• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

More guns is obviously the answer...

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Pathetic argument.
You're not carrying a muzzle-loading rifle for your State and under military discipline, but filling up your country with hundreds of millions of guns.
And blurting out the 'we got rights' stuff is just puerile, especially when so many are totally irresponsible about insuring against risks.
In a World where police could automatically seize any un-insured gun things would slowly get more sensible.
And Insurers wouldn't offer insurance to untrained, unqualified folks with poor home security and no gun safes.

It's common sense.

US gun victims have a right to live, or is that not mentioned in your Rights?


You all didn't have to lose your common sense when you all won freedom from Brit oppression. :p
US Northern States didn't put up with Southern Pests either, I just hope they don't keep needling the South over it 150 on......

And anyway you weren't there. It might not have been quite so exciting for you if you had been.... :shrug:

It is a difference you need to understand. Rights are defined in the U.S. under the Constitution. Rights are different than privileges. Gun ownership is a 'right'.

We didn't lose our common sense. That is why our guns are protected.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The gun worshipers might cry some crocodile tears over the cops who were killed and reiterate that they have the "right" (sick) to own high powered rifles capable of firing hundreds of rounds of ammo at cops. Not in my book.

Jersey City: Deadly gun battle kills six people


Police at the scene immediately came under "high-powered rifle fire," Mr Kelly told reporters, and it is believed that Mr Seals was killed while approaching the two suspects, who have not been publicly identified.

The pair fled the scene in a van and took shelter in a kosher supermarket where they held off armed police and federal officials for four hours, shooting off hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
The irony, of course, is that this is EXACTLY what it looks like when someone uses their guns to "stop guvmint tyranny", the great unaddressed flaw in the "protect from tyranny" myth is, of course, the ridiculous assumption that all the armed people are going to collectively agree on what "guvmint tyranny" looks like, and that they'll all collectively decide to fight it together, rather than in disparate ones and twos over their own, individual petty grievances.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
You want to use the FBI as prove of a point of your for 'stats'. As I said, that is Federal. The FBI also lays down the Federal laws governing gun ownership. That involves all of the 50 states.

My question to you in post #(126) was would you force me to not have a gun as I would not force you to have one. You replied in (127) that it depends. You then give why it depends, all of which pertain to the legality of gun ownership. Except training. That is not required.

So, the FBI is not requiring anyone to go through any training to be able to buy or own a gun. Yet you are. In other words, you have mixed your law with the FBI as though it has some weight. And it doesn't.

Good-Ole-Rebel

LOL you are really trying hard to find something to squabble about. I recognize training is not federally required. You asked me what I would like to see required. I told you. I realize that my wishes don't magically create reality. Fair enough?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
LOL you are really trying hard to find something to squabble about. I recognize training is not federally required. You asked me what I would like to see required. I told you. I realize that my wishes don't magically create reality. Fair enough?
And, of course what is overlooked when someone shouts "IT'S MY RIGHT..." is that no right is absolute. There's no absolute right to free speech, freedom of religion nor any other freedom.

Another point is that with rights come responsibilities. Responsible gun owners recognize this. Gun worshipers typically don't but rather rail against anything which they feel restrict their "rights".
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You still haven't defined your 'assault rifle'? You want to ban 'assault rifles'. What is an assault rifle and why are you wanting it banned?
Well, let's see.
The AR-15 is a typical example of a rifle which has no sporting or utilitarian use whatsoever. So let's say... and semi-auto rifle which takes magazines holding more than 3 rounds.
A 3 shot semi-auto can be reloaded fairly quickly in a hunting situation, but would definitely slow down a nutter trtying to mass murder.

Is it because it is a semi-auto? If so, does that mean you want to ban 'semi-auto' pistols? Are 'semi-auto' pistols 'assault pistols' in your book?
What civilian needs a pistol with a very large magazine?
But for a serious target shooter a special licence would allow a full magazine because reloading mid-target throws some shooters off.

What about pump shotguns? Semi-auto shotguns? You need to define what you are saying.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Rattle-bangs can have short tubes to hold 4-5 cartridges.
I like rattle-bangs and haven't tread about any mass shootings where they were used.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
LOL you are really trying hard to find something to squabble about. I recognize training is not federally required. You asked me what I would like to see required. I told you. I realize that my wishes don't magically create reality. Fair enough?

Sure. Fair enough. What I have is what I want, and is reality. What you want is just fairy tale.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Well, let's see.
The AR-15 is a typical example of a rifle which has no sporting or utilitarian use whatsoever. So let's say... and semi-auto rifle which takes magazines holding more than 3 rounds.
A 3 shot semi-auto can be reloaded fairly quickly in a hunting situation, but would definitely slow down a nutter trtying to mass murder.

You are ignoring my question. You have not defined 'assault rifle'. Please do so.

I can kill a deer with an AR-15 just as well as a shotgun....just as well as a 30 ought 6. I can kill an intruder just as well also. So?

So are you saying if you have more than three rounds in the clip or magazine, that is an assault rifle and should be banned?

Again, what about shotguns, or pistols?

Please define your terms.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You are ignoring my question. You have not defined 'assault rifle'. Please do so.

I can kill a deer with an AR-15 just as well as a shotgun....just as well as a 30 ought 6. I can kill an intruder just as well also. So?

So are you saying if you have more than three rounds in the clip or magazine, that is an assault rifle and should be banned?

Again, what about shotguns, or pistols?

Please define your terms.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Extraordinary. Quite Extraordinary.
A person who thinks that its bulldust to take out 3rd party Public Liability risks insurance for guns wants to demand definitions of what a semi-auto fast-fire rifle is. Totally ignorant mindset and obviously untrained in gun use. During a recent incident on London Bridge where a police Officer needed to shoot a terrorist one of his bullets went through the criminal, ricocheted away and then went on to go right through a London Bus.......... you couldn't possibly pay out for healthcare and lost wages after such an incident if your bullet hurt somebody and you are no where near as well trained as an armed response officer. :p

You don't need a military style fast fire rifle to hunt a deer!

You ask why I haven't mentioned shotguns..... you obviously never heard of the term 'rattle-bang for a pump action shotgun. Already covered.

All this junk about killing intruders! :D What intruders? Where? How is a person going to be able to intrude in to a domestic premises easily? I don't think you people spend tuppence on the most basic security because all you talk about is killing intruders. It's almost like you leave your premises open, waiting for the day when you can kill somebody.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
We already have regulations. Perhaps you British need to mind your own business.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You don't have enough, it seems.
Oh..... we Brits don't want to try and manipulate your business...... but anybody has the right to comment upon how daft the US gun laws are, and how dreadful the US mass shooting history is.

:shrug:
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Extraordinary. Quite Extraordinary.
A person who thinks that its bulldust to take out 3rd party Public Liability risks insurance for guns wants to demand definitions of what a semi-auto fast-fire rifle is. Totally ignorant mindset and obviously untrained in gun use. During a recent incident on London Bridge where a police Officer needed to shoot a terrorist one of his bullets went through the criminal, ricocheted away and then went on to go right through a London Bus.......... you couldn't possibly pay out for healthcare and lost wages after such an incident if your bullet hurt somebody and you are no where near as well trained as an armed response officer. :p

You don't need a military style fast fire rifle to hunt a deer!

You ask why I haven't mentioned shotguns..... you obviously never heard of the term 'rattle-bang for a pump action shotgun. Already covered.

All this junk about killing intruders! :D What intruders? Where? How is a person going to be able to intrude in to a domestic premises easily? I don't think you people spend tuppence on the most basic security because all you talk about is killing intruders. It's almost like you leave your premises open, waiting for the day when you can kill somebody.

Definitions are needed to know what guns you want to ban. Please define what you call an assault rifle? How does that definition work with semi-auto pistols, and a semi-auto shotgun, and a pump shotgun?

No, I don't need a military style fast fire rifle to hunt a deer. But they work very well.

The noise made by a pump shotgun doesn't take away from the fact that it is fast loading and firing.

Your comments on intruders is ignorance.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
You don't have enough, it seems.
Oh..... we Brits don't want to try and manipulate your business...... but anybody has the right to comment upon how daft the US gun laws are, and how dreadful the US mass shooting history is.

:shrug:

You can comment, but you just show your ignorance of our laws.

We have more than enough laws governing guns. Just not the ones you want.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Definitions are needed to know what guns you want to ban. Please define what you call an assault rifle? How does that definition work with semi-auto pistols, and a semi-auto shotgun, and a pump shotgun?

No, I don't need a military style fast fire rifle to hunt a deer. But they work very well.

The noise made by a pump shotgun doesn't take away from the fact that it is fast loading and firing.
Let's not allow any redirection from my suggested list of common-sense gun controls, eh?

Any 'assault-rifle' can fire too many bullets too quickly. So to limit all civilian guns to small magazines just makes sense.

The mandatory 3rd party Insurance is not only common sense but it tends to control gun ownership and use away from the idiots and criminals. As with vehicles, the premium would rise dramatically for a person with a high claim or criminal record, and where insurance is refused thenm a person can't drive (or shoot!). Simple.

Your comments on intruders is ignorance.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Nope. Over many years in discussions with US gunners, on the occasions when folks have mentioned that they keep a gun ready for intruders, I have asked them to describe how the imagined intruder gained access to their home, and nobody, absolutely nobody has ever been able (or dared) to tell me how this occurred.
Where criminals are setting out to commit a robbery at a home (rather than a burglary) because they know of high value in the premises and burglary would be difficult, then this is a whole different ballgame to the situation of waking up to find a burglar in the room.
Burglary can be deterred fairly easily. Robbery requires much more thought for protection. But then, I don't expect that you have a collection of gold coins, or a safe full of diamonds.

I know about this because several of my customers in East London were gold dealers working from home.

The day that robbers call for you, your gun won't help you, I reckon. It'll be over so fast. Honest.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Let's not allow any redirection from my suggested list of common-sense gun controls, eh?

Any 'assault-rifle' can fire too many bullets too quickly. So to limit all civilian guns to small magazines just makes sense.

The mandatory 3rd party Insurance is not only common sense but it tends to control gun ownership and use away from the idiots and criminals. As with vehicles, the premium would rise dramatically for a person with a high claim or criminal record, and where insurance is refused thenm a person can't drive (or shoot!). Simple.


Nope. Over many years in discussions with US gunners, on the occasions when folks have mentioned that they keep a gun ready for intruders, I have asked them to describe how the imagined intruder gained access to their home, and nobody, absolutely nobody has ever been able (or dared) to tell me how this occurred.
Where criminals are setting out to commit a robbery at a home (rather than a burglary) because they know of high value in the premises and burglary would be difficult, then this is a whole different ballgame to the situation of waking up to find a burglar in the room.
Burglary can be deterred fairly easily. Robbery requires much more thought for protection. But then, I don't expect that you have a collection of gold coins, or a safe full of diamonds.

I know about this because several of my customers in East London were gold dealers working from home.

The day that robbers call for you, your gun won't help you, I reckon. It'll be over so fast. Honest.

There is no redirection. You want to speak in 'general terms' about banning a gun and now how small the magazine can be for the guns you allow.

You keep saying 'assault rifle'. If a law is passed it first gives the definition of 'assault rifle'. How would your definition affect the other semi-auto guns I described? What is the size of the magazine you will allow a pistol to have?

Yup. Ignorance. As far as what you do in England...I don't care. You can take away all the guns there if you like.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
There is no redirection. You want to speak in 'general terms' about banning a gun and now how small the magazine can be for the guns you allow.

You keep saying 'assault rifle'. If a law is passed it first gives the definition of 'assault rifle'. How would your definition affect the other semi-auto guns I described? What is the size of the magazine you will allow a pistol to have?

Yup. Ignorance. As far as what you do in England...I don't care. You can take away all the guns there if you like.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Look.
The common-sense key initiates would be authorised training and qualification, police checks, home security assessments including a recognised quality of gun safe, licensing and MANDATORY 3rd party risks insurance. An additional check could be a psycho-evaluation.

You can fix your definition of assault-rifle where you all fancy, and then ban 'em because they have no sports or utility value at all.

Where civilians are enrolled in to a State militia or part-time police service they would have a variation on their licences.

See? You can keep your guns and rights, but 85 gun deaths and goodness only knows how many injuries per day is a dreadful situation for everybody who cares, I guess.

Where I live anybody can own a shotgun or rifle, depending on the above........ :shrug:
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Of course I did!
Let me explain to you what an AR-15 is:- That stands for Assault-Rifle 15 rounds.
I thought you would know that abbreviation. :shrug:


Dreadful irresponsibility, imo.
The law should make it mandatory.

If a friend or relative of yours was injured or killed in a gun accident and there was no provision for payments and costs you'd be shrieking out a different story.
Or what if you got shot in an accident? We'd never hear the last of it.
And you answer to what the nomenclature for an AR-15 is Assault-Rifle - 15 round indicates your lack of knowledge of firearms is. That is unless you are just trolling.
AR-15 = ArmaLite rifle Model 15

And that is why I normally refuse to discuss firearms on this forum because the majority of those posting have little or no knowledge about firearms or the current laws regulating firearms.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And you answer to what the nomenclature for an AR-15 is Assault-Rifle - 15 round indicates your lack of knowledge of firearms is. That is unless you are just trolling.
AR-15 = ArmaLite rifle Model 15

And that is why I normally refuse to discuss firearms on this forum because the majority of those posting have little or no knowledge about firearms or the current laws regulating firearms.
Hatred of guns =/= Knowledge of guns
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
And you answer to what the nomenclature for an AR-15 is Assault-Rifle - 15 round indicates your lack of knowledge of firearms is. That is unless you are just trolling.
AR-15 = ArmaLite rifle Model 15

And that is why I normally refuse to discuss firearms on this forum because the majority of those posting have little or no knowledge about firearms or the current laws regulating firearms.
What a joke!
You just don't like the extension of the abbreviation in to 'assault rifle'.

I was discussing Armalite assault rifles on RF years ago...... So many many mass shootings ago.

And please don't tell me that 3rd party risk insurance is a legal requirement because I have discussed that for years with US members.

Now....... How did your imaginary intruder gain entry in to your home , eh? What a joke.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
And you answer to what the nomenclature for an AR-15 is Assault-Rifle - 15 round indicates your lack of knowledge of firearms is. That is unless you are just trolling.
AR-15 = ArmaLite rifle Model 15

And that is why I normally refuse to discuss firearms on this forum because the majority of those posting have little or no knowledge about firearms or the current laws regulating firearms.
Indeed. By the same token, someone who can't tell the difference between bourbon and scotch has no business trying to ban drunk driving. Am I right?

If someone can't tell the difference between an LSD high and an MDMA high, they're in no position to have an opinion on drug policy. After all, if you haven't gone to at least one rave blitzed on Molly, how can you really know what you're banning?
 
Top