The Official: "Things that piss you off" Thread!!

[VH_man]

yes jordanardway, thank you..............

as long as airsoft isnt banned in the UK im cool. Arniesairsoft.com is the best airsoft info site.........

but whoever it is that started this, i have a feeling you are mistaken. what the government is doing is just band-aiding the problem. what they really need to do is up the amount of law enforcement and strictly enforce laws about firearms. but, they dotn want to do that, so they just make more and more strict laws that get dodged by criminals.

one thing that many people fail to realize is that people in the united states are paranoid. they think all the laws banning various weapons make them safer. the only thing that will make them safer is stricter law enforcement, and to ban the media, because in the US the media makes people paranoid. like the whole internet predator thing. turns out you ARE safe, just dont go around the web posting attractive pictures of yourself saying "I HATE MY LIFE AND I HATE THE WORLD GAAAAAA" and you will be fine. stupid media. gahhh

anyway, in the spirit of this forum, i hate it when my dart gun goes off when i accedentally pull the trigger and it buries a dart into my house......... (gootta build a saftey........ badly)

[paaiyan]

People who ban any guns, its against the bill of rights.

I'm not going to go into it too far, because I'm sure that I'll annoy someone, but the "right to bear arms" was given long before the development of automatic weaponry, so it could be necessary to make later changes to cover the facts of the present the writers were not clairvoyant enough to see.

No-one can be blamed for not seeing the future of 200 years of weapons advancement.
Perhaps the writers would completely agree with an assualt weapons ban if they had been aware of the dangers of them. We can never know.
(Well we can, but you're not borrowing my flux capacitor, so there.)

The constitution is over 2 centuries old, which leaves two options:
1) It will have to contain passages that are no longer relevant to today.
2) Society will have to regress back to make those passages relevant.

And as you no longer need to rely on "arms" to defend yourselves... no, seriously, hands up. How many of you have ever needed a firearm for defence, in such a way that no other means could have let you escape?
I assure you that I have never needed such a handgun in eighteen and a half years, and that's in the UK where, I am assured everytime this debate comes up, there is a much higher rate of violent crime. My bare hands have sufficed fine.
Developing in a bit further, how many legitimate situations are there when you had to have an assault weapon? None, I guess.
Flipping that over, how many illegal situations occur with assault arms each year? Many more.

My point exactly. The passage is no longer wholely relevant, so the politicans of today will have to tweak it to make it harder (though not impossible of course) for wrongdoers to get the weapons that are only of practical use to them.
If a bank robbery or mass shooting occured with legally prodcured assault weapons, can you imagine the uproar that would ensue?
There would be pandemonium and probably an outcry for a ban (at least, from some of the world)

That's what would happen they made the weapons available to all. When they put them under lock and key, they get people complaining to them about what the bill of rights says.
It's not easy for the people in government. All of these paradoxes people want, like "More services, less taxes".

Perhaps you should cut them some slack. Politics is harder than you can possibly imagine.

I concurr. Guns I'm cool with. People should be allowed to have guns, but no one needs a friggin assault rifle, seriously. I think there should be restrictions on who gets guns. Forget background checks just for pistols, have checks for everything. Have them nationally regulated, not state by state. I personally think that we don't need an act of congress, I think an ammendment to the constitution. Don't think I'm a left-wing here, I'm not, by a longshot. But I do believe in some restrictions.

[origin unknown]

I concurr. Guns I'm cool with. People should be allowed to have guns, but no one needs a friggin assault rifle, seriously. I think there should be restrictions on who gets guns. Forget background checks just for pistols, have checks for everything. Have them nationally regulated, not state by state. I personally think that we don't need an act of congress, I think an ammendment to the constitution. Don't think I'm a left-wing here, I'm not, by a longshot. But I do believe in some restrictions.

No one "needs" an Assault rifle, but it is fun to shoot one. I think licensing you have to pay for is just another stupid way the governement tries to take money from you. By all means a license should be nessecarry, one that you don't pay for, but earn it by your good conduct and a clean record.

[Modderxtrordanare]

Why doesn't the government make you renew your gun license every year, like you do for a car. You have to pay every year and give some information so they can keep tabs on everyones cars, but why don't they do that for guns too.

Say someone had a gun, and didn't pay for its the next year or give them the information they needed to keep up with the gun. The police should be allowed to come and confiscate the gun and possibly fine/arrest him. It would keep people from trading guns on the black market for terrorists.

yes jordanardway, thank you..............
<snip>

I bet I can think of another thing that pisses her off...

[Kenny_McCormic]

The whole "machine guns didnt exist when they wrote the bill of rights" argument is stupid and pisses me off. The second amendment was put into place so if the goverment ever turned on its people the people would be able to fight back and have some firepower. When the bill of rights was wrote the only guns around were smooth bore muskets.

[joannaardway]

Paaiyan, those are views I am very partial to.
By no means do I wish to force a total ban on anyone, but there are some arms no-one needs (like assault weapons), and background checks should be applied to everyone for all arms.
Of course, that won't catch the as of yet non-criminal with evil intent, but it's certainly a start.

@VH_man: Another excellent point. The police need to put their foot down about the enforcement of gun law.

@Modderxtrordanare: How could you have possibly guessed it annoyed me?
Good argument about gun licencing. A regular check on the status of firearms by the police would definitely help keep the guns where they were put.

@Kenny_McCormic:
I think you know the argument has an element of truth, and that's why it pisses you off. You may not like it, but it does need thinking about. The right cannot be taken at face value for ever.

Again, I bet that the politicans have a much better idea about what weapons should be banned than you do.

[paaiyan]

The yearly or bi-annual renewal of licenses sounds like a good idea to me. Like I said, I'm not a gun control freak, but there do need to be more restrictions, and they need to be more organized.

[Modderxtrordanare]

Once someone waits the 7 days and gets a gun, for all anyone knows they could be down on East 14th street hawking some semi automatic m16.

[VH_man]

yes modder, but people crazed like that are not likely at all to actually go through the legal process. plus, it would give their names, faces, everything away.

unless the person is a complete idiot.

the renewal law sounds like a good idea to me. but it still wont stop the crazy people.

i think thats what people fail to understand. you are NEVER going to stop the crazy people from modifying their weapons and then running through the city blasting holes in people. most of these people, as it has been shown, either steal the gun they used or bought it from an unlicenced dealer. you can, of course, prevent the illegal gun trade with better enforcement of the laws.

sighh. its a neverending argument. so confusing that even a COMPLETE ban on guns would not stop it. it would put a damper on things, but horrible shootings would still happen. people CAN HIDE AND SMUGGLE THINGS!!!!.

and about the "assualt rifle" part. there is no differnece between a .38 calibre semi-automatic pistol and a semi-auto MAC-11. the problem is that the gun now looks like a well-recognized fully-automatic weapon, thus freaking people out.

i think there should be some kind of recognizeable marking that must be placed on an "assualt rifle" to mark it different from their fully automatic counterparts. still, i think it would be friggin cool to own an m-16. problem is all the other junk. so sure they should be banned. i halph-support it. if i want to shoot an m-16, i can go to the shooting range, where i can shoot a fully-automatic one......

[rednecktatertosser]

I dont care that there restrictions on owning them to make it safer, but i dont think they shoud be totally banned, some people like to target shoot, and shooting rifles and pistols gets boring after a while, therefore you move on to bigger and more powerful guns.

I am fine with having restrictions like those of a class 3 liscense, so that they can keep tabs on who owns them, but i think that they shouldnt totally ban them.

[Modderxtrordanare]

yes modder, but people crazed like that are not likely at all to actually go through the legal process. plus, it would give their names, faces, everything away.

unless the person is a complete idiot.
<snip>

The crazy people are the ones down on (insert ghetto road in your local area here) buying the guns illegally. Not the ones in the store filling out the paperwork.

[rednecktatertosser]

Yeah, people who have nothing to hide wont have a problem going through the feds to get guns.

[beebs111]

i wish i hadnt posted that....... the 2nd ammendment was created to put people on equal ground with their government, back then they had muskets, the people needed muskets. now they have m16s, the people should have access to m16s. branding a gun an assault weapon is a leftist tactict to generate fear, they are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle that is semi-auto, they jsut look like the military counterpart. people always argue that a handgun is not a military weapn, therefore its not good for a milita(as mentioned in the 2nd ammendment) but then when someone ges an AR15, they complain that it is a military weapon, and is too dangerous for anyone but the government to have.
thats what pisses me off, people who dont agree with me on gun control issues, and the entire issue itself, because it is impossible to convince someone who disagrees with you to agree with you. at least i got an A+ on that paper i wrote, the one that sparked the thread with the former debate.....

[jssizzle]

Quite a standard discussion nowadays. But has anyone actually taken the time to read the 2nd Amendment?

"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."

My opinion is that because of how it is written, this amendment is allowing state militias to be created (remember, one reason why the bill or rights was created was to keep a balance of power between the states and the national gov't: They just finished fighting their oppressive British rulers!). I believe that it is fine to have a state (or even county) militia that is independent of the central gov't, but 1 person that owns a firearm "just for fun" can't be considered a militia, sorry.

Just my $.02, not intending to annoy anybody.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Future Weapons guy has been mentioned before, but I came across fresh proof that he's a wanker.

Taser bullets, if he's so tough, why didn't he have them try it out on him?

Wanker.