Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 58 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 53 guests


Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

gun control

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Sun May 20, 2007 2:37 pm

Pah. Desensitistation is nothing these days.

You know you're desensitised when you're watching a film, and watch some guy mow down several people with an assualt rifle, then find yourself thinking: "But he probably didn't even do a basic safety check on that firearm".
  • 0

Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Sun May 20, 2007 3:46 pm

Actually, when I bother thinking while watching film gunfights it's about the amazing lack of reloading, the totally crap aim of "bad guys" and the ridiculous aim of "good guys".
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Sun May 20, 2007 4:29 pm

Indeed!
Movie ammo clips are great. You can start with a full mag, and fire as many shots as you want, and when you take it out, it'll be perfectly empty. You could make a fortune selling them to the right people.

Of course, all of that's a big joke in "Last Action Hero", which is a wonderful satire of action movies. Arnold Schwarzenegger's character (Jack Slater) fires well over 20 rounds in rapid succession from a .50 cal Desert Eagle (which only has a 7 round clip).
It's all full of wonderful movie physics. Including the scenes where Arnie has hundreds of rounds fired at him, and they all miss for some reason - and the age old being blasted across the room by a bullet.
And the scene at the flat is very funny:
*Dead assassin tumbles out of closet after Slater has fired into it twice without warning*
Danny Madigan: Geez, how'd you know someone was in there?
Jack Slater: There's always someone in there. It costs me a fortune in closet doors.


I love that film. The right blend of comedy and action is a very rare thing in movies (Although Hot Fuzz did a very good job of it, but as a much "darker" film).

*Far eyed look*
  • 0

Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Mon May 21, 2007 7:37 pm

ok, <end> here is my paper. tell me what you think. (my english teacher is an ass, so dont take it personally if this paper offends you)

Throughout the United States, there are millions of violent crimes every year. A relatively large percentage of those are committed with guns. Many people believe that further legislation concerning gun purchases should be passed. Other people take the other side of the spectrum, opting for less strict laws. There already is certain legislation limiting an individual’s right to posses a firearm, and more is being considered. Passing further restrictions is detrimental to society, and should not be allowed. In the hands of responsible citizens, firearms are a benefit to society; disarming these citizens does more harm than good. Firearms must be available to law abiding citizens for several specific reasons; crime reduction, second amendment rights, and for sporting purposes.
Contrary to popular belief, areas with a high crime rate actually have stricter gun laws. On the surface, this information seems like garbage, but if one actually looks deeper into it, these statistics make sense. If more people own guns, then the risk to a criminal who intends to commit a crime is much higher. Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet is infamous for its name, Murder Capitol U.S.A. strangely enough, Kennesaw, GA also known as Gun Town U.S.A, where every head of household must own a gun, has not seen a murder in 25 years. There is no motivation for a criminal to try to rip off someone’s house, if they know that the owner of that house also owns a gun.
Anti gun legislation in the form of the Brady Bill also does more harm than it does good. This piece of legislation named after James Brady, who was shot during an attempt on President Regan’s life in 1981, requires a background check and a 5 day waiting period for anyone who wants to purchase a handgun. Though a background check is not a bad idea, the logic behind this bill is flawed. A background check was run on the man who attempted to shoot President Regan, and he did not have a criminal record or any record of mental illness. Another even bigger issue with this bill is that it only applies to legal purchases. By definition, a criminal is a person who is willing to break the law. Statistics show that only one out of six crimes committed with guns is done with a legally obtained one. Although this bill looks good on paper, it actually restricts the possession of firearms by law abiding citizens, while does nothing to restrict a criminal.
The second amendment to the United States constitution clearly states that "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This country had just finished fighting a war, won mainly because the people fighting had the means to defend themselves. The “well-regulated militia” does not refer to the National Guard or armed forces. As Samuel Adams said: “a militia is composed of free citizens.” The founding fathers would not have put the second amendment into the constitution if they did not think that it was an important issue.
Hunting and target shooting are both sports that are enjoyed by many, but approaching anti-gun laws are threatening that. Hunting is a vital resource, and also helps control the population of certain animals. Permits and taxes on hunting licenses also raise a great deal of money. Many deer provide a food source to people in rural areas, and restriction of firearm ownership would threaten that food source. Target shooting is an enjoyable sport that is relatively inexpensive, and is a fun family activity. It is Enjoyed by people of all different ages, and even by some people with certain disabilities, because it does not require much physical strength or agility. The further restriction of firearms to law abiding citizens would infringe upon the right of people to participate in a completely legitimate sport.
In a controversial issue, not everyone can agree, but there is a difference between trying your best and being completely ridiculous. Even when anti-gun fanatics are presented with completely valid proof, they refute that as fiction, and refuse to believe a word of it. Statistics do not lie, the possession of firearms leads to a decreased crime rate, plain and simple. The founding fathers included the second amendment for a reason, they felt that it was extremely important, and they knew what they were talking about. Firearms also have an extremely legitimate sporting use that no one can dispute. These are the facts, and in all truthfulness, anyone who comes away from reading this that doesn’t consider the possibility that it is true, does not deserve any respect, because they obviously don’t care enough to admit that they are wrong.
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Mon May 21, 2007 7:45 pm

I love the last half of the final paragraph.Is this the final or a rough draft?Anyways good job,needs a little refinement.But otherwise the info is good for creating a bipartisan feel.
  • 0


goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: ShowNoMercy » Mon May 21, 2007 7:45 pm

Wonderful paper, I might say that you may wont to research some more detailed cases, but I do not know the limits on the paper. Other than that nice work.
  • 0

Jesus saves, no need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way
User avatar
ShowNoMercy
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:08 am
Location: Jersey Bitches!
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Mon May 21, 2007 8:10 pm

Shownomercy,for 9th grade work it'll pass.I'd agree though that if he wanted to really drive the point home, some detail work would be required.
  • 0


goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Mon May 21, 2007 8:42 pm

i started to write this at 6:00 and finished at 7:30, this is just a rough draft, my final is due on thursday. thanks for the feedback, hope you liked it
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Scotty » Tue May 22, 2007 2:41 am

Guns are fun.
  • 0


Scotty
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:00 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Scotty » Tue May 22, 2007 2:45 am

You haven't won the war.
  • 0


Scotty
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:00 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Tue May 22, 2007 4:43 am

Contains appropriate facts and speculation and suggests that anyone disagreeing is wrong.

Sounds persuasive.

Grammar error "it was extremely important, and" :wink:

I still think it would have been more of a challenge to persuade someone when they don't already agree with you ^_^

Hope it does well.
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: cdheller » Tue May 22, 2007 10:06 am

On the 2nd. amm.
it dos not grant any right .
it recognizes a preexisting god given right (inalienable )
as opposed to other nations and other amendants to u.s. constitution

for what it's worth
  • 0

User avatar
cdheller
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Austin Texas
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Tue May 22, 2007 12:21 pm

I just have to say something about that...

You're saying GOD gives you the right to own and use firearms?

I may agree and disagree with fact based arguments but theres a problem right there when someone drags something totally intangible like religion into a debate.
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue May 22, 2007 12:35 pm

Why would God want his creations to have access to tools that would allow him to acheive a godike status?
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Tue May 22, 2007 6:04 pm

No,not that God gave man guns,but that the belief of freedom of liberty is God ordained.Freedom of liberty as written in the Constitution allows us to own firearms.So,our God ordained liberties also let us keep and bear arms.A little difficult subject.
Jack,A gun does not give you god status,it simply allows you to kill.God can resurrect beings, I don't believe you can do that.No, clinically dead for a few minutes doesn't count. :wink:
  • 0


goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'