The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-09-2013 09:49 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  Guns are a false sense of security period. I would love to see the right to bare arms totally removed from the constitution but realistically that probably won't happen anytime soon or ever. My solution is that gun ownership should be determined by counties or smaller geographic areas. Meaning that if you live in the country with wild animals running around your property you could own a gun. People who live in highly populated urban areas should not be able to own guns. All this of course comes with stricter background checks, maybe mandatory training period, assault weapon bans etc.

Your solution is being tried in Illinois (Chicago), tell me how well it's working.
Problem is that criminals will get guns no matter what the laws says.

Let's not forget about "straws." Lunchroom blow guns.

Dip. Don't you wish you were funny like you were in the old days?

Hey why have laws at all? Only criminals will break them anyway...

(03-10-2013 01:53 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Dip. Don't you wish you were funny like you were in the old days?

Oh that hurts. Perhaps we should include dimwitted platitudes on the list of deadly weapons.

Giving you credit for the old days buddy!

Blowguns are quite deadly, actually. Slingshots can do a lot of damage. Native Americans got a lot of mileage out of rocks tied to the end of sticks. For that matter just accelerate your Yukon into a group of kids crossing Stadium on their way to Waldo.

The possibilities are endless.

I always thought the responses to terrorism are like that. How can you stop someone determined to kill?

Still, those assault weapons seem to appeal to the less inventive among us, they do a lot of damage in a short amount of time, and they don't really have a useful purpose in ordinary life.

When I taught 8th grade in a private school a kid brought in a blow gun for his descriptive writing project. Of course today he'd be suspended and make the local news, but times were different then.

He brought in a piece of three quarter inch plywood and put a dart clean through it with the blow gun. Silent but deadly.

(03-10-2013 01:55 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Hey why have laws at all? Only criminals will break them anyway...

I agree! All the pro-gun nutjobs think that gun laws are pointless because criminals will still break. Then why have any laws at all??? Criminals break ALL laws. That is why they are criminals!

(03-10-2013 08:38 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 01:55 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Hey why have laws at all? Only criminals will break them anyway...

I agree! All the pro-gun nutjobs think that gun laws are pointless because criminals will still break. Then why have any laws at all??? Criminals break ALL laws. That is why they are criminals!

I went 5 MPH over the speed limit today. Would you label me a criminal?

Do you think all laws carry equal weight? Do you personally agree with every law that exists?

Your arguments are spurious at best.

(03-10-2013 08:48 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 08:38 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 01:55 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Hey why have laws at all? Only criminals will break them anyway...

I agree! All the pro-gun nutjobs think that gun laws are pointless because criminals will still break. Then why have any laws at all??? Criminals break ALL laws. That is why they are criminals!

I went 5 MPH over the speed limit today. Would you label me a criminal?

Do you think all laws carry equal weight? Do you personally agree with every law that exists?

Your arguments are spurious at best.

OK, why have murder laws at all, only murderers will murder? That won't stop them.

Does that help your straw man?

Lol, your straw man is ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that we not have laws against murder? It goes much deeper than that, and is a different topic altogether.

Let's get back to the subject at hand, please.

If it were up to you to decide this country's fate concerning gun control, what would you do? Consider that there are more guns than people in this country, and any attempt to make firearms illegal to own (which would lead to police taking them away from citizens) would be met with widespread resistance and possibly civil war.

I know that is an extreme case, but it is what many anti-gun activists wish to see (not the civil war part, but the illegality of firearms). This may work for some countries, but it is too late for that here due to the availability and widespread ownership of guns.

I am not completely against some forms of gun control, but it's unfortunate that the loudest activists against guns are the most ignorant ones. The ones that have never even held a gun and do not understand them.

I'm an owner, handgun, rifle and shotgun, legacy and legit registered,and I'm not against regulation. In fact, I'm for ammo purchase monitoring and assault type weapon bans.

BTW, put your sarcasm detector on.

(03-10-2013 01:59 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 01:53 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Dip. Don't you wish you were funny like you were in the old days?

Oh that hurts. Perhaps we should include dimwitted platitudes on the list of deadly weapons.

Dimwitted platitudes eh? Like the dimwit who just a few weeks ago was asking rudimentary questions about gun ownership and now is mocking the people who are suggesting some regulation?! THAT is the definition of a little going a long way.

(03-10-2013 10:10 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  I'm an owner, handgun, rifle and shotgun, legacy and legit registered,and I'm not against regulation. In fact, I'm for ammo purchase monitoring and assault type weapon bans.

BTW, put your sarcasm detector on.

Apologies, I wasn't implying that you were one of the ignorant ones.

Folks tend to lose sight of the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is there to insure that the American people always have the means and mechanisms to revolt against our own government . It tends to keep the folks in power honest.

When you relax important constitutional protections which are in place strictly to protect us as citizens, you compromise freedoms in general. Americans have had guns forever. Accidents and homicides have occurred throughout history. It is certainly one of the unfortunate circumstances that exist in the world, but should not serve as a basis to compromise our freedom.

(03-11-2013 10:51 AM)brovol Wrote:  Folks tend to lose sight of the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is there to insure that the American people always have the means and mechanisms to revolt against our own government . It tends to keep the folks in power honest.

When you relax important constitutional protections which are in place strictly to protect us as citizens, you compromise freedoms in general. Americans have had guns forever. Accidents and homicides have occurred throughout history. It is certainly one of the unfortunate circumstances that exist in the world, but should not serve as a basis to compromise our freedom.

You taking on the government with your AR-15 when they have the sophisticated weaponry of today is a little outdated thinking, as outdated as the second amendment. Might have applied when it was about muskets and rifles, not now.

Here's how it works in North Korea. And lord knows that government doesn't fear its people one bit.

Quote:Guns are regulated along with all weaponry, which are in three categories: guns, knives and explosives. Guns include all firearms and air- and gas-powered rifles. Knives with blades longer than 15 cm (about six inches!) are also regulated. Separately, pepper sprays, tasers and crossbows are also regulated. Even the mock weapon that have no capacity of hurting anyone is regulated the same way.

In practice, only hunters own guns in Korea. (And hunters are not many in Korea.) By regulation, hunters cannot keep their guns all the time -- they must keep their guns at the police station during off-season. Handguns are pretty much nonexistent among civilians.

(03-11-2013 02:07 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  Here's how it works in North Korea. And lord knows that government doesn't fear its people one bit.

Quote:Guns are regulated along with all weaponry, which are in three categories: guns, knives and explosives. Guns include all firearms and air- and gas-powered rifles. Knives with blades longer than 15 cm (about six inches!) are also regulated. Separately, pepper sprays, tasers and crossbows are also regulated. Even the mock weapon that have no capacity of hurting anyone is regulated the same way.

In practice, only hunters own guns in Korea. (And hunters are not many in Korea.) By regulation, hunters cannot keep their guns all the time -- they must keep their guns at the police station during off-season. Handguns are pretty much nonexistent among civilians.

Nice logic leap, comparing a virtual dictatorship to the US.

Not so easy to be a loony dictator when the general population is armed.

The British colonized a lot of countries, but the one that took them down had citizens who were heavily armed and skilled in using those arms. They learned at Concord what an armed population was capable of. From then on they were forced to expend resources and lives that the folks back in England didn't want to fund.

The number one reason I don't fear China or Russia is that we're isolated by water, and we're armed from coast to coast.