OKAY,HERE IT IS ..the most controversial subject on the Planet !

[Willie Bee]

Anyone who believes that gun control laws will have some dramatic effect on reducing crime is only kidding themselves. Sure, if you COULD scoop all the guns up some how, the number of accidental gun deaths would drop, and drop significantly. But stopping murders, armed robberies, etc, nope.

Tell you what Abe, you've been around a long time according to your posts here, so you no doubt understand that in the end everything boils down to the bottom line. I'm talking greenbacks here. How much do you think it would cost to truly enact strict gun control a la what Australia did some 12-14 years ago? And my follow-up question is are you and the rest of the gun control proponents willing to foot the entire bill, meaning not one fackin' cent comes out local, state or federal coffers? I'll hang up and listen, thanks for taking my call.

[smitch124]

The horse has been let out of the barn, led a full life and the barn has collapsed from age. Way to late to try this now.

[pavyracer]

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

[username474]

We dont need gun control. I like guns, if you gotta gun you dont need to work out. You got pecks? I got techs. What we need is bullet control. I think all bullets should cost 5,000 dollars. Why? Cause therd be no more innocent bystandards. Theyd be like, well he musta did something they put 50,000 dollars worth of bullets in your ass. People would think before they shot someone if a bullet costed 5,000 dollars. " man i wud blow ur ****ing head off if i could afford it, imma get me another job and your a dead man". And you wouldnt even need no doctors to remove the bullets, whoever shot you would take they bullet back. " i believe you have my property"
_ Christopher Julious Rock III

I swear on my life I was going to quote Chris Rock.

[ABEHONEST]

WILLE BEE !
If our Country can stop about 16,000 gun murders annually ,[about what we are "shooting" for this year] how much money would we save the tax payer ,and the Government ?
In the typical "gun murder",we have to apprehend the guilty party,bring him to justice through the court system,then incarcerate the bastard for 10/40 years ,or,put him to death !
And after the typical murder mentioned above ,someone has to clean up the "mess" !
Also,the coroner must be brought in .Does the coroner work cheap,especially at 3am on a Sunday morning ?
You have a dead body,blood everywhere,relatives of the victim to deal with, a funeral, plus burial.

WILLIE BEE ,that's a ton of "bucks" being wasted on someone [the shooter]who probably in real life isn't worth a bucket of spit, himself!
And very often ,the victim of the shooting isn't worth that same bucket of spit either !
But he still may get the same very expensive burial treatment, as the local minister .

Now if the Government of our USA were smart ,they would implement into Law gun restrictions so "tough",only the very wicked would ever attempt to buy guns ,or brandish guns in public!

And with a powerful proper binding law ,these criminals will sooner or later end up dead or institutionalised for life ,depending on the severity of the crime .
And if the worst scenario has happened,"a gun used in a crime",the punishment would need to be catastrophic !

The first and only step is for "all Americans" to give up their gun ownership !
Now that ,WILLIE BEE ,is the real BOTTOM LINE !

Fire guns at the local firing range ,and hopefully,someday ,that will be the only place you will see firearms .

[ABEHONEST]

WILLIE !
Get out of that bed and give me a follow up on my answer to your questions .
You sound very "gung-ho" for guns ?
Maybe you are insecure while walking America's streets ?

Or is it ,you are just insecure while sitting at home watching television ?

Remove all firearm ownership[again ] from private citizens and you may again walk the streets feeling about 100% more safe !

And if some lowlife is able to confiscate a firearm ..and then use it in a homicide...then I say GUILLOTINE the bastard !
That little Law alone would detour many many criminals from "packing" !
Wanna bet ?

[Willie Bee]

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine Abe.

1) How much do you think it would cost to truly enact strict gun control a la what Australia did some 12-14 years ago?

2) Are you and the rest of the gun control proponents willing to foot the entire bill, meaning not one fackin' cent comes out local, state or federal coffers?

If your answer to No. 2 is, Yes," then once we see just how much the taxpayers are saving from this gun control, we will start paying back the money fronted by you and the rest of the gun control proponents.

[pavyracer]

Willie there is no need to ban guns. Ban gun powder instead. Make it illegal to own gun powder like cocaine. Then within a few years guns will be obsolete if the gun powder is outlawed. Making owning gun powder a felony with life without parole will have a minimal effect on the budget.

[Willie Bee]

I'm not for any gun control, or gun powder control, pavy. Make using a gun in a felony crime life without parole, that's something I can get behind. Oh, and put Joe Arpaio in charge of the prison where they send those for the crime.

[capitalist pig]

Hey Abe in 07 there were over 42,000 DUI related deaths. So why arent you screaming for all cars to have breathalizers in them before they would start? 42,000 is almost three times the number your posting on gun deaths. Just curious why your fvcking with the gun folks, since most of the legal gun owners dont commit murders/crimes. I believe the latest number in 08 was 7 people with concealed weapons licenses nationwide actually killed someone illegally, I dont have the # of permit holders nationwide, but I know in FL we have over 800,000 permits issued. So that means the nationwide # is probably close to 10 million or so, and only 7 individuals with a permit killed someone illegally.

later

[pavyracer]

While on the subject ban also dogs because some dogs have killed people before..ban soap because some people have slipped on soap in the shower and killed themselves..ban viagra because some men died for having an erection lasting longer than 4 hours.

[Willie Bee]

Hey Abe in 07 there were over 42,000 DUI related deaths. So why arent you screaming for all cars to have breathalizers in them before they would start? 42,000 is almost three times the number your posting on gun deaths. Just curious why your fvcking with the gun folks, since most of the legal gun owners dont commit murders/crimes. I believe the latest number in 08 was 7 people with concealed weapons licenses nationwide actually killed someone illegally, I dont have the # of permit holders nationwide, but I know in FL we have over 800,000 permits issued. So that means the nationwide # is probably close to 10 million or so, and only 7 individuals with a permit killed someone illegally.

Good post, CP

ban viagra because some men died for having an erection lasting longer than 4 hours.

I'm hoping that's how I go, want my obit to read:

William Wyatt Bee, 96, of Firefly Gap, Texas, was found dead in his home Tuesday morning, after a viagra-induced sex binge that included Sunny Jones, 19, a redhead from nearby Dry Gulch and former barrel racing champion, Wendy Jo Adams, 21, a blonde also from Dry Gulch and an employee of Franks Feed Store, and Sarah Bucks, 20, a brunette who is presently unemployed.

Authorities investigating the scene said they found two empty bottles of Knob Creek and a couple of roaches in the ashtray near Bee's bed. One officer on the scene who asked not to be identified commentedsaid, "The old fart had one helluva' grin on his face."

Services are pending, and in lieu of flowers the family has asked for donations to be made to the waitresses down at the Sawed-Off Saloon, his favorite watering hole.

[pavyracer]

[ABEHONEST]

Hi Willie Bee !
I am somewhat confused on what you are asking ?
You seem to want only the pro gun control citizen's to pay for "no" private ownership of guns,right ?
Maybe you know something that I don't,like, who's paying for at the present rate,44 gun murders a day in the USA ?

We "all" pay in one way or another,either pain ,suffering and grief,or just plain paranoia .
Or,the easier way ,financially .
So are you suggesting ,I suppose,that you as a pro gun owner,do not want to help in any way possible to control gun's from the lowest form of citizens, killers ?
Sure ,as an American citizen who is fed up to the gill with gun massacre's on going everyday in our society ,I would offer more than financial help to save innocent lives .

I do not believe Willie that you are "really" concerned about the "financial " responsibility of this matter ?
Are you not more concerned about the Government taking that precious gun ,or,guns ,out of your house,right ?

And you know this, " nothing worthwhile in this whole Wide Wide World, comes with a free ticket "!
And, I guess you want the local gun owners,like yourself, the Cities,the State,and the Federal Government ,free from any financial responsibility ?
This is absurd,and not worth mentioning again !

We are talking about "SAVING AMERICAN LIVES here "!
Lost lives to the tune of 16,000 plus, annually !

I think it would be a nice gesture on your behalf ....explain please,[again?]what is so "precious" of that gun,that makes you so unwilling to budge ?

Are you WILLIE BEE,keeping a closed mind on this controversy ,if so,like many gun owners,who do not want to face REALITY,then I will not waste any more words with you on this powerful issue ?

[Willie Bee]

So Abe, I'll just take it that: 1) you have no earthly idea how much it would cost to truly enact this legislation, and; 2) you don't want it bad enough to foot the bill.

My mind's not closed, yours is. I've budged and acquiesced that I might indeed get behind the effort as long as it doesn't cost me a red cent. You've already allowed me to pay for the gun, pay the taxes on the gun, pay the fees for hunting licenses. I'm not going to pay for the edict to turn all that in. Ball's in your court, old man.

[ABEHONEST]

Good,I am happy that your mind isn't closed on the matter !
But ,it isn't reality either, thinking you will get a free ride for gun control.
That part does sound like a closed mind ?
And you are wrong about me not willing to share some financial responsibility .
I mentioned that already .

I will try to sort out what you are getting at here ,little confusing ?

One question before I take a breather, again,who's footing the "Gigantic Bill" I have mentioned pretty explicitly before ?
[in your opinion I guess?]

[losturmarbles]

abe is that you in the picture?

[ABEHONEST]

abe is that you in the picture?

I am really getting tired of defending my picture !
Yes,that is my DAMN picture !
But again, I do not look anything like that ,as I have previously mentioned before !

Yes,I do have a twin brother ,and he does look just like the picture .

[Willie Bee]

And you are wrong about me not willing to share some financial responsibility.

I'm not asking you to share the financial responsibility, just telling you that I don't want to share in the expense. As for who is paying for it right now -- prisons -- we all are. And what I said was taking guns out of the hands of people like me isn't going to bring that cost down to zero.

Abe, I asked you two very simple questions and so far all you've done is dance around them like any donkey or elephant would do on a campaign trail. I mean, my god man, all you really had to say was you had no idea what it might cost and no, you weren't willing to foot the bill entirely, 'you' being all of those who have this hard-on for gun control.

[ABEHONEST]

Willie Willie !
I have went into great detail and explained everything about the "logical reasoning" for gun control !
You have never explained one darn thing about your "logical" stand for pro gun ownership ?

You are "so worried" about the expense of a program .

Hey, together,WE can handle it !

No more BS about the expense .
And I can't dance worth a damn either !
Better come up with some answer's to my"questions, "Willie" !
You look like the dancer to me ?

And to be fair,I am going to have to do some responsibilities shortly,...but don't worry...I'll be back !

[Willie Bee]

You have never explained one darn thing about your "logical" stand for pro gun ownership ?

I hunt, I occasionally run into snakes around my property, there are even wild boars around here and I'd rather wrestle a rattlesnake than meet up with a javelina or a wild boar without a good firestick. I've never used a gun in an illegal fashion, never killed anyone, never held up a liquor store, and I'm a big drinker Abe, love the cocktails and brewskis, you'd think that if I was a bad gun man I would've done that by now during periods of my life when I didn't have two nickles to rub together.

Are you also going to take cars from people who have never been involved in an accident because they might hurt someone someday?

And for the last time, I do not intend to be 'together' with you on the expense, though you are more than welcome to come collect for my share if and when the time comes.

[idontlikerocks]

I'm in favor of individuals owning nuclear weapons. You piss me off mothefukker? Here it is. I will nuke you! Don't want to waste my lead.

[quote=pavyracer;2070385]Actually our forefathers said "bear arms". They never mentioned guns. If they knew hand-held automatic pistols, assault weapons and machine guns would be invented in the near future they would have thought twice about second amendment. The bear arms they thought was the front loader pistol and the sword so a man can defend his family or property. They did not intend weapons to be so advanced that a single person can cause carnage to thousands.

the bill of rights was an intentional means of protecting the rights and well being of states and individuals from the power of a centralized government. the second amendment was written to legalize the rights of the states to have armed militias, so that no central government could impose it's ill meaning will forcefully upon the states and citizens therein. by this logic, the states should encourage the ownership, and training in the use of weaponry among it's citizenry to the effect that they can defend themselves from the possible tyranny of the federal armed forces. in my opinion , this must include the ability to use effectively machine guns, bazookas , tanks , etc. the second amendment was not written so that a man could protect his family from a single intruder.

[ABEHONEST]

[quote=idontlikerocks;2087670] Quote:
Originally Posted by pavyracer
I'm in favor of individuals owning nuclear weapons. You piss me off mothefukker? Here it is. I will nuke you! Don't want to waste my lead.

Actually our forefathers said "bear arms". They never mentioned guns. If they knew hand-held automatic pistols, assault weapons and machine guns would be invented in the near future they would have thought twice about second amendment. The bear arms they thought was the front loader pistol and the sword so a man can defend his family or property. They did not intend weapons to be so advanced that a single person can cause carnage to thousands.

the bill of rights was an intentional means of protecting the rights and well being of states and individuals from the power of a centralized government. the second amendment was written to legalize the rights of the states to have armed militias, so that no central government could impose it's ill meaning will forcefully upon the states and citizens therein. by this logic, the states should encourage the ownership, and training in the use of weaponry among it's citizenry to the effect that they can defend themselves from the possible tyranny of the federal armed forces. in my opinion , this must include the ability to use effectively machine guns, bazookas , tanks , etc. the second amendment was not written so that a man could protect his family from a single intruder.

Good post,I think ?

[ABEHONEST]

I hunt, I occasionally run into snakes around my property, there are even wild boars around here and I'd rather wrestle a rattlesnake than meet up with a javelina or a wild boar without a good firestick. I've never used a gun in an illegal fashion, never killed anyone, never held up a liquor store, and I'm a big drinker Abe, love the cocktails and brewskis, you'd think that if I was a bad gun man I would've done that by now during periods of my life when I didn't have two nickles to rub together.

Are you also going to take cars from people who have never been involved in an accident because they might hurt someone someday?

And for the last time, I do not intend to be 'together' with you on the expense, though you are more than welcome to come collect for my share if and when the time comes.

Well what about those "wild" Apaches living in Texas ?
How do you think the original American's survived ?
They used bow and arrow ,tomahawks,and hammers,didn't they ?
And they did fine until ,guess who showed up ?

Apache's probably hunted in packs ,in case of running into those wild dangerous animals you mentioned.
I know from reading about Western History,that is how they hunted the Buffalo's.
But the Indians only hunted them for food and clothing,not for sport !
A real rough and tough animal,the Buffalo .
But,before guns ,they had to hunt Buffalo with what ever weapon's would get the job done .

Anyway,back to the original debate .

WILLIE,by outlawing private ownership of guns ,it would probably save many thousands of lives each year !
Do you agree ?
Would you actually try to keep your arms if Uncle Sam says... "give'em up boys!"
Hunters like you may have to find another sport,or another outlet, to have that satisfying recreation?
And you have plenty to choose from .
And safe government regulated, and approved firing ranges, are one great possibility .
Check back tomorrow !

[CashMoney]

Unless you're in law enforcement, only pussies need guns

[losturmarbles]

Unless you're in law enforcement, only pussies need guns

so where does law enforcement derive their rights?

[capitalist pig]

Lets stop and think about automatic pistols for a second. There is only one such weapon and its a Glock 18 in .380 caliber and its not even available/legal in the US, except for a few Govt agencies who protect high profile targets . Maybe your thinking of semi auto pistols, and there is quite a difference between the two.

Then we will think full auto machine guns. there are less than 80,000 full auto weapons in the US, and after 1986 no more would ever become available to the general public. The law was passed in 1986 making anyone who was in possesion of such a weapon to register it with the ATF. It takes about 6 months for the paper work to go thru to own one, plus paying the ATF tax stamp. Then by being legally declared to own such a weapon, you give up all your 4th ammendment rights, you are at the mercy of the ATF to search your house at any time without a warrant. Since 1986 when the law went into effect not one crime has ever been commited with a full auto weapon that is "legally" owned.

As far as assult rifles, they are no more dangrous than any other rifle, its just a like any other semi auto rifle, just pull the trigger one time and one bullet is fired. I own both, and my Browning semi auto .308 hunting rifle is much more accurate and more powerfull than any of the semi auto assult rifles I own. ARs, AKs, may look wicked, but in fact they arent very accurate at long distances.


Later

[pavyracer]

I think the rate of fire is what makes the assault weapons more deadly than other weapons and not the accuracy itself. When you are firing 30 rounds at a target from 50 ft in 5 seconds you only need a few bullets to hit the target to achieve your goal.

[Willie Bee]

Well what about those "wild" Apaches living in Texas ?

There are a few of them left, some of which are related to my great-grandmother. However, I consider the uber-liberals from Indiana to be far more dangerous these days.

Anyway Abe, been good talking to you even though you conveniently avoided any questions posed to you and never came up with one fact to support your own side. But hey, that's what makes America great; you're welcome to your opinion and I'm free to own my guns.

[pavyracer]

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.

Can someone tell me where it says in the constitution that guns are allowed? I am stupid.

[MrMonkey]

Willie Bee is Johnny Carson and the Monkey is Ed McMahon and all I can say is "you are correct sir"

Pavy, Onner whether he is liked or not he is part of the SBR family and just thought everyone would like to see him there! He sounded so sure of going originally?

And you Mr. Abehonest or Dishonest, after you've looked under all the stones, could you please crawl under the biggest one for a few days and we'll call you when we need you. Thank you!

PS I don't like or own guns, but to me the bad guys will always find a way to get them and some people feel more secure (I can't blame them) with owning one! I feel there has to be a way that the process of letting people who are qualified to purchase one should be the correct length of time to substantiate their proper credentials! I know the store owner must want to sell that gun today and the owner wants it as fast as possible, but tough luck my friend! You just have to wait! I probably not informed enough to give a qualified opinion but this is how we feel with what we have today!

[losturmarbles]

Can someone tell me where it says in the constitution that guns are allowed? I am stupid.

arms = weapons

where in does it say in the constitution that computers are allowed? that cars are allowed? where does it say specifically that you can own anything?

the constitution is not a document granting you permission to certain rights. the bill of rights doesnt give you rights, it only summarizes rights you already have to restrict government infringement on them. the very thought of repealing one is appalling. (even though the 10th is effectively ignored)

all law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, (ie weapons).

[pavyracer]

arms = weapons

where in does it say in the constitution that computers are allowed? that cars are allowed? where does it say specifically that you can own anything?

the constitution is not a document granting you permission to certain rights. the bill of rights doesnt give you rights, it only summarizes rights you already have to restrict government infringement on them. the very thought of repealing one is appalling. (even though the 10th is effectively ignored)

all law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, (ie weapons).

Aren't you stretching it though?
arms = weapons = guns

And then why are bombs not allowed?

arms = weapons = bombs

I can interpret the constitution different than you do. According to my interpretation I'm allowed to bear arms and I chose to bear hand-grenades, C4 explosives, and shoulder fired missiles so if a motherfukker shoots at me I can toss a grenade at him blow him apart with explosives or blast him out with a missile.

Can I also bury mines in my lawn to defend my property. Mines are also arms?

[losturmarbles]

Aren't you stretching it though?
arms = weapons = guns

And then why are bombs not allowed?

arms = weapons = bombs

I can interpret the constitution different than you do. According to my interpretation I'm allowed to bear arms and I chose to bear hand-grenades, C4 explosives, and shoulder fired missiles so if a motherfukker shoots at me I can toss a grenade at him blow him apart with explosives or blast him out with a missile.

Can I also bury mines in my lawn to defend my property. Mines are also arms?

the 2nd amendment says:
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.

it doesnt say you have a right to own weapons, not directly anyway. like someone previously noted, it's a state militia thing. law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms and be part of a state militia. you dont need the constitution to grant you the right to own a gun.
whether a weapon is restricted for personal ownership should fall back on state statutes.

[pavyracer]

My specific question is what "bear arms" mean. You are implying it means guns as in pistols, rifles, assault weapons. I'm in favor of 2nd amendment. My question is why can't I chose to bear arms of my choice (hand grenades, bombs, missiles, mines) to defend myself or my property and I'm limited to only guns per your interpretation.