50 shot dead - Orlando shooting | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

50 shot dead - Orlando shooting

Jesus, when will the people realize that they do NOT have the 'right' to won guns. Especially semi-auto and handguns. It's a privilege, plain and simple. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anywhere "you have the right to bear arms". It was written in a time where they were carrying musketts for gods sakes. Not these high tech tools of death. Anyone who thinks the 2nd amendment gives them the 'right' to bear arms is only interpreting the amendment to suit their wishes and that's **** fact.

Actually, the founding fathers meant it in the most extreme way, as in having private citizens form their own, well regulated militia, as capable as any modern army, with battleships and the latest modern weaponry. Today it would translate into privately-owned aircraft carriers. Firearms themselves were more of an aside, along the lines of "people need to have unrestricted access to guns, so they can get comfortable with them and it's easier to incorporate them into those private militias". That's the gist of the actual ideas behind the 2nd amendment based on the writings by the founding fathers of the United States. Another poster also tore down your "muskets yes, AR's no" argument because that would be like limiting free speech to town criers and hand-cranked presses (but not electrically operated presses because they didn't exist). You really don't want to use the founding fathers' motivations as a basis for gun policy if you're an anti-gunner :cool:

Guns do not offer protection as most think. You and your family are statistically in more danger if you have guns. The amount of crimes fought off by gun-wielding civilians is so minute it's barely worth arguing about.

There are approximately 30,000-35,000 gun deaths in the US every year (2/3 suicides and most of the rest are gangbanger on gangbanger homicides). There are 100,000 cases of legitimate use of firearms in self-defence where a firearm was used to kill or wound the attacker. There are another 700,000-1,500,000 annual cases where the law-abiding American defended him/herself either by brandishing the firearm or by firing a warning shot without hitting anyone. Check the stats before spewing liberal propaganda if you don't wanna appear gullible and ignorant :)
 
Actually, the founding fathers meant it in the most extreme way, as in having private citizens form their own, well regulated militia, as capable as any modern army, with battleships and the latest modern weaponry. Today it would translate into privately-owned aircraft carriers. Firearms themselves were more of an aside, along the lines of "people need to have unrestricted access to guns, so they can get comfortable with them and it's easier to incorporate them into those private militias". That's the gist of the actual ideas behind the 2nd amendment based on the writings by the founding fathers of the United States. Another poster also tore down your "muskets yes, AR's no" argument because that would be like limiting free speech to town criers and hand-cranked presses (but not electrically operated presses because they didn't exist). You really don't want to use the founding fathers' motivations as a basis for gun policy if you're an anti-gunner :cool:



There are approximately 30,000-35,000 gun deaths in the US every year (2/3 suicides and most of the rest are gangbanger on gangbanger homicides). There are 100,000 cases of legitimate use of firearms in self-defence where a firearm was used to kill or wound the attacker. There are another 700,000-1,500,000 annual cases where the law-abiding American defended him/herself either by brandishing the firearm or by firing a warning shot without hitting anyone. Check the stats before spewing liberal propaganda if you don't wanna appear gullible and ignorant :)

Gotta ask... do have something to support those numbers?
Not implying they're not accurate... I just can't see how some of those figures are even compiled by anyone.
 
Gun enthusiasts, hobbyists, nutz, dealers, manufacturers, slingers and collectors shouldn't be allowed to comment, opinionate, ruminate or vagitate on this issue. Would you put pedophiles in charge of daycare? I didn't think so.

What I meant to say was would you put crack whores in charge of crack security? Forget about the pedophile bit, they're people too.
 
Last edited:
Gotta ask... do have something to support those numbers?
Not implying they're not accurate... I just can't see how some of those figures are even compiled by anyone.

US gun death numbers in recent years have been in the 30-35,000 ballpark, with about 1/3 homicides, 2/3 suicides, and those numbers are commonly available from many sources.

The lowest estimate, frequently touted by anti-gunners is the David Hemenway figure - 55,000–80,000 of defensive gun uses on an annual basis, even though most anti-gunners usually push the 100,000 ballpark, based on the NCVS. The highest number was the Chiltons study that indicated 4,700,000 annual defensive gun uses. Those are the two extreme ends of the spectrum. Most pro-gunners push the Kleck and Gertz study that claims about 750,000 defensive gun uses and claims that for every reported gun use, there were 1-3 unreported defensive gun uses. The Lott study indicated that in over 90% of defensive gun uses, either brandishing or just firing a warning shot were enough to achieve the defensive goal. The Lott study is also used to connect the anti-gun community figure of 100,000 (as those studies typically looked at the cases where the attacker was injured or killed, while ignoring the rest) and the pro-gun community figure of over 1,000,000 defensive gun uses.

One additional tidbit of info was that people who used firearms to defend themselves from a violent attack had much lower injury and death rates than people who used other defensive strategies, as per the Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence report by the National Research Council.
 
The horses are out of the barn. Just say it. Don't rationalize it.
 
How old is Bernie he seems like an old man but he's online trolling a bike forum all day long I'm so confused
 
Here is the solution. Every gun should be painted the same colour of florescent hot pink (uglier the colour the better), make it a standard colour across the board. New guns must come in this colour (100% of the gun including the stock/handle) and old guns must be painted the same. If someone really needs a gun for protection they will not care what colour it is. If someone needs a gun to feel like a big man well the colour is going to be a problem. The colour will also help others see the gun which will decrease the need to use it and also help law enforcement. Everyone wins except the people who need a gun to feel like a big man or rambo... Holsters etc. must all also be hot pink.

Antique collector guns can be exempt but they cannot be carried on the street etc. *must remain at home or at the gun club, special permit to transport any non-pink gun.

Other than that, real background checks are a good idea that maybe they should actually give a legitimate attempt at???
 
How old is Bernie he seems like an old man but he's online trolling a bike forum all day long I'm so confused

Astute amalgam of inquiry and statement sans punctuation. I hope this clears it up.
 
Here is the solution. Every gun should be painted the same colour of florescent hot pink (uglier the colour the better), make it a standard colour across the board. New guns must come in this colour (100% of the gun including the stock/handle) and old guns must be painted the same. If someone really needs a gun for protection they will not care what colour it is. If someone needs a gun to feel like a big man well the colour is going to be a problem. The colour will also help others see the gun which will decrease the need to use it and also help law enforcement. Everyone wins except the people who need a gun to feel like a big man or rambo... Holsters etc. must all also be hot pink.

Antique collector guns can be exempt but they cannot be carried on the street etc. *must remain at home or at the gun club, special permit to transport any non-pink gun.

Other than that, real background checks are a good idea that maybe they should actually give a legitimate attempt at???

I like the way you think. It's kind of scary. Along the same lines my biggest fear in life is that someday we will be forced to have 24"X24" license plates on our motorcycles. One each front and back.
 
Well thats what obama says, NRA and gun lobby won't let anyone touch any laws around their guns.

So even restricting a known ISIS or ISIL follower, acolyte, jihadist whatever you wanna call em, is impossible.
So they can restrict them from getting on a plane, but not from buying a gun.

MURICAH LOGIC
I'd think that if someone is a KNOWN terrorist sympathizer he shouldnt have access to them.. its truly ****ed.

Canada has weapons...just basically not in a free for all fashion
 
Saw a news clip of Obama a few weeks ago on PBS...suspected ppl are on the no fly list due to security concerns but we have no restrictions from blocking the people on the no fly list from getting a gun.

I thought that pretty much summed it up to demonstrate the epitome of stupidity.

Where are all the women on this issue? It's your kids getting killed. There are more women voters than men.

Why can't they own a bazooka or grenade? They hang on the part that they have the right to bear arms...
Did they ever define what "arms" are?
 
Saw a news clip of Obama a few weeks ago on PBS...suspected ppl are on the no fly list due to security concerns but we have no restrictions from blocking the people on the no fly list from getting a gun.

I thought that pretty much summed it up to demonstrate the epitome of stupidity.

Where are all the women on this issue? It's your kids getting killed. There are more women voters than men.

Why can't they own a bazooka or grenade? They hang on the part that they have the right to bear arms...
Did they ever define what "arms" are?
There are cannons, tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers in private ownership down there. Theyre mostly NFA items but regardless, still legal. Prohibitively expensive thanks to supply and demand though.

The right to bear arms covered everything back in the day. People had cannons on their lawns. Pretty sure Washington himself did, too.

Over time, legislation made things like grenades and explosives illegal through various 'controlled materials' laws.. the slippery slope, etc.

Can an argument be made for private ownership of such things? Sure, if you subscribe to the idea of needing the capability to overthrow a tyrannical government.

I think most people have come to terms with the fact that grenades and bazookas won't be a threat to them and they make horrible self-defense weapons, so the subject needs no further pursuing.
 
This notion that they need all those guns to protect themselves from the US govt is funny and makes one look stupid.
Oh is that a dro (kaboom).

They have a pea shooter compared the the weapons the govt have that we know of.

All this govt. rhetoric is just to sellmore guns to what would seem to be ppl with mental issues if they seriously think they will overthrow the US govt or defend against them.

Spend that effort on defending taxes and jobs.
 
Yup, if they call back all their drones, theres not a chance they can survive, unless they start stealing military aircraft. Those drones attack without even being seen so yeah... those guns will be the least of their worry if a govt needs to be overthrown
 
This notion that they need all those guns to protect themselves from the US govt is funny and makes one look stupid.
Oh is that a dro (kaboom).

They have a pea shooter compared the the weapons the govt have that we know of.

All this govt. rhetoric is just to sellmore guns to what would seem to be ppl with mental issues if they seriously think they will overthrow the US govt or defend against them.

Spend that effort on defending taxes and jobs.

Yeah, because the 13+ years at war against the Taliban have completely wiped them out, hasn't it?

And ISIS is virtually non-existent due to drone strikes, right?

Despite all of the USA's fancy weapons, they still seem to have a problem fighting non-conventional forces that have little more than knives and AK47s and a will to die for their cause.
 

Back
Top Bottom