Conquer Club

Well I have one thing say after some deliberation...most of the anti gun people are the same anti torture people and anti everything people actually...well you guys are always harping about the law ect ect ect....

well in this case the LAW provides for us to own guns and says nothing about gun control...YAY guns!!1

also ...any nation invading another does so for a point a goal. what goal would there be in invading the usa? besides that fact that it would take millions of troops just to ocuppy major citys would people be cooperative even if we didnt have guns...we cant even manage our own country how could a foriegn nation manage theirs a war with us and also keeping control of the population ??? lol the very idea is a joke

THORNHEART wrote:well in this case the LAW provides for us to own guns and says nothing about gun control.

Wow! You're even dumber than you look.

[quote="THORNHEART"]Well I have one thing say after some deliberation...most of the anti gun people are the same anti torture people and anti everything people actually...well you guys are always harping about the law ect ect ect....

[b]well in this case the LAW provides for us to own guns and says nothing about gun control...YAY guns!!1 [/b]

You think there are no Federal or State laws covering gun control.......amazing level of ignorance, simply amazing

comic boy wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:Well I have one thing say after some deliberation...most of the anti gun people are the same anti torture people and anti everything people actually...well you guys are always harping about the law ect ect ect....

[b]well in this case the LAW provides for us to own guns and says nothing about gun control...YAY guns!!1 [/b]

You think there are no Federal or State laws covering gun control.......amazing level of ignorance, simply amazing

Some people seem to think the only thing that counts as "law" is the constitution...which is sort of like saying that the only thing that counts as a "person" is their skeleton.

Frigidus wrote:

comic boy wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:Well I have one thing say after some deliberation...most of the anti gun people are the same anti torture people and anti everything people actually...well you guys are always harping about the law ect ect ect....

[b]well in this case the LAW provides for us to own guns and says nothing about gun control...YAY guns!!1 [/b]

You think there are no Federal or State laws covering gun control.......amazing level of ignorance, simply amazing

Some people seem to think the only thing that counts as "law" is the constitution...which is sort of like saying that the only thing that counts as a "person" is their skeleton.

The constitution was/is in place to be the guiding rules that guarantee our PERSONAL liberties. Gun laws themselves are unconstitutional.

OMFG ME AND JEFJEF agree on something!!!



its gotta just be conicindence.

you guys the constitution is the supreme law in the usa. America was founded on principles of less governace and of goverance by citizens who did a few terms and cared about seeing their country remain strong and free and orderly not carreer politicains.this is where we have gone wrong when people are politicians first and foremost. Laws are good but the best laws allow the induvidual plenty of freedom and at the same time people value those freedoms so they do not make a reason for more laws. Government in excess forces laws that they says are needed when in reality most people can govern themselves just fine with out the government deciding we cant

Frigidus wrote:

comic boy wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:Well I have one thing say after some deliberation...most of the anti gun people are the same anti torture people and anti everything people actually...well you guys are always harping about the law ect ect ect....

[b]well in this case the LAW provides for us to own guns and says nothing about gun control...YAY guns!!1 [/b]

You think there are no Federal or State laws covering gun control.......amazing level of ignorance, simply amazing

Some people seem to think the only thing that counts as "law" is the constitution...which is sort of like saying that the only thing that counts as a "person" is their skeleton.

The only thing that counts as law is the Constitution when other laws contradict the Constitution.

What Thorney is trying to say is that the Constitution grants us the right to bear arms and that such a right is not one that can be taken away by any law or regulation, regardless of whether you agree with that portion of the Constitution. So, I suggest you get the required support to amend that portion of the Constitution if you would like to change the law; otherwise, SHUT THE f*ck UP! Just kidding, I love you guys.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Koesen wrote:Regardless of whether you believe everyone should be free to own guns, how can anyone seriously defend the idea that foreign powers that are willing to take on the American army, are afraid to face American citizens? Surely the army is considerably more powerful?

This is like saying someone who wrestles crocodiles chickens out at the sight of a newt.

How big is this newt?

A lot smaller than the crocodile.

Of course the idea of the US being occupied is at this point in time entirely unimaginable, but that has more to do with the army than the citizens.

If not, what do you have an army for?

Thank you greek for clarifying me


and also...if you have never travel through pennslyvania Texas West virginia or missouri you have no clue what your talking about when you say that people couldnt fight an army.

There are people that have shot more deer and had more target practice than any soldier has ever had target practice. Much less actually shot in combat.

Yeah imagine your the russian/chinese Lt assigned to cover a patrol route with 12 soldiers in western va or the woods of pennsylvnia because some people have been causing a disturabnce there...I mean our gov tax collectors dont even come back alive you think some slanty eyes are gonna make it lmfao

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

comic boy wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:Well I have one thing say after some deliberation...most of the anti gun people are the same anti torture people and anti everything people actually...well you guys are always harping about the law ect ect ect....

[b]well in this case the LAW provides for us to own guns and says nothing about gun control...YAY guns!!1 [/b]

You think there are no Federal or State laws covering gun control.......amazing level of ignorance, simply amazing

Some people seem to think the only thing that counts as "law" is the constitution...which is sort of like saying that the only thing that counts as a "person" is their skeleton.

The only thing that counts as law is the Constitution when other laws contradict the Constitution.

What Thorney is trying to say is that the Constitution grants us the right to bear arms and that such a right is not one that can be taken away by any law or regulation, regardless of whether you agree with that portion of the Constitution. So, I suggest you get the required support to amend that portion of the Constitution if you would like to change the law; otherwise, SHUT THE f*ck UP! Just kidding, I love you guys.

Thats fine but he specifically said GUN CONTROL as opposed to OUTLAWING gun ownership, I have yet to see anybody on this forum advocate the total disarming of the USA populace which I agree, as things stand, would violate the Constitution.

comic boy wrote: Thats fine but he specifically said GUN CONTROL as opposed to OUTLAWING gun ownership, I have yet to see anybody on this forum advocate the total disarming of the USA populace which I agree, as things stand, would violate the Constitution.

That hasn't been stated explicitly, no, but pretty close.

BigBallinStalin wrote:At the time, this country's attitude is not at all favorable towards effective gun control laws. I say effective because in order for such laws to be effective enough to get the desired result of reducing deaths by guns, many types of guns (handguns especially) would have to be totally banned from production and importation, and that is definitely not a favorable approach to most Americans and the manufacturers.

many people on this forum oppose guns in any form in the hands of citizens just read throught all the pages friend

THORNHEART wrote:many people on this forum oppose guns in any form in the hands of citizens just read throught all the pages friend

Why dont you quote some examples explicitly showing this ?

If you insist...I will start by going way back to 2006 a post by one of our own mods on this

...so apparently I'm the only tree hugging pacifist around here...personally I think guns are on par with, well bad silly stuff

anyhoo, they have their place when it comes to computers

by Twill
Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:06 pm

Forum: Monkey Business
Topic: Computer Engineers + .308 calibre + $500,000 hardware = wow
Replies: 20
Views: 1270


I'm with Twill... (as you've probably guessed).

Glad guns are outlawed over here.

What's a swill?

by qeee1
Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:46 am

Forum: Monkey Business
Topic: Computer Engineers + .308 calibre + $500,000 hardware = wow
Replies: 20
Views: 1270

well that was on the first page of a general search on guns....so back in 2006 people on here were against them...i doubt much has changed

Wahoo 2 examples from 4 years ago, case closed then
The point I am making is that whenever the issue of gun control is raised there is invariably a huge overeaction along the lines of ' take my guns over my dead body ', how about debating the issue in hand rather than expressing a paranoid view of what just ever so minutely might happen.

comic boy wrote: The point I am making is that whenever the issue of gun control is raised there is invariably a huge overeaction along the lines of ' take my guns over my dead body ', how about debating the issue in hand rather than expressing a paranoid view of what just ever so minutely might happen.

If people responded that way and history was devoid of examples where the slippery slope of firearm legislation, starting with "harmless" gun control measures for general public safety and gradually moving toward complete bans on various types of firearms, was implemented by governments, you would have reason to call such people paranoid. However when history is rife with examples of that exact scenario happening, your statement shows you to be willfully ignorant.

Here in my home country of Canada, Bill C-68 was passed by the Liberal government (lead by Prime Minister Jean Chretien) in 1995 requiring the registration of all firearms and the licensing of all gun owners. Only a few years passed before the next leader of the Liberal party (Prime Minister Paul Martin) threatened a complete ban on handguns. Thankfully his government was defeated and our current government is in the process of repealing Bill C-68. However my point is that when you say Americans are paranoid for resisting gun control legislation, you are turning a blind eye to the multitude of instances in other nations where simple gun controls have led to bans. By the way, I don't own a handgun. But I have enough faith and trust in my fellow citizen that I am willing to stand up for their right to own them.

Here's what I am in favor of:
1. Make all guns personalized (fingerprint ID, or a magnetic trigger corresponding to the owner's special ring). The downside would be that a wife couldn't use her husband's gun to defend herself against a home invader; however the positive effect is that this would prevent criminals from stealing guns from private citizens and using them for illegal purposes.
2. Make all new weapons "lemon-squeezer" guns (so less accidents, especially involving children, would occur).
3. Create laws enabling law enforcement officers to confiscate any firearm on an intoxicated individual (I've been around a drunk guy with a firearm; it's not fun!) or anyone convicted of a serious offense. Anyone stupid enough to drink while carrying is not responsible enough to own a firearm.

Ray you would have a good point about the 'slippery slope ' were it not for the fact that the USA has a gun culture far more deep rooted than most countries. The constitutional issue, vast financial and lobbying power of the NRA and familiarity of the general populace with firearms makes an outright ban hugely improbable. The only scenario I could envisage where you would see a vast reduction in firearms would be if a series of gun control reforms showed firm results and attracted ever increasing support, this could create a snowball effect with subsequent administrations seeing further reform as a vote winner rather than an unholy struggle.
My view , unless circumstances change immensely, is that such a scenario is highly improbable in the near future but I do think eventually that the gun lobby will begin to lose support and firmer controls will come to pass.

The only reason the usa is a country today is because every original pilgrim need to own a gun for hunting. This was useful during our revolution. Also no one will ever take our because of the symbol it represents that we are free people and we own guns and the right to change our government.

Aslo those two examples were the first I came across in a forum wide search on 'gun control" you such a stupid noob if I found those on the first page out of over 345 pages then I am sure there were more ...what a fool

does anyone have anything to say for the undefended millions who were slaughtered in the 20th century?

Phatscotty wrote:does anyone have anything to say for the undefended millions who were slaughtered in the 20th century?

If you are speaking of the 120+ million that were murdered by their dreamy, communist masters:

I hope they enjoyed their utopia?

HapSmo19 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:does anyone have anything to say for the undefended millions who were slaughtered in the 20th century?

If you are speaking of the 120+ million that were murdered by their dreamy, communist masters:

I hope they enjoyed their utopia?

those were the most specific examples of extreme gun control. there are a couple of other ones tho

im starting to wonder if this point is moot...as i stated like on page one...

if liberals could go back to the middle ages they would be calling for the removal of bows and arrows and swords from people...because they can be used wrongly ...this is getting long and dreary and rehashed over and over

THORNHEART wrote:im starting to wonder if this point is moot...as i stated like on page one...

if liberals could go back to the middle ages they would be calling for the removal of bows and arrows and swords from people...because they can be used wrongly ...this is getting long and dreary and rehashed over and over

saying goodbye to the thread that made you famous? guess going out on top isn't so bad either.

THORNHEART wrote:...if liberals could go back to the middle ages they would be calling for the removal of bows and arrows and swords from people...

Nah. I'm pretty sure they would've just been shot full of arrows and then hacked into little pieces.

Phatscotty wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:im starting to wonder if this point is moot...as i stated like on page one...

if liberals could go back to the middle ages they would be calling for the removal of bows and arrows and swords from people...because they can be used wrongly ...this is getting long and dreary and rehashed over and over

saying goodbye to the thread that made you famous? guess going out on top isn't so bad either.

good point scotty....so then Having made my point.
Finally conclusion-the problem is not weapons but people.

Offically - I say good bye to this thread.