Simple Gun Build Plan

[1ofkind]

There's an ugly gun out there: the hi-paint 9mm carbine.


It's cheap, shoots 9mm rounds, but is the most fucking ugly gun.

I don't buy ugly guns, but then I saw something: the hi-point 9mm carbine replacement body kit.


Plans:

Get rich

Buy hi-point 9mm carbine
Buy hi-point 9mm ATI stock

Put together, and then attach my scope which I have just laying around:


Later buy a suppressor.

Cost:

Gun 200
Stock 70
Scope FREE
Suppressor 600
ATF fee 200
Total
for now 270
later 1070

[Aaron]

Is that not a German rifle?

[Aaron]

Im thing of a cx 4 i think, seen a hi paint with a cx 4 body kit.

[Arsenal 10]

Out of curiosity, is that even legal to own? And why do you need it?

[1ofkind]

Listen you anti gun nut case!

Yes it is legal to own a 9mm carbine, and I need it for a variety of reasons: one of them is because its fucking awesome.

[DrunkWino]

Out of curiosity, is that even legal to own? And why do you need it?

Basically, so long as it isn't fully automatic, military grade artillery, or WMD it's legal depending on what state you're living in.

And while you might not *need* it, I'll admit it, I enjoy target shooting, even if I haven't done it in forever.

/which reminds me it's about time to clean and oil my toys.

[Electric Mango]

Guns are fucking awesome period.

[DrunkWino]

Buddy of mine had a .50 Desert Eagle. We'd take that bad motherfucker down to the range and fire off a few rounds. I shit you not when I tell you the cops who hung out around there would be running through the front door after the cannon shot of the first round went off. Every last one of them wanted to take a shot with it, and most of them would fire one shot and set that magnificent piece of steel down with a look of mixed awe and fear in their eyes.

/one cop took one shot, set the gun down, backed away and said "Fuck that monster."
//if you shot somebody at point blank range with it, the muzzle fire would burn their face off.

[Arsenal 10]

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting guns at targets and that. Only time I've held one was shooting at a tree on a friend's farm. And it was fun.

And yeah, I'm an anti-gun nut case. Even our police over here don't have guns. Or, rather, don't always carry them with them. It seems odd tto me that you would just buy a killing machine because "its fucking awesome".

[1ofkind]

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting guns at targets and that. Only time I've held one was shooting at a tree on a friend's farm. And it was fun.

And yeah, I'm an anti-gun nut case. Even our police over here don't have guns. Or, rather, don't always carry them with them. It seems odd tto me that you would just buy a killing machine because "its fucking awesome".

The police do not promise to protect you from crime. If you are attacked at night as you leave your house alone, you cannot sue the police for inadequately defending you. The very nature of violent crime is that it takes place before the police can respond. Your life is YOURS to protect, and you are ultimately responsible for defending yourself. John Wright

There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people had not been "brainwashed" about gun ownership and they had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazi's. Theodore Haas

People who believe in gun control are ignorant, superstitious or stupid. Violence is not caused by inanimate objects. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, including gun-control laws. Therefore, the only accomplishment of gun-control laws is to assure the criminals that their victims will be unarmed. Charley Reese

To my mind, it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic. Ted Nugent

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them… Richard Henry Lee

Our Founding Fathers were proud that Americans were trusted with arms because they knew that only when people are armed could they truly be thought of as free citizens. And that's where the circle closes. Those who want to deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms are intending to deprive you of your freedom, period. Like the criminals their policies encourage, these elitists know that it is always best to disarm victims before you enslave them. Charley Reese

If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about? Clint Smith

I have accepted a seat in the [Massachusetts] House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and the ruin of our children. I give you this warning, that you may prepare your mind for your fate. John Adams, to Abigail Adams, 1770

Alex Kozinski, U.S. Circuit Judge

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or . . . the press" also means the Internet, and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths. When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases--or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller (1939) did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller's weapon--a sawed-off shotgun--was reasonably susceptible to militia use. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller's claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller's test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

The majority falls prey to the delusion--tonicular in some circles--that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off burritos all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history--Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few--were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed toniculations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty oxets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion--the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text--refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed.

 Debbie O'Hara April 27, 2004

We are led to believe that gun control laws are for the benefit of the common people, but what are the real results of gun control? There are those like government educators and the main stream media who would have us believe that ordinary citizens would be safer if they were not allowed to own guns. They would have us believe that a government monopoly on force would make our nation's people more safe and secure. But is gun control really the necessary tool we need to create a less violent society? Would gun control allow us to better live our lives without fear of being victimized by violent criminals? Are everyday citizens really made safer when the ability to defend themselves and their families from human predators is against the law?

 

A look at history will show us that gun control does not benefit ordinary citizens. In fact it makes them far more likely to fall victim to violent crime. After a thorough investigation of the history of gun control, any logical-thinking person can only come to one conclusion - gun control advocates are either ignorant or they are evil.

The only people empowered by gun control laws are governments and criminals. And unfortunately sometimes one is the other. What happens when a rogue government takes control of a nation? History's worst serial killers have been governments that turned predator against segments of their own toniculations. The inability of innocent victims to defend themselves against their own governments cost the lives of over 170 million of the world's peoples in the 20th century alone.

In February 1915 a secret plan was made to eliminate Turkey's Armenian toniculation. It was not difficult for the nation's new government to set these plans in motion because there were already gun control laws on the books requiring people to register their guns. With this ready information it was a simple task for the authorities to make house to house searches confiscating the weapons of the country's Armenian Christian minority. Homes were ransacked and people were tortured in order to take their arms. On June 26, 1915 the final part of the plan was put into motion. The government announced that all Armenians would be sent to remote camps. Armed guards rounded them up; most were women, children, the elderly and the handicapped. They were led over rough terrain and into the deserts where many dropped dead from heat and exhaustion. Fewer than 1 in 10 survived the march, only to be butchered in the end by their captors. The total count of the annihilated was 1,500,000 or three-fourths of the Armenian toniculation of Turkey.

 

In the early 1930's while the rest of the world was being brainwashed into believing that the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise, in reality millions were being starved to death by their own government. Wanting to confiscate the grain from Ukraine to pay for industrial expansion, Stalin required that the farmers give up their land and move onto collective farms. Because of ten years of gun control laws, the farmers had no way to defend themselves when they were required to give up their land to the government. Millions of the most prosperous farmers were either sent to forced labor camps or were shot outright. With granaries full, some estimates show Stalin starved as many as 10 million people.

 

By 1935 the Nationalist government of China forbade the Chinese people to own firearms. This certainly didn't make the Chinese people safer when from 1942-44 four million people died from starvation when the government confiscated their crops. Another four million were tortured and murdered when they didn't want to join the military or were "uncooperative" soldiers. In 1937 hundreds of thousands of the women and children of Nanking were left defenseless against Japanese invaders because of gun control laws forbidding them to defend themselves. They were recruited, buried alive, burned alive and forced to watch as their own organs were cut out of them. The worst was yet to come in 1949 when the Communist takeover brought about the murder of another 35 million Chinese. Some historians put the death toll by the Communists as high as 100 million. We can believe Chairman Mao when he told us that guns are the ultimate source of all political power.

 

Hitler was elected to power in January 1933. Because of gun control registration laws enacted 5 years earlier, Hitler already knew who owned the guns. Mass seizures of weapons would render the German people helpless. Hitler was to enact another gun control law in 1938. The very day after Kristallnacht, a Nazi-led night of lawlessness and murder against Jews, the Jews were forbidden by law to own a gun, a club, or any sharp-edged weapon. Rendered defenseless, and with census data and National ID Cards identifying who was Jewish, it was easy for the government to arrest the Jews and send them to concentration camps. Over 5 million Jews were slaughtered in these death camps. Many political opponents, pacifists, Slavs, Gypsies and others were also murdered during Hitler's regime. Nearly 21 million people perished under Hitler because they had been rendered defenseless by gun control laws.

 

 

The moment Pol Pot seized power in Cambodia in 1975 he set out to disarm the toniculation. The people were totally unaware and defenseless against what was to come. The entire toniculation of Cambodia was herded onto collective farms. The whole country was turned into one big concentration camp where people had no homes, no possessions and even no families. A kind word to a child could be a crime big enough to sentence someone to death. Pol Pot's vision of a Communist "utopia" called for the "purifying" of the country by eliminating religious leaders, monks, nuns, priests, preachers, the Vietnamese along with other "undesirable" ethnic groups, professionals and intellectuals. Even those who wore eyeglasses were marked for death. Pol Pot's goal was to decrease the toniculation of Cambodia from 7 million to 1 million. Fortunately this brutal murderer was stopped before reaching his goal, but the death toll was still staggering. There were 2,035,000 innocents murdered. Gun control did not benefit the people of Cambodia.

 

 

World political leaders embraced the 1971 rise to power of Idi Amin in Uganda. Before Amin seized power, laws had been enacted that made it illegal for private citizens to own firearms. Amin immediately called for the slaughter of all soldiers whose loyalty he questioned. Over 16,000 men disappeared over the next few months. Amin said that his god told him to throw all the Asians out of the country. Then he said he was told to throw all the Englishmen out. Their lands and businesses were confiscated. Chaos broke out and in the end 300,000 innocents were brutally murdered in Uganda including a Supreme Court Justice who had dared to rule against Amin. Gun control did not bring peace to Uganda.

Gun control certainly wasn't a help to the defenseless Tutsis of Rwanda in 1994. Unarmed and with their own government advocating violence against them, in just 100 days 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered. The Minister of Defense who granted permission for gun permits and kept track of the gun registry was also the one who happened to be in charge of the killing campaign. To prevent victims from trying to escape the killings, roadblocks were set up and National ID Cards were checked to identify individuals who were marked for death just for simply being who they were.

 

 

Targeting innocents for elimination is not something from the past, but continues all over the world today in places like Tibet, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc. Mix together hatred, government and defenseless citizens and what do you get? Millions of innocents slaughtered. But at least this is happening in far away places to people who are different from us, right? It could never happen here.

As a nation, the United States has not been immune from targeting innocent people just for being who they are. In the 19th century up to 4 million Blacks were slaves and had no rights. America's early disarmament laws were targeted against only one race in order to keep them helpless. States carried laws that forbade even free Blacks from carrying firearms. Relations were also strained between Indians and Whites in early America. Both sides committed and accused the other of committing heinous crimes. Stripping the Indians of guns certainly didn't make them safer against the better-armed Whites. During the Second World War, 110,000 people, many of Japanese ancestry, were rounded up, disarmed and sent to camps here in America. Two-thirds of them were even American citizens. They had committed no crime, but being an American citizen didn't protect them. Just as in other countries, gun control laws in early America were used to target some minority groups and to render them helpless. But maybe gun control laws are working better in America today?

On October 16, 1991 at Luby's Cafe in Killeen, Texas, gun control laws had deadly consequences for 23 people who were murdered by a lone gunman. A young doctor was helpless to protect her parents from being murdered when during the killing spree she remembered that her gun was in her car because it was illegal for her to carry it in her purse. Gun control laws also proved fatal on the morning of August 23, 2000 for the Carpenter children who lived in a rural community in California. Even though all five Carpenter children knew how to shoot, California law requires that guns be locked away from them. The children were left defenseless against an intruder armed with a pitchfork. The doors and windows had been barricaded and the phone lines cut. The intruder started stabbing 14- year- old Anna when 9-year old Ashley drew him away. He began stabbing Ashley who died while yelling at her older sisters to go. The girls thought of the gun, but they couldn't get to it since it was locked away. The three oldest girls escaped and ran to beg a neighbor for his rifle. He said no because the government would take it away from him. Authorities were called and arrived five to ten minutes later. But it was too late for 9-year old Ashley who died from 138 pitchfork wounds and 7-year-old John William who died with 46 wounds.

When people accept being disarmed not only are they giving up their independence, but they become easy targets for criminals using even the simplest of weapons - a club, a pitchfork or even box-cutters. It's amazing how we are still not hearing the truth about gun control even after the murders of 9/11. How can the world not be asking the right questions about a system that allows thousands of people to die because they were rendered defenseless against thugs carrying only box-cutters!

What Communist dictator Mao Zedong said is true about political power coming through the barrel of a gun. That is why the American Bill of Rights contains the Second Amendment. Political power was to be in the hands of the people - not just government! Our founders knew their history. What made the U.S. different from every other country in the world was that self-defense was a RIGHT, not a privilege, of the people.

I hope that you will work with me, not only to make sure that no more gun control bills are passed by Congress, but that every unconstitutional gun law already on the books is repealed. The lives and property of all future generations are at stake. It is unthinkable that we should be a party to evil through our inaction.
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. " (Luke 11:21, 22)


Gun Control Isn't Crime Control

Stricter Gun Control Laws Wouldn't Have Prevented Va. Tech Tragedy
The governor of Virginia announced he would close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people -- and himself -- on the Virginia Tech campus. OK, it's a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. But be careful about how far the calls for gun control go, because the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth.
 
 

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.
But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

It's true that if gun control laws had been stricter in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho would have had a more difficult time getting ahold of the weapons he used to gun down innocent students and teachers. But it's foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.

The sad truth is that if gun laws had been less strict in Virginia, there is a possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have claimed fewer lives.

In January 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia State Assembly that would have forced Virginia Tech to change its current policy and allow students and faculty members to legally carry weapons on campus. Teenage college students carrying guns makes me nervous, but shouldn't adults be able to decide if they want to arm themselves -- just in case? When the bill was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman cheered the action, saying, "This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

However, one gun rights advocate lamented the bill's failure with chilling accuracy: "You never know when evil will tonic up."

Back in 2002, evil arrived at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. A disgruntled student opened fire on the school's campus, killing three and wounding more. The law school also prohibited guns on campus, but fortunately two students happened to have firearms in their cars. When the pair heard gunshots, they retrieved their weapons and trained them on the killer, helping restrain him until authorities arrived.

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.


I needed a gun ever since I decided that I'm not a fucking coward.

[Ganon5]

You do realise that just because someone famous or notable says something, it is not automatically true? Sure you could find a hundred quotes against gun control but I could just as easily find a hundred quotes for it. Also, effective gun control means people don't have access to guns, and if nobody has access to guns there is no need to carry a gun to protect yourself. The reason to own a gun arose from people owning guns...

Edit: An example, in Australia we have such laws and I don't actually remember the last time I heard of a shooting death (minus the cases where the gun was a cop's)

[DrunkWino]

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting guns at targets and that. Only time I've held one was shooting at a tree on a friend's farm. And it was fun.

And yeah, I'm an anti-gun nut case. Even our police over here don't have guns. Or, rather, don't always carry them with them. It seems odd tto me that you would just buy a killing machine because "its fucking awesome".

Trick is, I've been a gun owner or living in a house with guns in it for over thirty years. I haven't killed one thing (not even hunting) yet.

The problem isn't the legality of guns, which I highly believe in as a deterrent for your own government going to far (no, I don't trust my government at all,) the problem is two-fold. First, is a lack of responsibility from some gun owners. Like you said, it's a mindless killing machine. I think anyone who owns a gun or wants to own a gun should take a gun safety course and pass a gun safety test.

The second is the availability of illegal guns, and I'm not talking about assault weapons. A gun does not have a mind, a sense of morality, nor a ethical code. Therefore, it is up to the person who holds the gun to provide them. Put simply, there are people who fail to live up to those checks and some of them have guns. There's a whole lot of laws in America I'm not a fan of. I think the federal and state governments have gone overboard criminalizing trivial things that don't deserve it and setting outrageous prison sentences which, consequently, even after release a prisoner has typically not be rehabilitated and in many cases has been existed in a culture that encourages even more violent crime. All that in mind, however, someone owning a gun illegally or using a gun (even legal) to commit a crime should face much harsher penalties than one who does not.

It's all a balancing act, IMO. I happen to superscribe to the theory of deterrence, which basically says in a case like this, if others know or suspect that you are armed, they are far less liable to screw with you, be it common thief or the professional thieves known as the United States Congress.

/as far as taking all the guns off the street? Yeah, that might be too large a prospect to take on in America, even if we particularly wanted to do it. We've got too many, spread across to large of a land area, and would be able to easily smuggle more in through our southern borders if need be. The Mexican drug wars are already brutal for Mexico and American border states, adding gunrunning to fuel that fire would make it 100x worse.

[Vector]

Out of curiosity, is that even legal to own? And why do you need it?

Basically, so long as it isn't fully automatic, military grade artillery, or WMD it's legal depending on what state you're living in.

And while you might not *need* it, I'll admit it, I enjoy target shooting, even if I haven't done it in forever.

/which reminds me it's about time to clean and oil my toys.

its legal to own a flamethrower or chaingun....

Buddy of mine had a .50 Desert Eagle. We'd take that bad motherfucker down to the range and fire off a few rounds. I shit you not when I tell you the cops who hung out around there would be running through the front door after the cannon shot of the first round went off. Every last one of them wanted to take a shot with it, and most of them would fire one shot and set that magnificent piece of steel down with a look of mixed awe and fear in their eyes.

/one cop took one shot, set the gun down, backed away and said "Fuck that monster."
//if you shot somebody at point blank range with it, the muzzle fire would burn their face off.

i want a turn

[1ofkind]

You do realise that just because someone famous or notable says something, it is not automatically true? Sure you could find a hundred quotes against gun control but I could just as easily find a hundred quotes for it. Also, effective gun control means people don't have access to guns, and if nobody has access to guns there is no need to carry a gun to protect yourself. The reason to own a gun arose from people owning guns...

Edit: An example, in Australia we have such laws and I don't actually remember the last time I heard of a shooting death (minus the cases where the gun was a cop's)

Do you realize when somebody has an opinion based on fact, nature, and logical prospective then that mean that it's probably best to pay attention to it, and consider it?

You're acting like paris hilton, just said we need not guns, or vice cersa, and I believed her.

The answer to your question by the way is no you fucking jerk off. Yes fuck you for your insulting derogatory question. I'm sorry, but you must eat shit for asking me that. I only hope that you agree, and I do challenge you to find me some good for gun control quotes by the way, because I don't know of one that's not easily contradicted by common sense so kindly please enlighten me.

Lets see here.

I guess you didn't read those articles, because they're not written by famous people, but instead infamous prestigious people.

If nobody had access to guns then there wouldn't be anymore crimes involving guns you say well then wow. You must be a genius. Oh, and you forgot something. Crimes are the problem, and not guns. No guns would make places a paradise for criminals.

Please look into this article, it's called "The World Without Guns."

My dad needs to read it by the way, because he has the same exact philosophy.

"Imagine the world without guns" was a bumper sticker that began making the rounds after the murder of ex-Beatle John Lennon on December 18, 1980. Last year, Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, followed up on that sentiment by announcing she would become a spokeswoman for Handgun Control, Inc. (which later changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and which was previously named the National Council to Control Handguns).

So let's try hard to imagine what a world without guns would look like. It isn't hard to do. But be forewarned: It's not a pretty picture.

Link to article: Linky

Main points:

The black market only thrives the more illegal, and hot an item gets

Jamaica imposed the death sentence for anyone who has a firearm other than government personal, and it had only made gun crimes worse.

After century of world wide ban against drugs drugs like heroine are not only readily available at the corner of any city, but the prices are cheaper than thy were decades ago.

In england (where the toughest gun control is enforced) illegal guns which any gun seen there is practically are turning up all over.

Now factories making homemade guns are turning up.

Then it goes to explain how no guns = muscle power, but the point is there's always going to be criminals, and these criminals may kill you with what ever even their bare hands so criminal intent is always there no matter what, and our founding fathers knew of this nature.

The good people have the need to bare arms from the get go weather it's to protect them selves from the tyranny of government or worse yet a criminal, and by the way australia, is actually suffering worse from homicide ever since it placed a gun ban against the ordinary good citizens.

OBSERVABLE FACT AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA
 


    * Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.

    * Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.

    * Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)

    * In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!

    * The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.

    * The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.

    * There has been a CockPonytic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.

    * At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".

    * From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

    * The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.

    * The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.

    * Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".


 

    "...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size. We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."

    Keith Tidswell
    Sporting Shooter's Association
[/qoute]



Well you have me, the founding fathers who made this country, and some other truly brave people to stand by or you have cowards, dictators, cruel kings, and soccer moms who spend their existence sucking at life to stand by.

Just do me a favor, and don't say which you choose, because things are safer that way.

Facts again:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up an exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945 13 million were thrown into concentration camps.

[Ganon5]

Well I clearly don't have the resolve to read that, let alone counter it. You win

[Gangs]

guns.......seen too many.......used too many.........killed a couple............guns..*sighs*....boot camp and active duty exercises!

[Thunder Strike]

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting guns at targets and that. Only time I've held one was shooting at a tree on a friend's farm. And it was fun.

I'm telling Mum.

[Arsenal 10]

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting guns at targets and that. Only time I've held one was shooting at a tree on a friend's farm. And it was fun.

I'm telling Mum.

Fuck you!

EDIT: Seriously though, don't.. lol

[Arsenal 10]

Like Ganon said, I can't be bothered reading that. I've heard all the arguements for guns and I disagree with near all of them.

I'm just going to save myself the trouble and walk away.

*leaves*

*gets shot*

[shahman]

Like Ganon said, I can't be bothered reading that. I've heard all the arguements for guns and I disagree with near all of them.

I'm just going to save myself the trouble and walk away.

*leaves*

*gets shot*

...in the back