.

(3) The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.

Is this the part you were referencing? Yea... I guess that if DSL live in FL would include him too.  hahaha.

Last edited by 13rin (2012-07-12 13:34:24)

13rin wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/250.02 Technically already part of a militia.

(3) The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.

Is this the part you were referencing? Yea... I guess that if DSL live in FL would include him too.  hahaha.

(1) & (3).

Jay wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

This has actually gotten me thinking how funny it would be to watch a bunch of libertards with AR15s try to take down an Apache gunship.

I'd watch that movie, it'd be sweet.

Hey, you know what? In the 1:1,000,000 chance that someone did try to set up a dictatorship in their lifetime, they would at least fight. You'd write a smug post on a dead video game forum mocking them, maybe you'd watch a half hour long video and then donate money to Libertard2030, but probably not.

But that's besides the point. When was the last time an AR-15 was used in a crime? They're rather hard to conceal you know, and the .223 ammo it fires is preferred by the military because the ammo is cheap, not because it has stopping power. If they wanna run around in the woods plinking targets, more power to 'em. They're not hurting anyone, but the rage they induce in people like you is uproariously funny

to your point re: AR-15's used in crimes - couldn't that argument (that they haven't been used in many crimes in the past 10 years) be construed as an affirmation that the federal assault weapons ban was working?

AussieReaper wrote:

So who here is part of a well regulated militia?

who cares?  2nd amendment is there and it's not going away, regardless of intent of the founding fathers in creating it.  Get your stupid red herrings out of here

Virginia