The right to bear arms

[Varine]

A hunter said they did not find a animal they want to shoot
because It's not many of them.

There's a lot of them, just not in the same area that people always go hunting. Hunters generally don't move around a lot, they go to where they know forever and eventually the animals there get smart and go somewhere else or are just being sneaky and are on the other side of the ridge.

I don't agree with that.. Not all are that.
serioulsy!

BTW:Just open your eyes a bit more.. varine

I don't get what the hell you're talking about. At all. You remind me of like a six year old. Between sleepwalkers breaking into my house and you asking if I was dreaming when I tripped over a curb in the road I don't get if you are actually serious.

You need to be at least 18 years old.

You need to be 18 to buy them here I believe. I think once you're 16 you're allowed to handle them unsupervised but I'm not really sure.

1. You have to successfully pass firearm exam (answer 8 questions correctly out of 10, means 80% correct). There are no answer variants (ABC tests), all answers need to be written yourself.
They check do you know how to store gun safely, how to wear gun (they mean when you are outdoor where you could use gun),do you know current firearms law, do you can give first aid to shooting victim. Do you know main things about gun type which you desire/ want to acquire.
This exam result expires within 1 year after what you need to redo it again.

We don't have that here, which wouldn't be bad, but I disagree with them wanting to ban any weapon that can pierce Type I armor like they want (I think a 30-06 can, which is a pretty small rifle).

You can't buy guns from local supermarket in Estonia.

We can go to WalMart.

But the issue that comes up when you have strict gun control is... what could happen? What would happen when no one has any weapons and a civil war breaks out over something? What happens if no one has any weapons and we're invaded and the military just cannot keep up with the sheer number of China's troops? It's a start to bringing control over the citizens that can extend to an extreme point.

Honestly, though, what annoys me the most about this is that Bush maybe infringed a little bit on rights with the PATRIOT Act (although I never seemed to notice anyone getting arrested when they blatantly said "Fuck Bush someone should kill him" or anything like that... don't seem like you were affected too much), but now when the government wants to ban firearms I say no, and suddenly I'm a reactionary right domestic terrorist?

 

[FireCat]

I don't get what the hell you're talking about. At all. You remind me of like a six year old. Between sleepwalkers breaking into my house and you asking if I was dreaming when I tripped over a curb in the road I don't get if you are actually serious.

You know the world is going crazy. and sleepwalking.. Just google it and read what crazy thing people can do.
So you can't say it could not happend. And what the hell is wrong to ask if you dreamt when you walk or not.You never said why you even tripped over the curb.

 

[ElderKingpin]

At varine: Yes, i agree with you on Obama, thehelper is actually tilted towards conservatism. Anyway.

But the issue that comes up when you have strict gun control is... what could happen? What would happen when no one has any weapons and a civil war breaks out over something? What happens if no one has any weapons and we're invaded and the military just cannot keep up with the sheer number of China's troops? It's a start to bringing control over the citizens that can extend to an extreme point.

Theres a different between strict rules and having no guns at all. Stricter gun rules would just mean that fewer people will have guns, and the people who do have guns are responsible adults.

 

[Varine]

Theres a different between strict rules and having no guns at all. Stricter gun rules would just mean that fewer people will have guns, and the people who do have guns are responsible adults.

Which isn't what they are trying to pass. The draftings of the laws that Obama's pushed for could imply the banning of even BB guns, as the drafts don't state what constitutes a firearm. They ban the assembly of weapons without a license, which in a way could include putting weapons together that come in kits (a lot of guns don't come pre-assembled) or if you take it apart and put it back together. I know he's pushed before for only allowing weapons that won't pierce Type I armor, which is designed to stop .22 and .380 ACP. Which isn't that big, you use those to shoot little birds. And with me pushing the idea of all of these things are 'implied' makes me sound like a psycho right wing, just about every law we have is based off of an implied power that the federal government has. Unless you can find somewhere in the Constitution that says they can do a lot of the shit they do (Judicial Review?). Even having an Air Force is implied in it as there is no where that states we can have a military operating in the air, however they are required to maintain an Army, which means we have to keep up with everyone else. Everything is implied.

There isn't a hell of a lot of difference. And either way some state is going to secede, and a lot of people are going to be going there and it won't be good.

 

[ElderKingpin]

well. its going to happen. The democrats have gotten more seats in Congress. Obama is super pushing liberal reform. and its only been about a year. I fear for America's future but there are still good people in government. It just depends if they are going to do anything about it.

For those of you that like reading up on politics and the such. Search DeMint's book on Saving Freedom http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Freedom-Americas-Slide-Socialism/dp/0805449574

 

[Varine]

Until the next election anyway. Which is next year.

 

[thewrongvine]

GUNS DONT HURT PEOPLE! PEOPLE HURT PEOPLE!

~Hai-Bye-Vine~

 

[Tru_Power22]

well. its going to happen. The democrats have gotten more seats in Congress. Obama is super pushing liberal reform. and its only been about a year. I fear for America's future but there are still good people in government. It just depends if they are going to do anything about it.

For those of you that like reading up on politics and the such. Search DeMint's book on Saving Freedom http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Freedom-Americas-Slide-Socialism/dp/0805449574

Being slightly more liberal, hell no! America will crumble You must be more right wing.

Democrat - HELL NO! Flexibility is for the weak.

Republican - Stiff as a board, but that soft wood were talking about.

Nationalist, yeah that's more like it.
How about - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei? They control everything, no flexibility. That's what America needs.

/sarcasm

 

[ElderKingpin]

I dont get it ._. All i know is that the Constitution is good as is :/

 

[T.s.e]

What happens if no one has any weapons and we're invaded and the military just cannot keep up with the sheer number of China's troops?

Oh come on! Either you're being sarcastic or you're imagining completely unrealistic scenarios.

If the USA got invaded by China, and its military defeated, how long do you think you could keep up a guerilla war in the 21st century? Against modern weapons and in modern warfare, hunting rifles and other weapons you can buy at your local WalMart just won't cut the cake. You'd be annihilated before you could know it.

And as the current situation is, you're killing off more of your own people with that ridiculous gun fetish of yours than you could ever have "balanced out" in a modern day war. The only thing the guns are currently doing, is cause death, murder and more anguish than they could ever prevent. But that is what they're made to do, they're made to kill, murder and torment. It's their sole purpose for even being created.

So before you start saying that your guns are for "protection", think about what caused the need to protect yourself in the first place.

Being slightly more liberal, hell no! America will crumble You must be more right wing.

First I went

Democrat - HELL NO! Flexibility is for the weak.

Then I went

Republican - Stiff as a board, but that soft wood were talking about.

Then I went

Nationalist, yeah that's more like it.
How about - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei? They control everything, no flexibility. That's what America needs.

Then I went

/sarcasm

And then I went

 

[Viikuna]

GUNS DONT HURT PEOPLE! PEOPLE HURT PEOPLE!

I dont really get people who say this really. ( Although it is true in a way )


Pointing a gun and pressing a trigger is just so much easier than beating some guy dead.
You just need to be angry enough for just a one second to do something stupid.

Killing some guy with your bare hands and feet usually takes more time, so you have to have more determination for that stuff.


What if people could get nukes as easily as guns? Everybody would hate that because those few guys using those nukes wrongly could cause so terrible mess that saying "NUKES DONT HURT PEOPLE! PEOPLE HURT PEOPLE!" would feel kinda awkward, dont you think?

So its more about the "cool and good stuff you can do with guns" vs. "how dangerous they are and how much bad stuff you can cause with them"

If some guys gun hobby is more important that those lives lost because of some random shooting, then I guess its all right and everything.

If you live in good neighborhood without any random shooting, its obviously easy for you to say that "guns dont hurt people".

I didnt read the whole thread, so I dont know if you were being sarcastic, so if you were, then
sorry about this all.



edit. Damn I must be bored. I never even post in these threads.

 

[ElderKingpin]

basically when i say "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" its saying. Guns arnt the reason for your troubles. Its the retarded fools that 'accidentally" pull the trigger

 

[Viikuna]

You are right, but dont be mistaken: It still does not mean that people should be allowed to buy and use guns.

 

[Tru_Power22]

If the USA got invaded by China, and its military defeated, how long do you think you could keep up a guerrilla war in the 21st century? Against modern weapons and in modern warfare, hunting rifles and other weapons you can buy at your local WalMart just won't cut the cake. You'd be annihilated before you could know it.

America has been at war with guerrillas in the middle east for like 8 years. Yeah, guerrilla warfare works.

 

[Varine]

If the USA got invaded by China, and its military defeated, how long do you think you could keep up a guerilla war in the 21st century? Against modern weapons and in modern warfare, hunting rifles and other weapons you can buy at your local WalMart just won't cut the cake. You'd be annihilated before you could know it.

I don't know, Afghanistan seems to be able to have done it so far. Oh yeah, they're allowed to have good guns. And it ain't unrealistic; do you really think that no one will ever invade us?

Killing some guy with your bare hands and feet usually takes more time, so you have to have more determination for that stuff.

Not really, just have to hit them in the right spot.

If some guys gun hobby is more important that those lives lost because of some random shooting, then I guess its all right and everything.

Most of those random shootings are using illegally possessed guns anyway.

You are right, but dont be mistaken: It still does not mean that people should be allowed to buy and use guns.

Yes it does. I mean I can hunt with a bow too but I can't shoot it as far. Oh I can shoot people with bows too... damn it.

 

[ElderKingpin]

id like to point out that .. to effectively use a gun. you have to learn first. The local guns you buy at wal-mart dont come with training.

Heres a situation.

We get invaded (oh noes) and like during WW2 where Germany tried to kill Britain civilians to destroy the moral of the people. The invaders do the same thing to us, except instead of bombing us, they send out small squads that hunt and kill. I wonder who would win. A trained soldier, or a person that wanted gun rights and got a gun, but never received proper training.

----

Like i said. Stricter gun rules. and you are required to go through training once a month to make sure you know what you are doing.

And that is why. NO ONE MESSES WITH SWITZERLAND, what is it. like every able-bodied guy. Has a gun, and is trained. You dont mess with that

 

[Varine]

Point and shoot... pretty basic, honestly. I mean, you point it at something, pull the trigger, and a hole appears there!

We get invaded (oh noes) and like during WW2 where Germany tried to kill Britain civilians to destroy the moral of the people. The invaders do the same thing to us, except instead of bombing us, they send out small squads that hunt and kill. I wonder who would win. A trained soldier, or a person that wanted gun rights and got a gun, but never received proper training.

Honestly, I think if we get invaded they won't kill civilians for moral. They'll do it because they happen to live in America.
Obviously the training has something to do with the soldier winning, but take into account that in the Army (Marines is longer I know... not sure about Navy or Air Force, pretty sure those have shorter training periods) there's nine weeks of basic training where for the most part you get into shape, learn how to fight and practice shooting. But then lets say you got someone who has a high powered rifle and a scope, like a .300 Winchester (or a .50 cal they paid several thousand for and can't shoot it anywhere...). A pretty common hunting rifle, that's what I use. I've seen people, not soldiers and not trainer, just hunters, shoot an elk at 500 yards (and these guys aren't amazing shots). That's a long damn way, normally when I've seen sniper shots they were maybe 1200 yards (but using a .50 cal and using a lot of wind calculations). Normal people would be able to stand their own if they had an armament (weapons that don't pierce Type I don't constitute that remotely).

Like i said. Stricter gun rules. and you are required to go through training once a month to make sure you know what you are doing.

I wouldn't be willing to go to that.

And that is why. NO ONE MESSES WITH SWITZERLAND, what is it. like every able-bodied guy. Has a gun, and is trained. You dont mess with that

That's because they do whatever someone that threatens them wants. Or just give them a lot of chocolate and an over-priced card.

 

[ElderKingpin]

if we did get invaded. the military usually has a larger array of weapons to pick from.

That's because they do whatever someone that threatens them wants. Or just give them a lot of chocolate and an over-priced card .

No. america doesnt do that. we like to butt into people's business!

 

[Varine]

No. america doesnt do that. we like to butt into people's business!

Swiss do that.

if we did get invaded. the military usually has a larger array of weapons to pick from.

Yeah but they aren't going to be having mass tanks rolling through most of the country. Those are going to be saved to fight against the defense units that are sent to combat them, but if they're smart whoever is invading is gonna be dropping out behind the front to either come from behind or spread out the forces so that our entire military force isn't coming down on them on a single front (like what we did in WWII with Normandy; break the force of the Germans and hope we can break through one of them). I would expect to be looking at paratroopers and companies on foot coming through most of the country where civilians would be taking up arms. Of course, in such a situation I wouldn't doubt that the government would be calling on everyone capable of fighting to do so, and if I was in charge of a battalion defending the home front there's no way I would say no to a civilian showing up asking if they can help. But also take into consideration, a lot of those people aren't going to WANT to be on the front; they'll be grabbing their families and probably get the fuck away from the battle as fast as they can and if they happen to come across a stray soldier or acting highwaymen (unless you're going to tell me no one would be thinking about robbing people), they aren't going to have military grade weapons. If they're stuck with a .22 or some 20 gauge shotgun, are they going to stand a chance? No, that soldier will probably have a somewhat decent flak vest on, a .22 ain't gonna do shit except POSSIBLY shock him for a second, but it's doubtful. And given that a lot of countries are still using AK's (the ones that I'd imagine invading us anyway), they aren't very accurate, that soldier probably has a stamped one which means it's a piece of shit, but they spray a LOT of bullets out that'll go pretty damn far and do a lot of damage. Only is going to take one or two to take someone out, if you even have a 30-06 and are a somewhat decent shot, you could take him down at 100 yards, which with a stamped AK I don't know if they'd be able to hit you. Fuck up your car maybe, but you could still take a decent shot I'd imagine. Most of the combat I was in, they used AK's at like 30-50 yards and still would miss a lot of the time.

 

[thewrongvine]

If there were stricter gun rules, Ollie might not have been able to kill the crazy lady, and they all would've been stabbed and killed.

~Hai-Bye-Vine~