Eveas Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Buybacks do not pay full sale price for the guns. They never pay $500 for them. When people die with an arsenal families often sell off the guns or when people lose their job or when they simply decide they don't need it anymore. They'd rather take $100-$200 than let the guns end up in the hands of some moron. It is crazy how many very expensive guns come in, and we still only pay $200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I have changed my opinion! GUNS SHOULDNT BE BANNED! http://i.imgur.com/B6abkJd.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 I have changed my opinion! GUNS SHOULDNT BE BANNED! http://i.imgur.com/B6abkJd.gif Good posting!!! Agree 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 I think we should spent the money otherwise spent on defense and use it on cheek implants for under bootied babes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Since I know that gun nuts will never accept the established facts that a gun ban would make the country safer, I've decided to change my stance to accept the lesser of two evils. If we are going to allow handgun ownership, at least require licensing. The reason why Switzerland has guns, but a relatively low gun murder rate is twofold: first of all, they have no standing army, so they allow private gun ownership by militia members only. This means that no private citizen can own a gun until he has been extensively trained on how to use it properly, including techniques on how to use your gun as a last-ditch effort. Untrained Swiss citizens are still banned from owning guns. On top of this, Swiss militia members are limited to one gun per person, which must be physically presented every year for licensing. This prevents guns from winding up in the hands of those who are not supposed to have them. Now I know that Americans have a strong gun culture, so instead of a limit of one gun per person, I propose a limit of one gun per licensed gun owner in a private residence. If you want to own 50 guns, that is fine, but you can only keep one of them in your house. The rest must be stored in a licensed and regulated gun storage facility at a shooting range or hunting club. If you need to transport your weapon from one place to another, you are allowed to do so, but you must lock the weapons in the trunk, go directly from point A to point B, and not leave the vehicle unattended at any time. This would prevent guns from being illegally transferred to those without proper licenses. Requiring each weapon to be physically presented annually for licensing would also greatly reduce guns illegally ending up in the hands of unlicensed users. This is my compromise. Gun lovers can still keep guns. People who strangely believe that a gun makes them safer can have one in their house. However, they must at least be properly trained before they can do so and they must be strictly responsible for the whereabouts of their guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 well a gun ban isnt going to happen thankfully -- the senate shot it down even shot down banning high cap mags to my surprise -- the house already said they would vote it down if senate passed but it didnt even pass the senate --- only way obummer can get it done now is if he gets to elect 2 supreme court judges with in the next 4 yrs (and none are expected to quit or step down at this moment) with getting to elect 2 he could possibly swing a supreme court ruling on it but without getting 2 more judges on his side he has no chance -- now the senate did pass and say they want stronger back ground checks along with stiffer penaltys for committing a crime with a gun 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 I have changed my opinion! GUNS SHOULDNT BE BANNED! http://i.imgur.com/B6abkJd.gif At the very least a better argument than any of the weaksauce that PBR and BrainSmasher come up with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Background checks aren't enough. You should have to take a course and get licensed to own a gun. A gun in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it is 100 times more dangerous than an untrained driver driving a car, yet we require the driver to get a license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Since I know that gun nuts will never accept the established facts that a gun ban would make the country safer, I've decided to change my stance to accept the lesser of two evils. If we are going to allow handgun ownership, at least require licensing. The reason why Switzerland has guns, but a relatively low gun murder rate is twofold: first of all, they have no standing army, so they allow private gun ownership by militia members only. This means that no private citizen can own a gun until he has been extensively trained on how to use it properly, including techniques on how to use your gun as a last-ditch effort. Untrained Swiss citizens are still banned from owning guns. On top of this, Swiss militia members are limited to one gun per person, which must be physically presented every year for licensing. This prevents guns from winding up in the hands of those who are not supposed to have them. Now I know that Americans have a strong gun culture, so instead of a limit of one gun per person, I propose a limit of one gun per licensed gun owner in a private residence. If you want to own 50 guns, that is fine, but you can only keep one of them in your house. The rest must be stored in a licensed and regulated gun storage facility at a shooting range or hunting club. If you need to transport your weapon from one place to another, you are allowed to do so, but you must lock the weapons in the trunk, go directly from point A to point B, and not leave the vehicle unattended at any time. This would prevent guns from being illegally transferred to those without proper licenses. Requiring each weapon to be physically presented annually for licensing would also greatly reduce guns illegally ending up in the hands of unlicensed users. This is my compromise. Gun lovers can still keep guns. People who strangely believe that a gun makes them safer can have one in their house. However, they must at least be properly trained before they can do so and they must be strictly responsible for the whereabouts of their guns. What is the point of a gun limit? That doesnt even make sense. Most pro gun people who are the most responsible people with guns are also collectors. There is no reason at all to limit the guns. A guy can only shoot one at a time to begin with. This is the pointless laws anti gun people keep coming up with. Laws for the sake of laws with no positive result. I was with you all the way up to that point. I wouldnt mind every gun having to be registered and even every owner having to be lincensed. But i do not support a gun limit. Like i said it prevents nothing. You also have to understand people collect guns and when they go shooting they take a lot of them so they can practice with them. It isnt unusual to go to the shooting range and see people with 5+ guns. Also many people in rural areas shoot their guns on their property. They dont use ranges and some dont have access to ranges. So these people are terribley effect for a rule that does nothing. My only demand before accepting the licensing of all guns and owners is a law to be passed or a ruling to clearify the 2nd ammendment that the government can never take guns away. As long as there is a threat of a gun ban at any point. Citizens will never agree to register their guns. Most people believe the only reason for the government to register/track guns is to confiscate them later. Until then you are asking them to trust the government, the same government none of you trust either. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CusDamato Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 What is the point of a gun limit? That doesnt even make sense. Most pro gun people who are the most responsible people with guns are also collectors. There is no reason at all to limit the guns. Classic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Classic... I meant licensed gun owners. Stop being a drama queen. There is facts to back it up. But you are to closed minded to accept any stance but your own. Please tell me how 2 guns with 10 bullets is worse than 1 gun with 20 bullets? Just because a few people used more than 1 gun in a spree. Doesnt mean they needed more than 1 gun. Also protection isnt the only reason people like and want guns. So a 1 gun compromise isnt a compromise at all. It is retarded. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CusDamato Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I meant licensed gun owners. Stop being a drama queen. There is facts to back it up. But you are to closed minded to accept any stance but your own. Please tell me how 2 guns with 10 bullets is worse than 1 gun with 20 bullets? Just because a few people used more than 1 gun in a spree. Doesnt mean they needed more than 1 gun. Also protection isnt the only reason people like and want guns. So a 1 gun compromise isnt a compromise at all. It is retarded. I'm a drama queen? I said 1 word and you went on a rant, you don't even know my stance on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I'm a drama queen? I said 1 word and you went on a rant, you don't even know my stance on this. Nor do i care. You knew what i meant you were just being a smart ass. Seeing as you are from Aus. I think its a given what side you are on. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CusDamato Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Nor do i care. You knew what i meant you were just being a smart ass. Seeing as you are from Aus. I think its a given what side you are on. Yeah just like all people from Australia drink fosters and like to cook shrimp on the barbie.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Yeah just like all people from Australia drink fosters and like to cook shrimp on the barbie.... ...and carry a big knife and tell others their knife isnt a knife? Yeah!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Nor do i care. You knew what i meant you were just being a smart ass. Seeing as you are from Aus. I think its a given what side you are on. The irony of the gun-loving, racist, obese, fundamentalist Christian redneck who has 'nor do I care' as his view when it comes to anyone else's opinion is stereotyping Australians... sheer brilliance. I maintain my stance. More guns for the USA, higher capacity clips and higher firing rates. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Ahhh is the devil worshiping athiest resorting to name calling? How cute! You lost your rights to guns and being a human and you are jelous of anyone who still has those right. THAT is why you are so pasionate about our redneck, gun loving, christian, obese laws. When you live in the land of the pussies you need the government to protect you. Us ass kickers can handle our selves. USA http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2Gm2p6xDm5I/SlBi9mjHxCI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/GR0ldF0-K7w/s400/arnold-schwarzenegger-the-terminator.jpg Australia,UK, Canada http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3171/2879181146_75452ed528.jpg 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Hail Satan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 When you live in the land of the pussies you need the government to protect you. Us ass kickers can handle our selves. In the last 50 years you have lost wars to North Korea and Vietnam, you're currently losing wars to Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't even handle a salad. P.S. - There is no name calling there. Time and time again through your own admissions and statements you prove yourself to be a gun-loving, racist, obese, fundamentalist Christian redneck. Most likely you're ugly too but that isn't relevant here. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 What is the point of a gun limit? That doesnt even make sense. Most pro gun people who are the most responsible people with guns are also collectors. There is no reason at all to limit the guns. A guy can only shoot one at a time to begin with. This is the pointless laws anti gun people keep coming up with. Laws for the sake of laws with no positive result. I was with you all the way up to that point. I didn't suggest a gun limit. I think you should be able to collect if you want to. I just said you can only have one in your house for protection. The rest of your collection would be stored in a secure location where it is tracked and inventoried. This prevents someone from buying 100 guns and then selling them on the black market. I would also be in favor of allowing permits for additional guns in your house if you can establish a legitimate reason. For example, if you live on a ranch and go hunting on your property, it is quite reasonable for you to keep weapons in your house that serve that purpose. However, there is no reason for somebody living in an apartment in the middle of a city to have 25 guns in their house. Those guns should be kept in secure storage to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, intentionally or unintentionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Hail Satan. Go to hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eveas Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/644228_602293949796120_965769336_n.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/644228_602293949796120_965769336_n.jpg Haha. Very funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK47 Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 In the last 50 years you have lost wars to North Korea and Vietnam, you're currently losing wars to Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't even handle a salad. P.S. - There is no name calling there. Time and time again through your own admissions and statements you prove yourself to be a gun-loving, racist, obese, fundamentalist Christian redneck. Most likely you're ugly too but that isn't relevant here. we only lost to vietnam........korea we supplied guns to south. and we whooped iraq and afghanistan(you know the people who beat russia) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.