WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Gun Rights

Should guns be more or less restricted?


  • Total voters
    18

Cone

The Cone
7
0
0
#1
I was wanting people's opinion on this. heres my side.

I am an avid gun rights person. I have been raised shooting all kinds of guns not at animals, or people, but just making the gun go "boom" i moved to the sticks 8 years ago, and i love being able to open my back door and let off a few 12 gague rounds into the hill. I will never give away my guns and I wont let anyone take them from me while im still alive to grab them...

Im not a hill-billy, a hick, or anything like that, but i like having the ability to defend myself in any situation. and also know that i have the edge over the "Police" and "Big Brother"

For or against?
-Cone
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
262
302
#2
I'm all for legal gun rights. People with .50 cal machine guns scare me, but other than that, have at it. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns make it easier to be sure, but it's still easy to kill without guns.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,979
1,397
487
#3
I'm not a hunter or anything, but I do own a few guns myself. Most were passed down from my father or grandfather, but I own a pistols and rifle that I bought on my own. I don't really see a problem with owning guns, I mean our constitution protects our right to do that. I do, however, believe there should be more restrictions. Most notably, I'd like to see some added restrictions for hand guns and their ownership.

That said, I don't have a problem with gun ownerships for hunting, home protection, or even "just hearing them go boom." I think gun ownership is too casual though, and a lot of people who own guns aren't qualified to handle them. For example, I keep a shotgun in my bedroom for protection, it's unloaded since I have a young child in the house and I feel I'm well within my right to do so. If anyone ever broke into my house while I was there, and I felt threatened I wouldn't hesitate to use it either. In fact, my state protects my right to do just that. However, I cringe everytime I hear of some moron keeping a pistol for home protection. I'd really rather someone in my household not get shot just because my neighbor is too dense to realize that a pistol bullet will travel through walls and possible enter the house next to his. Sad thing is, a lot of people never take this into consideration. :(


Just as a note: Hand guns are outlawed in Canada, save for the proper authorities. Their violent (handgun related) crime is almost nonexistent compared to the U.S., and other countries where hand guns are allowed. Gives you something to think about.
 
37
0
66
#4
Guns

guns should be less restricted, here in CA there are so many gangs and wat not. i think that if they knew that maybe their target or sumthin was armed that they may back off. And i know, it will be easier for them to carry one too but most gang members are probably not very capable with guns and they are just all talk. But i also think that before sumone could carry a gun, a complete background check should be done so the wrong person is not armed. :gun:
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#5
I'm personally for it, but on a technological level, i.e. smart chips/bullet fingerprinting (Which is very easily modified...), and better background checking laws would help.

But as of now the closest technological achievement in pistol technology is a new electric-discharge law enforcement pistol with a fingerprint reading lever that allows the gun to fire. It can shoot three bullets in 1/16 of a second.

Unfortunately, I have no links, because it is still a prototype and I forgot the model number...It was like VC-something or other.

The firing technology is 100% functional - and the U.S. is planning on buying it for law enforcement. All the S.W.A.T. teams will be creaming over that like they did with the H&K MP5 in the 80's...
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#6
Descent said:
I'm personally for it, but on a technological level, i.e. smart chips/bullet fingerprinting (Which is very easily modified...), and better background checking laws would help.

But as of now the closest technological achievement in pistol technology is a new electric-discharge law enforcement pistol with a fingerprint reading lever that allows the gun to fire. It can shoot three bullets in 1/16 of a second.
Oh bull shit. That's a 1,200 My bad, that's 2,880 round per minute fire rate. Fucking mini-guns fire at that rate. A semi-auto pistol can cycle at 1/10 of a second. To be controlable you can't fire faster than roughly 1 round every half second. And even THAT's pretty damn wild shooting. A cyclic firing rate like 3 in 1/16 of a second is no where near controllable.

Wait, did you get a video game and reality confused again?

Fingerprint based firing has been discussed and ruled out. It's neither reliable, cost effective or even remotely feasible using today's technology. The closest thing to "smart guns" that's been developed is a gun that requires a special magnetic ring on the trigger finger.

Frankly, you need a driver's license to buy a car. You should need a gun owner's permit to buy a gun. You need to prove that you understand the risks associated with gun ownership.

I have a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit from Idaho. I can legally carry a concealed handgun. I own a large number of guns (when my dad died I inherited his collection.) and frankly, unless you're willing to actually take the time to understand firearm safety you have zero business being anywhere near a fucking gun. I've been shot, it fucking hurts.

Note: all my edits are italicized for this post. I was drunk when I wrote it the first time. I had to come back and make corrections.
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#7
GUNNY said:
guns should be less restricted, here in CA there are so many gangs and wat not. i think that if they knew that maybe their target or sumthin was armed that they may back off. And i know, it will be easier for them to carry one too but most gang members are probably not very capable with guns and they are just all talk. But i also think that before sumone could carry a gun, a complete background check should be done so the wrong person is not armed. :gun:
You're just full of contradictions and don't make much sense.



Anyways, what the hell do you mean by LESS restricted? Normal guns are NOT restricted in the US. Ok full automatic assault rifles are illegal, so by less restricted do you mean being able to buy just any fucking gun you want? Personnally I think that would be fucking retarded, you don't need a m4 for protection, it would be a great gun for a rampage on the streets though. Get my point.
 

Brain Spout

Wizard No More
4,503
102
177
#8
if you kill soemone who broke into your house then that is considered self defense and you will get off, but if you kill them outside of your house then you will run into trouble, so wait till they get away from the window in otherwords.

i dont really take a stance on gun ownership, it doesnt affect me that much, i would like to see some stricter control placed on it, but i dont want right to be taken away. i live about 20 minutes from camden and there isnt a day when there isn't a murder there or in philadelphia, mostly by guns, mostly innocent bystanders in a gun fight, so id like to see guns taken away from people like that.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#9
RageAgainst said:
Ok full automatic assault rifles are illegal, so by less restricted do you mean being able to buy just any fucking gun you want?
Actually, fully automatic guns and suppressors are legal in the US. You must get a permit for each individual device however. A full auto rifle with a sound suppressor would be two distinct permits. Each permit is roughly $600.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#10
I am for a ban on guns. I work in the recreation safety branch, and I see too many people getting drunk and getting their hands at each others throat.
It would be far worse when they had a gun somewhere.
Ok, I live in the Netherlands, and even here we see several killings by people who own them profesionally or with a permit.

On the other hand, I can imagine that people on a remote farm in the USA get a gun permit to defend themselves if necessary.
But only if the police is too far away.
 
41
0
0
#11
u kno its legal to park a tank in front of your house..its just where did you get the tank
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#12
UberSkippy said:
Actually, fully automatic guns and suppressors are legal in the US. You must get a permit for each individual device however. A full auto rifle with a sound suppressor would be two distinct permits. Each permit is roughly $600.
Personnally, I think that's stupid. You don't need a silencer for protection, you need a silencer for slick murder. Full auto rifles are perfect for offensive, such as bank robberies; a bunch of guys with m4's could easily take out a bunch of cops with pistols.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#13
RageAgainst said:
Personnally, I think that's stupid. You don't need a silencer for protection, you need a silencer for slick murder. Full auto rifles are perfect for offensive, such as bank robberies; a bunch of guys with m4's could easily take out a bunch of cops with pistols.
Well, I doubt anyone who HAS a permit would tell you the auto gun or suppressor is for home defence. Also, the guys that have those weapons aren't the guys that would use them in a robbery. The permits cost $600 or more EACH. On top of that you have the weapon costs. On the legit market an automatic M4 goes for around $14,000

You're right, you don't NEED an automatic rifle. But if you've got the money and are willing to obey the laws you can geht one.
 

Zoso

Zappafied
360
0
0
#14
In America, we theoretically make our own government. We elect the officials, and they in turn protect us. We as a majority have every right to overthrow our government, and in the event of a government taking over or trying to bully The People, we have every right to defend ourselves. The American right to bear arms is based on the fact that we have the right to end what we created, even if that means using force. THEORETICALLY, the government is but a systematic approach to order. If that for some reason becomes unorderly, and we have no way of defending ourselves, then theyll do whatever they want with us.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#15
Zoso said:
In America, we theoretically make our own government. We elect the officials, and they in turn protect us. We as a majority have every right to overthrow our government, and in the event of a government taking over or trying to bully The People, we have every right to defend ourselves. The American right to bear arms is based on the fact that we have the right to end what we created, even if that means using force. THEORETICALLY, the government is but a systematic approach to order. If that for some reason becomes unorderly, and we have no way of defending ourselves, then theyll do whatever they want with us.
You forget, that it's just what the government is doing already.
It's bullshit to have the idea you can overthrow the American government with the use of weapons. Welcome to the concentration camps they already have. (covertly)
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#16
How many more Columbine's do we have to have before we realize we need to better control of guns?
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#17
Well VOF, as I see it, the way things are happening in the USA, there is a fair chance for a civil war to happen in the near future.
The country is financially broke, there are huge differences between rich and poor, and the people owns more weapons than the military.
That means in case of a civil unrest, there will be clashes between military factions in the worst case scenario.
Look at Russia to see the future of the USA.
The cold war made you outrun the USSR by heating up the arms race, but in the process it did cost the USA also a lot of effort, money, materials and other means. The way Bush is acting, it's an escape to the front.
Starting a war in Iraq, as an act of piracy to fill the gaps in the USA budget.
The only thing what happened is, the gap has become a canyon.

Look at the way gangs rule the backstreets of your cities. They act in the same way as terrorists, but no action is taken.
My brother in law visited Miami as a policeman, and got the advice to evade certain regions. No Go zones, where there is no police at all.

Welcome in Miami Bairut Beach. :confuse:
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
262
302
#18
RedOctober said:
Well VOF, as I see it, the way things are happening in the USA, there is a fair chance for a civil war to happen in the near future.
The country is financially broke, there are huge differences between rich and poor, and the people owns more weapons than the military.
That means in case of a civil unrest, there will be clashes between military factions in the worst case scenario.
Look at Russia to see the future of the USA.
The cold war made you outrun the USSR by heating up the arms race, but in the process it did cost the USA also a lot of effort, money, materials and other means. The way Bush is acting, it's an escape to the front.
Starting a war in Iraq, as an act of piracy to fill the gaps in the USA budget.
The only thing what happened is, the gap has become a canyon.

Look at the way gangs rule the backstreets of your cities. They act in the same way as terrorists, but no action is taken.
My brother in law visited Miami as a policeman, and got the advice to evade certain regions. No Go zones, where there is no police at all.

Welcome in Miami Bairut Beach. :confuse:
Quoted for the Truth nobody who lives in the good ole USA wants to hear. Read it again kids, it's more than possible.
 

Cone

The Cone
7
0
0
#19
The right of the people to form a well regulated militia.... we have the DUTY to overthrow our government if it is too powerful... DUTY... by the people for the people of the people bs. KEEP AND BEAR ARMS means OWN AND CARRY...... and that right shall not be infringed upon.... which means that all age limits and laws are un constitutional... i believe in the laws but under the constitution they are ALL wrong.... i love guns.... peace....

-Cone
 

Cone

The Cone
7
0
0
#20
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" <--- I wrote that
-Cone