Gun Laws Debate - Waterloo, IL

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Waterloo, IL.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Waterloo thinks US gun laws are fine.
Not at all
 
14
Yes
 
3
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Waterloo:

Xxxx

Waterloo, IL

#23 Jul 29, 2012
Common sense equipped wrote:
Hahaha, Well maybe I shall write a book then. Lol But do tell, where are the disagreements? With a name like the one i chose the statements i make should be self evident. You say, If i may Paraphrase and surmise ashamedly, that we hold our defenses in the National Guard? I'll vehemently agree, Great men and women serve in the Guard. Yet, not to sound paranoid, say for the sport of debate these special men and women choose to leave their post to defend their families and neighborhoods.. What then should these heroes be equipped with?
Dude, are you suggesting giant gangs of thugs are going tocome around raping and pillaging, shooting us up with their AR15s? Groups so large that the police are going to be overrun. Not. Paranoid. At. All.
John Griese

Spirit Lake, IA

#24 Jul 29, 2012
Xxxx wrote:
If they were illegal, your typical "thug" would not get them nearly as easy as they can now. Sure theyd still be out there. Im sure Im not going to change your minds, but, just where do we draw the line? AR15? RPG? Tanks? Nuclear bombs? How much freakin protection do you need? Like I said, CCW is fine. For normal firearms. We just cant let any Tom, Dick or Freud get his hands on these other freakishly powerful weapons.
Drugs are illegal can you get a hold of them ,really, alcohol was illegal during prohibition could you get a hold of it ,really. Assault weapons you're talking about military lookalikes which fire one round every time you pull the trigger not select fire weapons that the military uses full auto that empties the magazine with one pull of the trigger or select fire that produces three or four shot burst with each pull of the trigger. Most military weapons have very poor sights they are required to use hardball or full metal jacket ammo designed for wounding not killing. A wounded soldier causes more problems than a dead one.Anything illegal is easy to get if you have the money and wish to risk it.
Common sense equipped

Saint Charles, MO

#25 Jul 29, 2012
I believe I've referred to yourself as Sir or Madam until this point but just for sport, Hey dude, what r we gunna do bout all these crazy ppl and there crazie scary assults guns? Oh i know we could like, support a ban on them and shit.. yeah man. then those guys couldnt get em.. heheheehe. for real dude, that'll take care of it. yup... I hope you cant vote. If you can I hope you choose not too.
Xxxx

Waterloo, IL

#26 Jul 29, 2012
John Griese wrote:
<quoted text>Drugs are illegal can you get a hold of them ,really, alcohol was illegal during prohibition could you get a hold of it ,really. Assault weapons you're talking about military lookalikes which fire one round every time you pull the trigger not select fire weapons that the military uses full auto that empties the magazine with one pull of the trigger or select fire that produces three or four shot burst with each pull of the trigger. Most military weapons have very poor sights they are required to use hardball or full metal jacket ammo designed for wounding not killing. A wounded soldier causes more problems than a dead one.Anything illegal is easy to get if you have the money and wish to risk it.
So, anything goes?
Common sense equipped

Saint Charles, MO

#27 Jul 29, 2012
There's already a highly restrictive law reform in place! those of us who abide know it and trust me they want your dna anymore..
Common sense equipped

Saint Charles, MO

#28 Jul 29, 2012
John Griese wrote:
<quoted text> Drugs are illegal can you get a hold of them ,really, alcohol was illegal during prohibition could you get a hold of it ,really. Assault weapons you're talking about military lookalikes which fire one round every time you pull the trigger not select fire weapons that the military uses full auto that empties the magazine with one pull of the trigger or select fire that produces three or four shot burst with each pull of the trigger. Most military weapons have very poor sights they are required to use hardball or full metal jacket ammo designed for wounding not killing. A wounded soldier causes more problems than a dead one.Anything illegal is easy to get if you have the money and wish to risk it.
Heres an educated person. Welcome John.
Common sense equipped

Saint Charles, MO

#29 Jul 29, 2012
Above Mr. Griese puts to point a highly specific point known as the Nato Rnd. This came from UN peacekeepers! Just wound them, let them try and save the wounded.. This is the mentality of those in favor of gun control, suffering..

“Question Everything”

Since: Jul 12

Waterloo, IL

#30 Jul 30, 2012
Guns were made for one thing and that is to kill. There should be stiff laws and regulations to prevent as many as possible gun related deaths. Plus in the constitution it doesn't give everyone the right to own guns. It gives the people as a whole the right to bear arms in a militia to defend themselves against tyrants and what not. What people need are more defensive weapons not offensive weapons. Your not helping the problem of killing with more killing.

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

#31 Jul 30, 2012
Xxxx wrote:
If they were illegal, your typical "thug" would not get them nearly as easy as they can now. Sure theyd still be out there. Im sure Im not going to change your minds, but, just where do we draw the line? AR15? RPG? Tanks? Nuclear bombs? How much freakin protection do you need? Like I said, CCW is fine. For normal firearms. We just cant let any Tom, Dick or Freud get his hands on these other freakishly powerful weapons.
Voting is a bit too much power for some folks to exercise as well. I think we need to reform our voting rights laws perhaps by including an IQ test, proof of citizenship and income threshold.

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

#32 Jul 30, 2012
Reason_and_Logic wrote:
Guns were made for one thing and that is to kill. There should be stiff laws and regulations to prevent as many as possible gun related deaths. Plus in the constitution it doesn't give everyone the right to own guns. It gives the people as a whole the right to bear arms in a militia to defend themselves against tyrants and what not. What people need are more defensive weapons not offensive weapons. Your not helping the problem of killing with more killing.
Well, its called the Department of Defense so I guess nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines with MIRVd Trident ICBMs are defensive weapons. I want one, purely for defensive purposes of course.

“Question Everything”

Since: Jul 12

Waterloo, IL

#33 Jul 30, 2012
Dagobert II wrote:
<quoted text> Well, its called the Department of Defense so I guess nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines with MIRVd Trident ICBMs are defensive weapons. I want one, purely for defensive purposes of course.
Well that's more of national defense not personal defense. I'm talking about defensive weapons like things that people could use to incapacitate people without killing them. Things people could use to keep themselves safe without having to kill someone to do it.
hmm

Maysville, KY

#34 Jul 30, 2012
To people saying another gunman would have stopped the shooting in Colorado..
Yes, adding more objects into the air during a panic situation where people are fleeing for the lives in a dark, cloudy, hard to see room against a guy in full body armor would be a great idea. Youre a genius.

To the statement "People kill people, not guns"
What exactly do you think guns were designed for? Planting flowers?

To the statement "I need it to protect me from duh gubbermint"
Yeah, that pistol and rifle will really help you against an Abrams tank.

Nobody in the government wants to take your guns away, they know that a piece of metal is more important to you than other human beings..

ya'll are quick to get ur panties in a bunch real quick when anyone mentions anything about guns. GET A GRIP!

They need to ban ALL assault weapons, make it easier to check for mental problems, and then leave it alone.
huh

Columbia, IL

#35 Jul 30, 2012
Pretty sure there are as many if not more deaths in vehicle accidents vs gun related so we should focus on banning the automobile instead.

There are already strict gun laws that restrict the legal gun owners. I don't see how stricter gun laws for legal owners is going to do anything to reduce crime. Criminals are the ones causing 90% of the gun related deaths so how about we try this...instead of the zero tolerance on legal gun owners who are not the problem we instead enforce a zero tolerance policy against the ones that are actually committing the crimes. If someone robs someone and a gun is involved then zero tolerance and the person is done and gets no more chances. If someone shoots someone... Done.... Put them to death and move on end of story. No need to go thru years of trials to preserve the rights of the criminals anymore. Just like the Colorado shooter when he fired on innocent people he gave up his rights. Why are we still seeing him in court?

100% fact that a gun has never injured/killed a person ever. A criminal does that. Restrict the criminals not the tool!

“Question Everything”

Since: Jul 12

Waterloo, IL

#36 Jul 30, 2012
huh wrote:
Pretty sure there are as many if not more deaths in vehicle accidents vs gun related so we should focus on banning the automobile instead.
There are already strict gun laws that restrict the legal gun owners. I don't see how stricter gun laws for legal owners is going to do anything to reduce crime. Criminals are the ones causing 90% of the gun related deaths so how about we try this...instead of the zero tolerance on legal gun owners who are not the problem we instead enforce a zero tolerance policy against the ones that are actually committing the crimes. If someone robs someone and a gun is involved then zero tolerance and the person is done and gets no more chances. If someone shoots someone... Done.... Put them to death and move on end of story. No need to go thru years of trials to preserve the rights of the criminals anymore. Just like the Colorado shooter when he fired on innocent people he gave up his rights. Why are we still seeing him in court?
100% fact that a gun has never injured/killed a person ever. A criminal does that. Restrict the criminals not the tool!
The difference is what the gun and what vehicles are meant to do. Vehicles were not ever intended to kill anyone or anything. Guns on the other hand are only meant to kill things. Restrict the criminals and restrict the guns. It only makes sense that anything meant for killing people should be restricted.
huh

Columbia, IL

#37 Jul 30, 2012
Reason_and_Logic wrote:
<quoted text>The difference is what the gun and what vehicles are meant to do. Vehicles were not ever intended to kill anyone or anything. Guns on the other hand are only meant to kill things. Restrict the criminals and restrict the guns. It only makes sense that anything meant for killing people should be restricted.
Pretty sure they would not be shooting guns in the Olympics right now if guns were only meant to kill. Pretty sure the Olympic committee would have a difficult time finding volunteers to be "targets". Just saying!

“Question Everything”

Since: Jul 12

Waterloo, IL

#38 Jul 30, 2012
huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty sure they would not be shooting guns in the Olympics right now if guns were only meant to kill. Pretty sure the Olympic committee would have a difficult time finding volunteers to be "targets". Just saying!
The first guns were not made to be used in contests but to kill people and animals faster and more efficiently.
huh

Columbia, IL

#39 Jul 30, 2012
Reason_and_Logic wrote:
<quoted text>The first guns were not made to be used in contests but to kill people and animals faster and more efficiently.
So were knives, spears and arrow heads are you saying all those should be restricted more as well. Should we do away with all hunting and other sports where guns/knives ect are involved. Again in comes down to dealing with criminals not the tools

Yes you did say guns are only meant for killing. Not true!

“Question Everything”

Since: Jul 12

Waterloo, IL

#40 Jul 30, 2012
huh wrote:
<quoted text>
So were knives, spears and arrow heads are you saying all those should be restricted more as well. Should we do away with all hunting and other sports where guns/knives ect are involved. Again in comes down to dealing with criminals not the tools
Yes you did say guns are only meant for killing. Not true!
Anything really that can kill other humans should be restricted but some things we just don't use to kill each other anymore because we have guns. They are more effective and faster. Hunting is fine and all as long as you don't bring the gun with you wherever you go. You don't need to carry guns with you or simply own one for self defense because then your becoming part of the problem and not part of the solution of gun related crimes. I don't understand why we can't deal with the guns and the criminals both. Are really so set on being able to kill things? Plenty of people live happy lives without guns why can't you? Or maybe you can keep your gun if you'll use rubber bullets, but then that would take away your power to kill someone wouldn't it?
huh

Columbia, IL

#41 Jul 30, 2012
Reason_and_Logic wrote:
<quoted text>Anything really that can kill other humans should be restricted but some things we just don't use to kill each other anymore because we have guns. They are more effective and faster. Hunting is fine and all as long as you don't bring the gun with you wherever you go. You don't need to carry guns with you or simply own one for self defense because then your becoming part of the problem and not part of the solution of gun related crimes. I don't understand why we can't deal with the guns and the criminals both. Are really so set on being able to kill things? Plenty of people live happy lives without guns why can't you? Or maybe you can keep your gun if you'll use rubber bullets, but then that would take away your power to kill someone wouldn't it?
It's my constitutional right to haves guns. People enjoy guns. They are a hobby for some. Means of making a living for some as well. Has absolutely nothing to do with being set on being able to kill things. It certainly isnt your right to try to take them from me or anyone else. It is not my right to out right kill someone with it they have laws against that.

And one more time...you are so dead set on continually using the word "kill" one last time try and understand this gun owners DO NOT KILL PEOPLE with guns...criminals commit these crimes. Never in the history of the world has a gun ever picked itself up and aimed and shot at someone with the intent to kill. Criminals do this! Has nothing to do with gun owners.

If you don't care for guns...great I have no problem with that dont have one. But don't for one second try to tell me I don't have the right to defend my person or my family how I see fit with in the laws and the constitution.

Should a unfortunate situation happen again like in colorado where we were at I would much rather try to protect my family and others and even yours with my concealed firearm and stop the situation then vs throwing a box of popcorn at someone. Ending a situation like that is no where near being part of the problem. Wouldn't think twice about it and wouldn't even expect a thank you from you for saving your family.

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

#42 Jul 31, 2012
Reason_and_Logic wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's more of national defense not personal defense. I'm talking about defensive weapons like things that people could use to incapacitate people without killing them. Things people could use to keep themselves safe without having to kill someone to do it.
Sometimes it is necessary to kill people who do not respond to reason in order to incapacitate them and sometimes a whole lot of folks need to be incapacitated at once in order to preserve life, liberty and property. Consider the patriot in San Diego or Honolulu who needs to incapacitate a tyrannical government in Washington DC. What better way to do so than with a submarine launched ballistic missile directed to the target during a state of the union address? That is an example of domestic liberty facilitated by the use of privately owned weapons and is the reason the right to keep and bear ARMS is recognized by the constitution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Waterloo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gas prices 1 hr haha 2
Michael Schorr Brewery or Waterloo Brewing Company 23 hr Reality 3
renault crazy $hi+ Thu really 2
Kids with skateboards Wed Anti-Smith 7
How rude!!! Papa Vitos (May '11) Tue That gurl 171
Proposed Bike Trail will cost Taxpayers $700,00... Mar 22 Taxpayer 18
I pay cash for your unwanted appliances!!!!! & ... (May '12) Mar 21 kathy 69
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]