The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

When is it gonna end? This is getting too screwed up. Someone has to tell the gun owners they HAVE to lock up their guns. http://www.alternet.org/flo

Wow, that's a terrible punishment.

It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable:

$500, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation.
 
As much as Democrats want to so desperately, you cannot legislate stupidity.
 
maxpowr9 said:
As much as Democrats want to so desperately, you cannot legislate stupidity.
Click to expand...

Drunk driving and speeding are stupid acts, too, but the data above shows fairly clearly that stronger regulation and better law enforcement can reduce the death and injury toll from such acts.
 
ygbabc said:
Completely unregulated??? Since when? Have you tried to buy a guy lately? I would almost argue that getting a gun illegally is easier then buying one legally now.
Click to expand...
Freudian slip? [LOL] Buying a guy is nearly as expensive as buying a gun, haha.

Maybe if EXTREMELY strict anti-trafficking laws were to be passed, it would actually become a lot harder to buy a gun illegally, than it currently is. Even the friends-and-family exclusion that is likely to remain, even if all gun show and internet loopholes are closed, is large enough to drive an entire fleet of aircraft carriers through. (The family loophole isn't all that huge, though, but the "friends" one is massive.) There needs to be a federal law which limits the use of a gun to its registered owner (or spouse) only**, except when used for entirely educational purposes such as teaching somebody the skill of a firing target range or training at home, or when there is a threat to somebody's life.

**I'm not sure if immediate nuclear family should also be permitted use of the gun (uh...I had to correct MY "guy" typo here - OY!!), in recreational circumstances as well (read: hunting), as well. Yes, probably. Of course, as long as DOMA remains in effect, such a law wouldn't allow a same-sex couple to use the weapon interchangeably, because current federal law recognizes the couple only as two unrelated people who want to be with each other, not as family in any way.

And how would any of this have prevented Newtown, anyway? didn't he steal the guns from his mother...or did she just let him use her guns? I forget. I'm not sure how the law could be written to prevent that, short of a Kim Jung-Il (...Un)-esque approach.

CowboyBob said:
Let the gun nuts buy all the weapons they want, but make ammunition hard as hell to get. It needs to be treated as a controlled substance.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, making ammunition is no more difficult than making bathtub gin was ninety years ago. Treating ammunition as a controlled substance will only do what Prohibition did...or, for that matter, what drug prohibition (especially in the form which has prevailed most of the time, with its extreme emphasis on pot) has done. Massive crime structures and cartels arise from this.

HenryReardon said:
Nobody has ever been killed by a gun. They are killed by a person wielding a gun.
Click to expand...
Oh, actually MANY people are killed "by a gun." A guy in Chicago was killed while standing only seven feet away from the gun, which certainly qualifies as being "by" the gun. (OK, I'll concede...that sense of "by" is NEVER intended when somebody says that somebody was shot "by a gun" - but, verbiophile that I am, and as you also know I am, I just couldn't resist...)

White Eagle said:
Not a problem, you put them together great. The other poster appeared to be changing discussion to DUI totally.
Click to expand...
What a refreshing breath of clean air!! A very kind and thoughtful comment (albeit from a JUBber who is often known for insight) in, of all places, one o' dem kon-tro-ver-s'y'all gun threads.

Rolyo85 said:
And yes, you CAN legislate stupidity. Or rather, you can account for it when legislating so that it doesn't have a TOTALLY free reign.
Click to expand...
If stupidity had no legal standing for legislation, most of the laws against manslaughter, DUI, and a good percentage of lawsuits, would not exist or be much rarer.
 
You know, I always have a REAL hard time buying the whole "they will just manufacture their own guns/ammo" thing. Especially the comparison with alcohol and the prohibition. I mean, come on - making liquor is COOKING. Every human being in the world cooks something. It is a natural thing, and easy to try to learn. But producing weapons? That takes a lot more skill and knowledge, and while the latter is freely available online, I firmly believe that there is a big psychological barrier for most people when it comes to trying to do something so alien. Drinks are something you buy or you make. But weapons are something you ONLY buy in modern society, especially in times of peace as we are currently living in.
 
Somebody does need to know what to do to make booze, though, and it requires some skill, as well as some patience, because the required fermentation process takes time. Also, it takes more work to make the moonshine actually taste *good*. So, it's not quite the comparison between making lower-tech bullets and simply boiling water.

However, the ammo needed for some of the higher-tech weapons such as semi-automatics, etc., probably need a tolerance too exacting for somebody to assemble in their basement with only a few hardware power tools and a simple chemical mixture and some malleable metal such as lead. (Bullets for something like a .22 rifle, or buckshot, or a handgun, are rather low-tech.) Somebody who is buying a larger amount of the required chemicals for gunpowder, though, may be looked at rather suspiciously...

This isn't really relevant one way or the other, but does this thread win the honor of having the longest-ever JUB thread title? (But, in doing so, it does ask the question effectively.)
 
There was a story in the UK in the past 6 months about some guys who made their own bullets and used a gun in a robbery. The gun was fired and exploded, injuring the criminal. The reality is that most homemade weaponry is genuinely quite unstable.
 
Frankfrank has a point, ammunition for firearms is fairly easy to make, and the necessary elements are available online to anyone who wants to buy them. These elements are relatively unregulated. Anyone can learn how to reload their own shells, making their own bullets, many people who use their firearms for target practice reload their own shells, it is a lot cheaper than buying pre-loaded shells.

@ Durango95: The reason most rational people do not get as upset over people using a knife is that if you came at me with a knife, I would beat your ass senseless with a base ball bat. A knife is short rage weapon. It can be defended against. Unless you are wearing Kevlar, you usually do not have the ability to defend against a bullet.
 
cm98059 said:
@ Durango95: The reason most rational people do not get as upset over people using a knife is that if you came at me with a knife, I would beat your ass senseless with a base ball bat. A knife is short rage weapon. It can be defended against. Unless you are wearing Kevlar, you usually do not have the ability to defend against a bullet.
Click to expand...


My point was that the stories referenced contained children being senselessly slaughtered but without "their" weapon of choice. It exposes the falsehood of the debate being about the safety of children. The debate is solely about taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. To say it is not is disingenuous at best and a complete lack of veracity and conscience at worse.

There are many on here from other countries vying for our laws to be changed to configure to their paradigms, which in most cases have not actually worked, but in the cases that there was actual change there are other factors that make this possible.
 
Perhaps it's because of magnitude. Between 2000 and 2010, there were 20,503 knife homicides in the US. In that same time period, there were almost 5 times that many gun homicides - 111,289. And yet there's probably a dozen or more knives in every home in the
US, but only 30% of American citizens own a gun.

Perhaps its a question of the lethality of guns. If a child (or anybody for that matter) accidentally slips with a knife, the likelihood of killing themselves or an innocent bystander is magnitudes lower than if they accidentally fire a gun. Guns have greater range and far greater power than knives. Suicide attempts with guns are far more successful than suicide attempts with knives.

Perhaps its a question of the utility of guns. Knives, cars, and the other objects raised by gun advocates in this type of discussion serve essential functions in our everyday lives. Cars take us to work, to live our lives, and to get food. Knives are used for cooking, eating and other things. Guns are designed to inflict injury and/or death. It's what they do.
 
andysayshi said:
Perhaps it's because of magnitude. Between 2000 and 2010, there were 20,503 knife homicides in the US. In that same time period, there were almost 5 times that many gun homicides - 111,289. And yet there's probably a dozen or more knives in every home in the
US, but only 30% of American citizens own a gun.

Perhaps its a question of the lethality of guns. If a child (or anybody for that matter) accidentally slips with a knife, the likelihood of killing themselves or an innocent bystander is magnitudes lower than if they accidentally fire a gun. Guns have greater range and far greater power than knives. Suicide attempts with guns are far more successful than suicide attempts with knives.

Perhaps its a question of the utility of guns. Knives, cars, and the other objects raised by gun advocates in this type of discussion serve essential functions in our everyday lives. Cars take us to work, to live our lives, and to get food. Knives are used for cooking, eating and other things. Guns are designed to inflict injury and/or death. It's what they do.
Click to expand...

But the children....da da da....

You have zero veracity...zero.

All you and your ilk want is to disarm law abiding citizens, more particularly those of a certain worldview. You do not care about children or anything else for that fact. The only thing you care about is forcing your view on everyone else.

If you don't want a gun, you have two choices. Don't buy one or stay in OZ where you can't buy one unless you're white with a lot of money and political connections.
 
Or perhaps it's the dishonesty of the gun debate. Gun advocates tell Americans they will be safer with guns, but they are one of the unsafest nations on Earth when it comes to gun crime. Gun advocates say that guns help protect you from criminals, except of the 111, 289 homicides mentioned above, just 2,084 justifiable gun homicides occurred through that entire decade. Guns kill lots of Americans, but Americans with guns don't actually kill many criminals.
 
andysayshi said:
Or perhaps it's the dishonesty of the gun debate. Gun advocates tell Americans they will be safer with guns, but they are one of the unsafest nations on Earth when it comes to gun crime. Gun advocates say that guns help protect you from criminals, except of the 111, 289 homicides mentioned above, just 2,084 justifiable gun homicides occurred through that entire decade. Guns kill lots of Americans, but Americans with guns don't actually kill many criminals.
Click to expand...


To be honest, which I'm sure is a new concept to many, the debate is not about safety. There is no verifiable data that strong gun laws, alone, affect violence one way or the other. There is no verifiable data that a proliferation of guns affects safety, one way or the other. Don't bother posting articles or stats from liberal media mills. They are what they are...propaganda.

The real debate is about the abridgement of the Constitution and the rights therein. Some from other countries are used to being ruled by monarchs, dictators, benevolent despots and such. Americans threw off that yoke many years ago. I doubt there are many Americans willing to walk that back, especially now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top