got a problem..... writing term paper
 

im writing a term paper about GUN CONTROL im agenst it. im trying to prove that to own a gun should be a right (misspelled i think) because i owned one since age 10. a small powered rifle "Ruger 10/22 collecters" it would really suck if guns are banned (that would be a bee-ich) anyone know of good sights and sources that i could search in?

i would really apprechiate some help


any at all

Please use Google! Try searching "2nd amendment rights" or something to that effect.

:bt: thank you cruiser.... im doing source cards right now,

btw....im kidding when i said "old poeple"

Hey...I'm not that old ;) I like to shoot...and eat red meat...

i also need to get information that helps prove what im trying to prove

[QUOTE]Hey...I'm not that old I like to shoot...and eat red meat...[QUOTE]

unhelthy.... ring worm, hook worm. arn't you concerned?

I am a firm believer in a citizens right to bare arms.

That being said:......(all easily offended people tune out now.)

There are WAY too many idiots with easy access to guns. Way too many guns. Way too many useless weapons. Way too many "accidental deaths" every day.

Citizens SHOULD be allowed to arm themselves....WITHIN REASON....let me say it again....WITHIN REASON. If you wish to protect your home a small pistol or shotgun is MORE than enough to thwart a would-be intruder. If you hunt feel free to keep a rifle or three locked in a cabinet/safe with no key...kids can get hold of keys....not your combination.

Citizens should NOT be allowed ANY firearms if:

a. you are a convicted felon (current legilation)
b. convicted of any violent crime even at misdemeanor level
c. are deemed mentaly unable to posess such a weapon
d. are on anti-depressants or have been for a set time period

Firearms are a MASSIVE responisibility and should treated accordingly. Giving someone such a destructive device (with no other purpose but death) is a big assumption that the person is responsible. You know what happens when you assume.....


Give a person a balloon and a knife and it's only a matter of time before you have some limp rubber on the end of a string.

I respect peoples right to bare arms but it has to be the right people and the right arms.

home protection and sports don't require assault rifles or automatic weapons. They don't require more than a 10clip magazine. They DO however require a clear mind, a sense of responsibility and a respect for life (human at least).

I can go on and on but whose mind am I going to change? no'ones

red meat = good for you.

worms = good pets.

Well apparently Matty doesn't want us to go around with sleeveless tops on.

It's the right to BEAR arms, not bare them.

The Jews were not allowed to own firearms ...made it so easy to overpower them....and slaughter them.



Wtf with the worms? Is this a new thing? Like in the new millenium all meat is suddenly dangerous and off-limits?

grammar pwns m3


It was easy to overpower the jews because they are peaceful people who are more concerned with their relationship to God than the number of guns in their homes.

This isn't an argument.....I'm all for SOME citizens owning firearms but I doubt anyone can argue my exemptions being too hard.

And under the current laws (there are many) those types of people are not allowed to legally own guns, or obtain concealed carry permits, etc.




Our founding fathers established our basic rights, including the right to bear arms, so that our other rights would not, COULD not be infringed upon. This includes the right to religious freedom.

Except for the anti-depressent part...although a background check that deems you mentally unstable will be a reason for not being issued a CCW. I just took my class...now I just have to get the background check done.

nice one

good point. never really thought about that.

Funny though. I've been around guns all my life and not a single person I've ever known has committed any crime with their firearms. I guess in Matty's mind, these are the "right people". However, there is always that criminal element and you know how criminals are. They just don't follow the law. Hard to keep guns away from them lawfully, since they have complete and utter disregard for the law...hmmm.

In sharp contrast to the law-abiding gun owner citizens that I know let's talk about the people I know with [oh yes] CARS. Now here's a group of people that are always breaking the law. I've not known one person my whole life who has never broken the law regarding cars! Strange! Cars have the same capacity to kill people (and lots of them at one time too) but no one ever talks about banning cars...or taking the SUV keys away from the incompetent boobs who are not responsible enough to drive them. And like guns, cars are inanimate objects. Only dangerous when in the hands of the wrong type of person, i.e. felonius speeders, street racers, people on drugs (prescrip & illegal types) and alcohol, people that modify their exhaust and remove lawful and important emissions control devices...I could go on, but I'm probably not going to convince anyone either.


:)

Oh, and I never kill balloons...just let them go limp and die peacefully.


Well, unless that balloon violently attacked me, and then I hope that the balloon has made its peace with the balloon god because it will be seeing it soon! :evilgrin:

huh?

I think I've upset my lead scrumpet.....didn't mean to.

My only point was that a firearms sole purpsoe in exsistance is to kill/destroy. Cars serve other purposes that we rely on heavily. I fully agree though about cars being a major cause of deaths at the hands of incompetants.

You and I are agreeing though Karen. You don't know anyone who has commited a gun crime...those people SHOULD be allowed weapons....but only certain kinds. We have way to many variations of weapons and way too many weapons not being controlled. When I think of gun control I think about "legislation for those who are not controlling their arms'....like guns on streets, not guns for hunters. I want tougher laws and legislation for the guns that SHOULDNT be out there....not your guns.

if guns are outlawed, the only groups with guns will be criminals and government.

guns don't kill people, people kill people,

etc etc.

I'm an active shooter, and I've debated this topic twice as a rep. for the college republicans here on campus. The key to the arguement is not to state what is within your realm of experience, but is to take the opponent's arguements and simply counter them in a method that appeals to a moderate, while making relative points that advance your position. The 2nd amendment arguement can be tricky, and the key to playing that card is to not take the literal text under examination, but to focus on the spirit of it...sort of a non-interpretivist approach...the text is outdated and has no modern application. Thus, you want to look at the intent of the arguement...but then again, the intent isn't enough because the leftist will say the intent is outdated for various reasons..so the intent has to become the spirit of the arguement. Which would be something like, "it is within every facility of modern western political thought that the individual maintains certain rights and promises, as afforded by written consititutions. One is the right to self determination and conquest, afforded through any rational means necessary, without infringement from outside influences unless in the case of extreme emergency. This is to be expanded to understand the protection of said rights, which is the current through the spirit of the 2nd amendment..." and so forth, blah blah. I would try to avoid the militia aspect, because it really is a hard one to push.

And w00t for guns. I go trap shooting weekly, and pistol range every other week.

The laws and legislations are tough enough as it is...for your everyday ordinary citizen (such as myself).





Besides, you don't really know WHAT guns I have now do ya? :evilgrin: :bt:

I'm an avid shooter myself...I own a handgun and have come close to pulling out a few times. You're right about people killing people...because a gun can't put one in the chamber all by itself. Anyway, I think someone who is easily angered, should not have a handgun....however.....ANYTHING can be used as a weapon...so, what should we do? Outlaw pencils and 2x4's also? Chops off their digits and/or arms....ok a bit farfetched...but humans are violent by nature...gun or no gun.

I dont see whats so tough about filling out a form and waiting a few days? You in THAT big of a hurry to shoot something?? :tit:

Don't worry...if I ever feel like getting violent with Matty I'll either run him over with my oh-so-peaceful scooter or perhaps bludgeon him to death with my never-before-thought-it-could-ever-be-dangerous camera tripod (the miniature desktop one). That way I won't have to waste perfectly good Black Talons....or wait for the background check... heh.


;) I crack myself up.

gun control and gun banning is two completely seperate ideas. the ownership of a firearm is a constitutional right. no one in their right mind will ever try to outright ban guns. it's political suicide. it's funny how the NRA has pumped so much fear into their constituents that ANY form of gun control will result in gun banning. the slippery slope hasn't happened and will not happen, even with the stringent controls placed on guns as is. in california, where gun control laws are most plentiful, many, many people still own guns and rifles.

I guess you'll be fine as long as your gun is unloaded, locked and stored in a container that is separate from the bullets, which must not be loaded into the magazines. The magazines should be stored in a separate, locked compartment. That's three separate locked containers, preferably stored in separate locations as to not be able to properly be able to defend one's self, if that situation ever arises.

Stringent controls as placed upon Californians and Washingtonians (DC) is doing a wonderful job too. What's the gun murder rate there?

I like to expand my mind...think from the criminal's point of view. If I, as a criminal, were to want to do my criminal business, would I prefer armed or unarmed "constituents"? Hmmm...

here in arizona, about 5 years ago, a guy came into a pizza hut. he shot all four employees dead, then robbed the place. turns out two of the patrons that were still in the pizza hut were also armed as they had a CWP. didn't do a damn thing. that guy later turned the gun on himself. the loot was sitting in his passenger seat.

besides, crime rates in states where guns are allowed with little restriction are not lower than in those states where strict gun control is enforced. the other half of the argument is that crime rates in states where guns are controlled are not lower than in those states with little restriction.

The patrons probably feared a lawsuit on behalf of the robbers family...if they shot him dead then they would be the ones at fault eh?

That seems to be the way things are going these days!

OH, and even if you are one of the lucky chosen few who is permitted to carry concealed (I believe AZ still has open carry too) you are not obligated to get into a firefight. In fact, my CLEET instructor says that sometimes it's better just to not get involved at all. Also, there are certain types of people that you are permitted to defend, i.e. spouse, mother, father, brother, etc., but not Joe Schmoe off the street.

Here's something from a website that cracks me up:
http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/2bobbies2.jpg

We met some cats from Liverpool a while back and their view on the People of America was that everyone here carries a gun and everyone here kills people. They were completely serious in their beliefs too...it was good for a laugh...especially since *as previously noted* I know a lot of gun owners, but I don't know anyone who has shot anyone...

You also might look into these things:

National Firearms Act, 1934
Gun Control Act, 1968

you dont mind if i quote you guy's and ladies on one of my note cards do you.

my word counts on nothing toward this project (even being under aged and owning a rifle my opinion doesn't matter damnit) their is a so called sight (company is in Illinois) that sells "fake" automatic wepons (opposite of the real macoy...not trade marked) legally...
i start to wonder.... even if full autos are banned who says the mob market will stop selling them. i think its a matter of who, how, and what it is intended for should be banned...

im just thinking also...their is a better way to determine if you could be a legal gun owner. a new system (if system my system could be used.. gun violence and guns will deff. change)
-when taking a drivers course at school you also take certain test to qualify you eligable to ownership. (age 21 legal to buy pistold, rifles, ect,. 18 for shotguns standard laws)
-when getting your license a bar code and a bar (like black stip on credit card) holds all information about you including finger prints, DNA, ect...everything since 8 years old and has to be updated every 6 months.(meaning a new licence issued every 6 months. old ones discarded, melted, reusable)
-the guns will have a card swiping and finger printing (recognizing) mechanism on hadle, stock, trigger, ect.
-bullets have bar codes on shells and the bullet itself with your information code. (somehow has to be un-tamperable. and bullets can only be bought special order to insure your use only)

when someone takes gun and licence even if swiped. finger printing cannot be recognized

what do you think?

"Who would have a signature gun??"

"James Bond"



Is your paper supposed to be factual, i.e. research paper, or is it a persuasive voice type thing?

factual and research.... mostly research... what i typed was an idea... nothing more