Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
This is why homeowners need assault weapons.
Page <<first <prev 3 of 14 next> last>>
Feb 3, 2013 08:13:59   #
Shakey Loc: Traveling again to Norway and other places.
 


Ignore the date at the top of the webpage if you follow this link. Figures quoted are from 2009, when Alan Johnson was Home Secretary, not 2013. Yep, the Daily Mail has a rep as a right wing newspaper. Maybe they don't mind skewing facts to suit their agenda. Funny how both sides of any argument quote 'Facts' and don't expect to get caught out. Same in every country I guess. How do I know? I Googled Alan Johnson.

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 08:35:29   #
krispix Loc: London - UK
 
sarge69 wrote:
Severums wrote:
TrainNut wrote:
This is why homeowners need assault weapons. 4 thugs with guns that can shoot faster than you can defend yourself with only a regular gun. I was in Tucson when this happened and it was in a "good" neighborhood. It was all over the news and home invasions went down for a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4

Search "Home invasion" and watch.


Makes me happy to live in a country where guns are very strictly licensed, you have a problem that no legislation can now change; hope your politicians can find a solution.
quote=TrainNut This is why homeowners need assaul... (show quote)


Politicians ? Are you really saying that ? Study our politicians, they only make a law favoring their own state and have no business fk*(&g with our constitution.

Sarge69
quote=Severums quote=TrainNut This is why homeow... (show quote)


Sarge,
I'm not being provocative, I'm genuinely interested.
Who does change your Constitution if it's not the Politicians? The last time I looked there were 7 articles in the US Constitution running to 9 pages (excluding a page and half of signatures) and over the years 27 Amendments taking 18 pages (including nearly 2 pages of explanatory notes). So, clearly the immutable Constitution does get changed from time to time, but by who?

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 08:42:45   #
moonshot24 Loc: Kenton, Ohio
 
I'm sorry but you need to get yuour nomenclature correct. These are "defense" weapons. I never plan to use one for "assault" and nrither do most other people.

Reply
 
 
Feb 3, 2013 08:50:32   #
cwalti
 
...and how many have been knifed, clubbed, choked to death? Conveniently forgetting the larger numbers. eehhh?


Donwitz wrote:
1280 people have died by firearms (just in the U.S.) since Sandy Hook.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/us-gun-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2602074.html

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 08:57:54   #
JCP
 
Be real semi automatics is plenty

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 09:04:17   #
allan catt Loc: gillingham,kent,uk
 
Gun related crime here is very low,yes we do get a little now and again but when we do it is front page news,as it is rare,it must be hard living in a country where gun crime is so high.

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 09:04:37   #
Radioman Loc: Ontario Canada
 
Gnslngr wrote:
TrainNut wrote:

Right. A missile launcher would have taken care of their car. What do you think would have happened if the homeowner hadn't had a gun. The story would have been "Homeowner killed in home invasion" just like the one that just happened here in Grand Rapids.


No, really. Why not nuclear weaponry? Why not anti-aircraft equipment? That would deter 'em and kill 'em if they weren't deterred. Why stop at just guns? Don't we have a god-given right to self defense? Does the second amendment say only guns? No! We should fight for the right to get missile launchers!
quote=TrainNut br Right. A missile launcher wou... (show quote)


*********

If one is in danger of being attacked by a tank or aircraft, why not?

Reply
 
 
Feb 3, 2013 09:15:07   #
JCP
 
I have not seen any tanks lately and that is to the extreme this country has not got to that point but if it does we have to worry about it then

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 09:38:22   #
Wrongway Loc: Hewitt Texas
 
England has a very high crime rate from what i read the other day they have even outlawed pocket knives on a person. But thats not my concern or my bussiness I gave 20 yrs of my life so that We can own any weapon we want and the constitution promises it as an American.No matter what we do if we cant keep guns out of tbe hands of criminals than we have to protect ourselves because the police cant be everywhere every second of the day. Who ever gave ar 15 and other weapons the name assult weapon didnt know what they were talking about because you dont assult anyone with them you defend yourself same thing the military does. Here in Texas we have a legal militia ran by the people and when the state guard goes on deployment we take the responsibility of protecting the state That why were the great state of Texas

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 09:42:58   #
JCP
 
Alaska has better laws than Texas so I don't really worry much. It is not any better than what we have in Alaska. The police have no more rights than anyone else does Texas does not have that law in place So how is that the great state of Texas. And to let you know I like Texas

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 09:47:02   #
nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL
 
Severums wrote:
TrainNut wrote:
This is why homeowners need assault weapons. 4 thugs with guns that can shoot faster than you can defend yourself with only a regular gun. I was in Tucson when this happened and it was in a "good" neighborhood. It was all over the news and home invasions went down for a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4

Search "Home invasion" and watch.


Makes me happy to live in a country where guns are very strictly licensed, you have a problem that no legislation can now change; hope your politicians can find a solution.
quote=TrainNut This is why homeowners need assaul... (show quote)


Here's one politicians solution:

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is “popping some eyeballs” in New England and elsewhere!
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state.
Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so' He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."
Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Reply
 
 
Feb 3, 2013 09:47:43   #
Wrongway Loc: Hewitt Texas
 
We call it the great state cause we fought for our own independence Remember the Alamo. Lol. I love Alaska my self and I believe all states should be just like that except it should be manitory every law abiding citizen carry a gun that will deter crime

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 09:51:40   #
Gnslngr
 
nimbushopper wrote:
Here's one politicians solution:

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is “popping some eyeballs” in New England and elsewhere!
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state.
Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so' He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."
Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.
Here's one politicians solution: br br Vermont St... (show quote)


I wonder how much Maslack is getting from the gun manufacturers.
:thumbup:

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 09:58:15   #
TimS Loc: GA
 
Gnslngr wrote:
TrainNut wrote:

Right. A missile launcher would have taken care of their car. What do you think would have happened if the homeowner hadn't had a gun. The story would have been "Homeowner killed in home invasion" just like the one that just happened here in Grand Rapids.


No, really. Why not nuclear weaponry? Why not anti-aircraft equipment? That would deter 'em and kill 'em if they weren't deterred. Why stop at just guns? Don't we have a god-given right to self defense? Does the second amendment say only guns? No! We should fight for the right to get missile launchers!
quote=TrainNut br Right. A missile launcher wou... (show quote)


You seem to be the only one advocating for that right. Not even the gun lobby would back you on that. So...good luck with that!

Reply
Feb 3, 2013 09:59:04   #
2harleys Loc: Orlando & Lewisburg, WV
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA
TrainNut wrote:
This is why homeowners need assault weapons. 4 thugs with guns that can shoot faster than you can defend yourself with only a regular gun. I was in Tucson when this happened and it was in a "good" neighborhood. It was all over the news and home invasions went down for a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4

Search "Home invasion" and watch.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.