Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 11 votes

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#461 cookinbrak

cookinbrak

    tastes like chicken...

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,647
  • Reputation: 769
HUDDLER

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:13 PM

Samuel Jackson gets it.

http://www.belfastte...m-16251501.html

#462 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,848
  • Reputation: 5,761
Moderators

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:18 PM

So now Hollywood can be referenced in the debate?

#463 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,376
  • Reputation: 2,007
  • LocationAlaska
HUDDLER

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:22 PM

Samuel Jackson gets it.

http://www.belfastte...m-16251501.html


Samuel L. Jackson doesn't believe liberal gun regulations can be wholly blamed for violence in America.



My response to SLJ is, who does?

Better crafted gun regulations can be part of a broader overall effort to reduce violence and gun deaths in our society.

Read more: http://www.belfastte...l#ixzz2FYhL7Hoj

#464 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,848
  • Reputation: 5,761
Moderators

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:35 PM

I'm going to google another Hollywood actor

“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”


“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”


Damn liberal Hollywood elites

#465 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:39 PM

panthro fyi reagen is no longer a conservative all you are doing is making their point

#466 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,848
  • Reputation: 5,761
Moderators

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:42 PM

He's not? Stupid 2012

#467 vanilla B

vanilla B

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 27-October 10
  • posts: 62
  • Reputation: 3
SUPPORTER

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:35 AM

The 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms to help prevent a tyrannical government from taking control of the people (i.e. Revolutionary War). It is not solely for the purpose of defending oneself from the potential of an attack. We don't like nukes, but the threat of nukes prevent others from using them themselves to attack the U.S. If other countries would get rid of their nuke supply then we could, but they wont, same principle applies to citizens as criminally insane people won't get rid of their weapons so neither can we. Imagine a situation where there is multiple attackers with assault rifles, and a short range low ammo pistol just can't get the job done.

#468 vanilla B

vanilla B

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 27-October 10
  • posts: 62
  • Reputation: 3
SUPPORTER

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:44 AM

Would you say we have a nationwide epidemic of planes crashing into towers and trucks being used as bombs?

Trying to use singular events to absolve blame from an instrument of death that is being used to kill people daily is like comparing apples to rhinoceros sh!t.

When 10,000 people start dying every year from kamikaze airplanes and truck explosions like they do gun violence we can have the conversation about whether planes and trucks are the issue.

I am more interested in resolving issues that actually exist.

In 2010 10,228 people died from alcohol-related car accidents. Applying this logic should we ban alcohol and car accidents too? I'm all for more thorough background checks and longer waiting periods unless authorized by a judge in unusual circumstances, but we should not ban a weapon. There are no numbers that tell how many lives are saved by them, only the numbers of those that aren't.

#469 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,848
  • Reputation: 5,761
Moderators

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:50 AM

In 1982 21000 people died in alcohol related crashes.

Perhaps we could reduce gun violence by half as well with more laws, regulations,and awareness.

Great example!



#470 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • Joined: 20-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,051
  • Reputation: 1,484
HUDDLER

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:03 AM

So, do you blame the airplane as well as the hijackers when they flew it into the Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11?

Do you blame the truck and McVeigh for the bombings in Oklahoma City?

If not, then your arguement of blaming a gun for what a person decided to do is a knee-jerk and rikiculous assertion.



Arguing for consistent checks and processes to buy guns in all states....can get my head around.

Banning a particular gun type....no.



Yes somewhat, that is why we have so much security around airports and why the cock pit is on lock down. (btw I think you mean bomb with McVeigh)

Guns are weapons made with the purpose to kill. We ban nukes because they cause so much damage, as well as missiles, rocket launchers and grenades. I think high max clips should be on that list as well as some guns.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users