What happens when you take the guns out of law abiting citizens? Hrmmm...look at britain and you will see what i mean. Only the outlaws have guns.
What happens when you take the guns out of law abiting citizens? Hrmmm...look at britain and you will see what i mean. Only the outlaws have guns.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Jzero,
What you mentioned is right where it stands.
The point being raised is the need to keep arms within your property or inside private homes. Owning and possesion.
But what legitimate use does a gun have barring sports for which you do not need to keep the weapon at home .... ??
If you can show me statistics that states or countries where guns are allowed are much safer then states/nations that ban them, the argument is valid. Do not give Israel's example .. they are under 24/7 threats from terrorists and its a war zone there.
Else how do you weigh your arguments in favor of gun posession? Apart from the right to bear arms in our Constitution ... but do remember when the constitution was written, things were a lot different that what it is now..so this made sense then.
FBI/ ATI/ USS .. any agency with college educated, non bigoted, motivated personel show enough data hinting at the fact that possession of guns does not help reduce crime.
Something of concern in present sniper attacks is this : http://www.vpc.org/press/0210snip.htm
What you mentioned is right where it stands.
The point being raised is the need to keep arms within your property or inside private homes. Owning and possesion.
But what legitimate use does a gun have barring sports for which you do not need to keep the weapon at home .... ??
If you can show me statistics that states or countries where guns are allowed are much safer then states/nations that ban them, the argument is valid. Do not give Israel's example .. they are under 24/7 threats from terrorists and its a war zone there.
Else how do you weigh your arguments in favor of gun posession? Apart from the right to bear arms in our Constitution ... but do remember when the constitution was written, things were a lot different that what it is now..so this made sense then.
FBI/ ATI/ USS .. any agency with college educated, non bigoted, motivated personel show enough data hinting at the fact that possession of guns does not help reduce crime.
Something of concern in present sniper attacks is this : http://www.vpc.org/press/0210snip.htm
Bruno, I think you failed your argument here. reread what you wrote and try to comprehend your argument because I shouldn't have to explain how stupid it is.
States with conceiled carry laws have lower crimes rates.
States with the least gun control have the least crime.
DC as an example has extremly strict gun control and the highest murder rate in the country.
Switzerland every male above the age of 18 keeps an assault rifle at home.
If someone breaks into my house, they will be looking down the barrel of a 12 guage. This is a quite effective deterent.
Should we ban 2x4s? I mean you could beat someone to death with those since they dont have any sort of safety device on them.
*Snip incoherent blather*
I can't even understand what you are trying to say, or even if you are disagreeing with me.
In short:
Right now, both criminals and normal, productive human beings can and do own guns.
If guns are made illegal, then criminals will still have guns, and normal productive human beings will not. You're basically giving criminals an edge in knowing that most people don't have a gun to shoot back with, and at the same time, criminalizing all the legitimate uses guns have, which you seem to be hell-bent on denying.
As for legitimate non-sport uses, I've already mentioned collection and self-defense, and I'll add defense of the nation, since you bring up why it was in the constitution. Private gun owners won independence from Britain and private gun owners fought the Civil War. If ever a war were to come to US soil, the constitution gives us the ability to defend ourselves.
I think you are 300 years behind here ..........
Do you see Brits taking your independece today ?
No use arguing with gun trotting NRA sympathizers .. their brains as washed as their wallets. A NRA member and his money are easily parted.
REMEMBER THIS:
Thank God the NRA only has a piddly two million members -- in other words, 260 million Americans ARE NOT members of the NRA.
Learn to live with this fact ..........and send my regards to chukkie heston and his lame boys.
Hamburgerpimp
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2000
- 7,464
- 1
- 76
Thank God the NRA only has a piddly two million members -- in other words, 260 million Americans ARE NOT members of the NRA.
Do you have any clue how ignorant you are? You don't have to be a member of the NRA to own a gun.
<--Browning 9MM, Glock 21
Do you have any clue how ignorant you are? You don't have to be a member of the NRA to own a gun.
<--Browning 9MM, Glock 21
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Meh, I get your point but don't think it completely nullifies the arguement. Would it have been better for the police to have had to wait until the right team could be dispatched and arrive? Civs have are decent contributors.
Maybe you haven't heard much about the Patriot Act, or other of the acts passed which make folks uneasy.
<----Non NRA member
Exactly, like child molestors and child pornographers support the ACLU. But, as an aside, the NRA's membership fluctuates between 3 - 4 million members, whereas about 35 - 40% of the adult US population owns a firearm. Some NRA members have never owned firearms and have no plans to. Many gun owners are not NRA members.
True, but it implies careless indifference, like you say, "allowing" gun crime, about like "allowing" rapists commit rapes unfettered per my analogy. Still its a below the belt swipe.
Imagine, per my analogy, a cartoonist depicting a rapist supporting the ACLU because it opposes mandatory DNA fingerprinting of every male in the US? Not only would such a depiction invite outrage, it would never make it passed the editorial discretion of any mainstream newpaper in the United States, it would never get published. Yet, such attacks against gun control opponents are commonplace in mainstream papers.
Its Texas for crying out loud.
Ohh sorry ...sir. At last we found a MENSA candidate and a gun owner.
Pleeeeez ... we were debating about NRA, how someone made a cartoon with ceratin implications to NRA, and its contribution to America. And its lobby. All can be summed up as: Blood and Bullets.
well,
the two extreme paradox situations are the two countries with among the lowest gun crime rate are japan and switzerland. gun ownership is almost non-existent in japan, but in switzerland, nearly every household has an assault rifle and ammo. the main factor there seems to be that they both have (historically) reasonably good economic situations and a somewhat homogeneous population.
this is true, the question is, does it still make sense now? i believe that the second amendment means what it says and applies to private gun ownership. and i have read the arguments from the time. this is clear from those written papers.
we do have a process to change the constitution in this country and it has been done before when a overwhelming majority of this country felt it necessary. if those who wish to severely restrict or outlaw gun ownership wish, why not pust for a constitutional ammandment? i have never seen this even discussed in gun control circles.
my personal belief is that (and the poll numbers seem to bear this out) a constitutional ammendment would never pass in this country at this time. and that the gun control crowd knows this and thus prefers to try to curtail gun ownership in other ways.
in any case, to my knowledge, neither side has taken the second ammandment question to the supreme court for a ruling in at least the past 40 years. i may be wrong on this, if someone knows, please give me a reference. i think that both sides are afraid of a ruling.
the two extreme paradox situations are the two countries with among the lowest gun crime rate are japan and switzerland. gun ownership is almost non-existent in japan, but in switzerland, nearly every household has an assault rifle and ammo. the main factor there seems to be that they both have (historically) reasonably good economic situations and a somewhat homogeneous population.
this is true, the question is, does it still make sense now? i believe that the second amendment means what it says and applies to private gun ownership. and i have read the arguments from the time. this is clear from those written papers.
we do have a process to change the constitution in this country and it has been done before when a overwhelming majority of this country felt it necessary. if those who wish to severely restrict or outlaw gun ownership wish, why not pust for a constitutional ammandment? i have never seen this even discussed in gun control circles.
my personal belief is that (and the poll numbers seem to bear this out) a constitutional ammendment would never pass in this country at this time. and that the gun control crowd knows this and thus prefers to try to curtail gun ownership in other ways.
in any case, to my knowledge, neither side has taken the second ammandment question to the supreme court for a ruling in at least the past 40 years. i may be wrong on this, if someone knows, please give me a reference. i think that both sides are afraid of a ruling.
You are wrong sir. This fine gentleman is nowhere near ignorant. In fact he has gone far far beyond ignorance and acquired a PHD in total stupidity.
PUH-LEEZE! Get a grip, the current situation where a sniper is randomly picking people off on the street is something we have rarely, if ever, confronted before. Dont even try and take the killings of this sniper and try to make the situation application to every other shooting.
I never stop to wonder why americans are so obsessed with guns and weaponry in general. And always deny the obvious - being better gun control = less gun related deaths. If u dont believe, then I wonder why countries with (strict) gun control have less problems with violent crimes.
the fundamental point anti-gun people try to get across is this: they don't want to take away your freedoms, your rights. as long as you aren't hurting anyone, you can do what you like as far as they're concerned. but when you own a gun, you have a chance for it to kill someone despite your best efforts. guns kill a lot of people every year, and if there weren't as many guns there wouldn't be as many deaths. that's all.
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal
...and H&K made some more equal than others...
Gotta love Orwell
that's the same thing anti-drug czars have been saying for years....there will be less violence if we can just get more drugs off the street! Yet, for some (unimaginable
No, but, historically, countries who had a broad base of people who could use projectile weapons have faired well in warfare (alluding to the defense of the nation portion which you did not include in your quote). This goes back centuries:
-The English longbowmen who defeated the French army at Agincourt (if you even known what that was). Yeah, that happened b/c the king of england outlawed several forms of recreation, and mandated practice with the longbow. Consequently, the English had a LARGE group of able bodied men who could shoot a knight off his horse, which meant a cheap foot soldier could eliminate cavalry. Sure, it didnt help that the French were stupid and "charged" across mud, but hey, the longbow is what did the work.
-The minute men of the American Revolution. They could pick off Redcoats at ranges where a musket is totally ineffective. This sort of thing tends to drag down morale.
-Southern marksmen during the american civil war. Part of the reason the South was able to hold out as long as they did was that they came from a rural background. You hand a farm boy a rifle, he can roll a deer at 200 yards, no problem. You hand a city boy a rifle, he can make a lot of noise, and thats about it, until you train him. Even then, most of them will never get as competent with a firearm as a country boy.
-Same thing in WWI and WWII.
DC also has some of the, if not the most, restrictive gun control in the USA. Brilliant arguement. I salute you, O' Grand Imperial Dragon of the Order of Asshats.
Originally posted by: Lucky
that's the same thing anti-drug czars have been saying for years....there will be less violence if we can just get more drugs off the street! Yet, for some (unimaginable) reason, when you reduce the supply but demand stays the same, people are willing to do more and more to get what they want. drugs, guns, cigarettes, alcohol, you name it.
you're not comparing apples to oranges. if you smoke a joint incorrectly, you don't accidently kill someone. it's hard to make the comparison that drugs are outlawed but they're still in high demand, and if guns were outlawed they'd still be in high demand as well. people don't get physically addicted to guns.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter