You can have my guns when I can have your booze.

lovecraft68

Bad Doggie
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Posts
43,910
Yes, you read that correctly. The finger waving anti-gun zealots want our guns because people are getting killed with them.

I own several guns and I am fully prepared to surrender them to said zealots.

When I can have your alcohol.

What am I talking about? Walk this way with me.

It was pointed out in another thread that there are an estimated 300 million legally owned firearms in the US. Now keep the word legally in mind, its very important.

Now from my experience most people who own a firearm own more than one, many collect them. So I doubt there are 300 million "unique" gun owners. So let's say the average gun owner has 4. So 75 million people own guns legally. They have blue cards they have permits they're registered gun owners.

Now lets look at how many deaths occur during the year that resulted in the use of legally owned guns. So gang related shootings, drug related shootings, any shooting involving an illegally owned firearm does not count here. You can;t take guns away from criminals, they will always obtain them. In fact this Lanza animal stole these guns from his mother so its debatable whether or not the guns used in Connecticut were legally owned by the shooter.

Long story short it is a miniscule, an infinitesimal, percentage of legal gun owners who harm others.

Now lets switch gears. The number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drunk drivers is around or even exceeds that of gun related deaths(legal owned) every year. If we want to really get into things we could look at how many of those legal owned gun deaths involved the added factor of alcohol. but lets keep it simple.

Here we are in X-mas party season and next week is New Years. Between 12am-1am on New Years day thousands upon thousands of people will be leaving parties drunk behind the wheel. Their cars are now a 2-3 ton weapon with a "fully loaded" driver behind the wheel. Deaths have and will occur.

Just like in CT many young children will be killed and hurt by drunk driving as well as abused by drunken parents,

Therefore I want your booze. I want all the finger waving zealots and our mealy mouthed President to call for your booze. Hand it over people and now.

Whoa, wait, what's that? That's not fair?

Okay, I'll bite, why is it not fair?

Because it is only a very small percentage of idiots who get drunk and do these things, who kill and ruin peoples lives(and take their own as well) those people shouldn't represent all drinkers!

I am a responsible drinker! Why should I lose my scotch and Budweiser because a handful of dummies can't handle their drinks.

You can't so this! a handful of people should not effect everyone.

But sorry, we're taking your booze away. So what happened last time booze was taken away during prohibition?

there was more booze flowing than when it was legal! The mobsters and criminals were raking it in!

so what happens when you abolish guns? People will still get them except now the only people that will own them will be people who probably would use them for ill effect leaving law abiding citizens defenseless in their own homes.

What's that? we only want to take away semi automatic weapons? Okay then I'll only take way your beer.

But wait, now someone just walked into a theater and killed 8 people with 2 .38's. Now we want all your guns.

Okay now hand over the hard liquor.

Bottom line this is ridiculous. This man was a sick individual. I cannot fathom what kind of animal can empty a magazine into a child. But he is an aberration and nothing short of evil. People like that will find ways to get their hands on these weapons, criminals always do.

And it is a horrible tragedy, but as always it is now not about these children,. but a bunch of finger pointing fools using this to promote their platform.

whether you own a gun or do not, this is about our rights. Anytime a right is taken away it is a bad thing. You may not want a gun today, but what about down the line,? And of all presidents throughout history this is not the one, I want removing any of our rights.

In closing I also want to add how convenient this tragedy is. Trust me I am not saying this was a set up in anyway, but the president and congress are thrilled we're all rightfully upset and focusing on this because that way....

Us all going over the fiscal cliff is taking a back seat. Once again the media is taking Obama off the hook.

Now, enough of that. There will be people coming to your doors wearing Madd and Sadd sweat shirts.

All of them have lost loved ones to drunk drivers.

so kindly hand over your booze to them as you should not be allowed to have any.

Guess the eggnog will be a little bland this year.
 
Never, ever....not !!MY!! booze !!!

the solution against drunk drivers is......more booze!
 
I've seen this argument so many times now. "Why do you obsess over guns? Guns are not special, there are other things that kill just as many. Booze, cars, kitchen knives... why don't you want to ban them?!"

Just tell me this; if guns are not special, why do you need a constitutional amendment to protect them?
 
I'll take your word for it. Too long and boring:rolleyes:
 
I've seen this argument so many times now. "Why do you obsess over guns? Guns are not special, there are other things that kill just as many. Booze, cars, kitchen knives... why don't you want to ban them?!"

Just tell me this; if guns are not special, why do you need a constitutional amendment to protect them?

Because it protects the right for people to be able to protect themselves.

Are the police going to be there should my house ever be broken into? They'll be there.....to fill out paperwork and pick up my corpse, but certainly cannot defend me.

I believe they had the foresight to know that there would be many old ladies down the road who would equate guns with evil.

The only thing that would make it worth seeing guns confiscated and mae illegal is what the reaction would be when someone walks into a school and does this with a gun they got on the black market.

Taking guns away from the responsible does not affect the irresponsible. You're disarming the wrong people.

And add swords to your list. I have several and I'm sure could lop a few heads off before anyone go to me so....take away the swords!
 
Lovecraft, seriously, I thought about you as not that stupid or gun nuts like some blockheads here, so seriously tell me: do you see a difference between "control" and "ban" ?
 
Can't have it both ways.......

Cannot be for gun control and allow the choice of abortion. Can't allow only certain guns to be sold and then open the idea of marriage up to include same sex.

Can't control one freedom and allow everything else to be a matter of "forward thinking" and personal choice.
 
Because it protects the right for people to be able to protect themselves.
Why can't they protect themselves with lawnmowers, baseball bats and kitchen knives?

Because gun ARE special.

Look, I'm pro gun rights. But I'm anti bad arguments.
 
Nobody is going to take away your right to own a gun to protect yourself.

However, you do not need military style assault weapons to protect your home from someone breaking in, or to hunt with, or any of the other stupid ass reasons given for needing such a weapon.

I support the 2nd amendment. I own several handguns, a rifle, and a brand spanking new compound bow. I have a concealed carry permit. I don't own, nor do I need, a weapon capable of firing 20+ rounds per clip for self defense. If you aren't capable of taking down an agressor with a couple of shots then you have no business owning nor carrying a weapon in the first place.
 
Can't have it both ways.......

Cannot be for gun control and allow the choice of abortion. Can't allow only certain guns to be sold and then open the idea of marriage up to include same sex.

Can't control one freedom and allow everything else to be a matter of "forward thinking" and personal choice.
Does that go the other way round too?

Cannot be for gun freedom and prohibit the choice of abortion. Can't allow all guns to be sold and then shut the idea of marriage down to only include opposite sex.

Right?
 
However, you do not need military style assault weapons to protect your home from someone breaking in, or to hunt with, or any of the other stupid ass reasons given for needing such a weapon.

You can't even define assault rifle you fucking moron...stfu.

Does that go the other way round too?

Cannot be for gun freedom and prohibit the choice of abortion. Can't allow all guns to be sold and then shut the idea of marriage down to only include opposite sex.

Right?

But but but but.......THAT'S DIFFERENT!! :rolleyes:
 
You can't even define assault rifle you fucking moron...stfu.

Clueless fuckstick. This covers it pretty well.

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition.
(a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, “assault weapon” means:
(1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the other following specified semiautomatic firearms:
Algimec Agmi
Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol
Armalite AR-180
Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89
Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol
Holmes MP-83
Auto-Ordnance Thompson type
MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type
Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type
Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion
Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1
Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000
Beretta AR-70
Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only
Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol
Scarab Skorpion
Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P
SIG 57 AMT and 500 series
Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88
Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol
Colt AR-15 and Sporter
Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3
Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2
Sterline MK-6 and MK-7
Ecom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45
Steyr AUG
Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC
Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns
FAMAS MAS 223
USAS-12
Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT
UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol
Federal XC-900 and XC-450
Weaver Arms Nighthawk
Franchi SPAS-12 and Law-12
Wilkinson “Linda” Pistol
Galil AR and ARM

(2) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in possession or under the control of the same person;

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at lease two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A bayonet mount;
(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) A grenade launcher; or
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
(i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
(iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
(iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or
(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and
(iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
(b) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, the term “assault weapon” does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable.
 
Can't have it both ways.......

Cannot be for gun control and allow the choice of abortion.

Listen, jb: Years ago, I had a little cat, and when I took it to the doctor, I had to put her in a cage. As long as she was in the cage, she was nearly mad and tried to escape or knock the cage off. When we opened it a little bit, the cat wasn't run away. She was silent, almost instantly.

People work nearly the same way. In our country, we have the choice. But we have the duty to take consultations before. In the end, those consultations made a lot of people overthink their choice, and saved a lot of unborn lives. With a stupid ban of every choice, those people would have aborted, illegally, in danger of their life.

That's the way control works.

Gun control isn't gun ban. Never know if you'll ever realize this.
 
However, you do not need military style assault weapons to protect your home from someone breaking in, or to hunt with, or any of the other stupid ass reasons given for needing such a weapon.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here:
What about a business owner trying to protect his store against a mob of looters. I'm guessing said shop owner would find 20+ rounds at a time mighty handy.
 
Clueless fuckstick. This covers it pretty well.

.

Do you even know what any of that means? Check it out...all they did was restate the machine gun ban already in place....PLUS

"A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at lease two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A bayonet mount;
(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) A grenade launcher;"

So your assault rifle ban an adustable stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, astetic items you can't get without a NFA (See item for rich people and lots of time) tax stamp the same as machine guns (See damn near impossible).

So...your "assault weapons" ban is against hunting rifles with military "Tacticool" looking body kits on them.....that is to say it's completely fucking retarded and ineffective as proven by the 04 "Assault" weapons ban that didn't do a mother fucking thing.

Like I said...your a fucking moron...STFU b/c you don't know what your talking about ass bite.
 
I'm just playing devil's advocate here:
What about a business owner trying to protect his store against a mob of looters. I'm guessing said shop owner would find 20+ rounds at a time mighty handy.

You mean headless zombie looters?

You're right, that's when you need something to blast off.
 
You mean headless zombie looters?

You're right, that's when you need something to blast off.

No they have "Flash Mobs" here where a large number of people show up and rob the shit out of stores, it's fucking crazy.
 
And a gun isn't enough? Must be a semi-automatic?

Or did I get something wrong ?

Well a flint lock is a little behind the time bro....so yes.
Taurus-Judge-Public-Defender-Polymer-Revolver.jpg

A nice semi auto such as this would be rather well suited to thwart off a group of vandals.
 
Last edited:
And a gun isn't enough? Must be a semi-automatic?

Or did I get something wrong ?

I'm not above saying some things need to be more regulated, but the semi automatics are the beginning,

Like I said what happens when the next shooter has s simple .32 or .38?

The change I personally would like to see if these things only sold in gun shops. Selling semi's in friggin Wal-mart and retail stores disturbs me.

and I'm not saying this is my take, but a big justification to the semi's is that the thugs and gang bangers all have them.

They're better armed than the cops.

They also travel in packs so when 4 of them break into my house I feel much more comfortable with the .45 in my night stand than a Smith & Wesson.
 
They also travel in packs so when 4 of them break into my house I feel much more comfortable with the .45 in my night stand than a Smith & Wesson.

Remember, the S&W and all DA revolvers are semi auto too, one bang for each squeeze just like a glock. ;)
 
You can keep your guns.

If and when someone close to you is the victim of gun violence, we'll see if you're willing to re-visit the debate. Until then, it's someone else's loss, right?
 
I don't want "gun control" to apply to everyone - just the assholes in this forum and elsewhere who obviously use them to compensate. I want their lives to be more miserable because they deserve that extra misery for being assholes.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? :confused:
 
Back
Top