Anti 2nd Amendment People - Why are you anti?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: Away
If you anti gun nuts want to be killed at the hands of criminals, that's fine with me. I am going to protect myself and my loved ones. That is my right and you are not going to change that.

Just curious, how many times have you protected yourself and your loved ones with a gun?

My GF has used her gun multiple times to protect herself in her home, and in parking lots. If not for her gun, she would probably be dead/raped. I thank the states for the gun freedoms they have.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Do you know what a "Right" is? Rights don't need reasons. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't have a big list that someone checks to make sure that there are good reasons for it.

You are mistaken. Many argue the validity of Rights all the time. Nothing gets the status of "Right' without a Reason first. That's where this whole issue centers on. The original Reasons for that Right no longer exist. Should it still be a Right and why?

You're attempting Circular Logic.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: KeypoX
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: KeypoX
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: KeypoX
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: KeypoX
When you own one you usually get in trouble with one.

Back that up.

even know this is highly unusual here with all you peoples facts.

http://www.nola.com/news/index...ed_in_kenner_acci.html

this is one recent case you can google and read about the 100's of them every year

There are also hundreds of cases of idiot drivers who back over their children every year too, usually pulling out of their garages or driveways. Would you argue then that we should ban cars? Or is that not an argument for better driver safety education?

How about ban idiot people from driving. Also where is your source on that? I do believe that has happen but not as frequent as shootings.

We already require drivers licenses and vehicle registration. What more do you want?

And we're not talking about just any 'shootings,' your linked example was an accidental shooting of 5 year-old. Don't straw man.

No shit im not talking about any shootings. Im talking about accidental caused by dumbass's that own guns.

That is a valid argument about not owning guns... but i have yet to read anything related about owning guns with any validity.

And i thought this post was to post why are you anit? Not why are you anti so i can tell you why your wrong.
By the way you're confusing "negligent" with "accidental" Accidental would be if the gun just went off by itself and shoot someone. Negligent would be a gun owner leaving a loaded gun out where someone could gain access to it and shoot them self. You can't accidentally pull a trigger.

 

Away

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
4,430
1
71
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: Away
If you anti gun nuts want to be killed at the hands of criminals, that's fine with me. I am going to protect myself and my loved ones. That is my right and you are not going to change that.

Just curious, how many times have you protected yourself and your loved ones with a gun?

Once, and the guy attempting to mug me lost interest. I'm not saying I want to shoot someone, but it is nice to know that I won't submit and become a victim either.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Are you stupid? The burden of proof is not on the gun owners. It's on you as to why you won't allow me to own a gun. Because I own many things without your leave or say-so, and I don't have to provide a reason to you for all those, do I? Same here, I'll own what I please, you have to tell me why I can't. Or ah heck off.
 

KeypoX

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,655
0
71
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: KeypoX
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: KeypoX
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: KeypoX
When you own one you usually get in trouble with one.

Back that up.

even know this is highly unusual here with all you peoples facts.

http://www.nola.com/news/index...ed_in_kenner_acci.html

this is one recent case you can google and read about the 100's of them every year

There are also hundreds of cases of idiot drivers who back over their children every year too, usually pulling out of their garages or driveways. Would you argue then that we should ban cars? Or is that not an argument for better driver safety education?

I heard of a kid who drowned in a bathtub. Ban bathing! Think of the children!

Yes ban everything that kills, like time. Ban time.

While i am not even anti 2nd i do think there is a reason for anyone to own a gun. And none of you people have anything near a logical argument.

Maybe you believe that the government will take over if you don't have your gun locked in a box. But that is not logical.

Ah, you haven't presented any logical arguments but you demand them from us. Got it. ;)

I'll humor you. The reason not to ban guns is because they won't be banned. The only thing that happens is that normal citizens, you and I, won't be allowed to carry them, but the govt officials and the bodyguards of the rich still will. Hardly a democratic situation, eh? In the meantime, there will still be an industry to supply those guns, and a corresponding black market to go with it, funneling guns into criminal hands, etc. And what was your reason for wanting guns banned? Oh yes, to curtail gun crime. But what will happen? You and I and every other normal person will be disarmed, but govt and the criminals will be just as armed as ever.

So... what was accomplished? Answer: nothing good.

Its not logical that people that own guns have children and find the guns and kill themselves? Thats not logical to you? It happens!

Is there not a black martket for guns now? Do you think owning a gun does something against that? It only further enables it.

Also i am not really all that against guns. I doubt i will be every affected by one. Now people who own them so proudly such as the family of the 5 year old boy. Will be tragically affected!

BTW I got an A in comp 1, 2, tech writing, and MBA business writing :) At a top tier university. Though im not a strong writer, it takes revisions but its supposed too!

Good night :)
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: MercenaryYoureFired
I don't necessarily like the 2nd Amendment because I feel it doesn't belong with our current culture. As time passes the need for change arises, especially concerning something like this. The availability of firearms today in the US is pretty absurd; and I highly doubt the very smart people who wrote the Amendments were expecting the firearm industry to be where it's at today.

I also hate the fact that if you're in possession of a gun it gives you absolute power over everyone without one. This isn't a bad thing until you realize the ease of getting one, moreover thinking about some of the people who have/had access to this kind of power is disturbing, and why it's such a big problem here.

Believe it or not, but a higher percentage of Americans owned guns when the Constitution was written.

Times were very different. Wild Animals were common, you never knew if a rival European power was going to land causing problems(although this wasn't terribly often, but Britain and France were always at war or close to it), there simply were no Police in most places, Military Forces were often days away.

So I'm supposed to rely on the police to protect me? The average police to civilian rate in the US is something like 1 officer per 10,000 civilians. The average 911 response time in my city, Dallas TX is 15-18 minutes.
And lastly, there is no mandate or law requiring a police officer to take a bullet for you.

Yes.

Having been the victim of an armed robber, I didn't see any police barge in and save the day. I guess I should move to Canada where we all have a personal police officer.

 

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,877
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: Away
If you anti gun nuts want to be killed at the hands of criminals, that's fine with me. I am going to protect myself and my loved ones. That is my right and you are not going to change that.

Just curious, how many times have you protected yourself and your loved ones with a gun?

Never. Why does that matter?

It doesn't really matter relative to gun control. I'm for the right to own guns. I'm curious about his egregious internet-toughguyism.

Edit: And apparently he's for real...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Are you stupid? The burden of proof is not on the gun owners. It's on you as to why you won't allow me to own a gun. Because I own many things without your leave or say-so, and I don't have to provide a reason to you for all those, do I? Same here, I'll own what I please, you have to tell me why I can't. Or ah heck off.

Your Entitlement is showing.. ;)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Do you know what a "Right" is? Rights don't need reasons. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't have a big list that someone checks to make sure that there are good reasons for it.

You are mistaken. Many argue the validity of Rights all the time. Nothing gets the status of "Right' without a Reason first. That's where this whole issue centers on. The original Reasons for that Right no longer exist. Should it still be a Right and why?

You're attempting Circular Logic.

No, you are. Rights don't require reasons. That's why they're called inherent. The burden is on those who would take the right away to provide justification as to why that must be done. If you can't do that, then you have no basis to remove the right.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Do you know what a "Right" is? Rights don't need reasons. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't have a big list that someone checks to make sure that there are good reasons for it.

You are mistaken. Many argue the validity of Rights all the time. Nothing gets the status of "Right' without a Reason first. That's where this whole issue centers on. The original Reasons for that Right no longer exist. Should it still be a Right and why?

You're attempting Circular Logic.

The right exists, and so if you desire it not to, then it is upon you to provide the burden of proof.
 

dbk

Lifer
Apr 23, 2004
17,685
10
81
Do what Chris Rock said...make bullets $5,000 Bullet control, bitch!
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Are you stupid? The burden of proof is not on the gun owners. It's on you as to why you won't allow me to own a gun. Because I own many things without your leave or say-so, and I don't have to provide a reason to you for all those, do I? Same here, I'll own what I please, you have to tell me why I can't. Or ah heck off.

Your Entitlement is showing.. ;)

I stand up for my freedom of expression too. Are you going to insist that I justify that as well, or call me entitled?
 

Away

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
4,430
1
71
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: Away
If you anti gun nuts want to be killed at the hands of criminals, that's fine with me. I am going to protect myself and my loved ones. That is my right and you are not going to change that.

Just curious, how many times have you protected yourself and your loved ones with a gun?

Never. Why does that matter?

It doesn't really matter relative to gun control. I'm for the right to own guns. I'm curious about his egregious internet-toughguyism

I'm not trying to be a tough guy. I'm trying to express my argument for our right to gun ownership.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Do you know what a "Right" is? Rights don't need reasons. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't have a big list that someone checks to make sure that there are good reasons for it.

You are mistaken. Many argue the validity of Rights all the time. Nothing gets the status of "Right' without a Reason first. That's where this whole issue centers on. The original Reasons for that Right no longer exist. Should it still be a Right and why?

You're attempting Circular Logic.

What are the reasons for inalienable or natural rights? Or that all men are created equal? Whether or not you think that I'm mistaken or attempting circular logic has nothing to do with it.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Do you know what a "Right" is? Rights don't need reasons. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't have a big list that someone checks to make sure that there are good reasons for it.

You are mistaken. Many argue the validity of Rights all the time. Nothing gets the status of "Right' without a Reason first. That's where this whole issue centers on. The original Reasons for that Right no longer exist. Should it still be a Right and why?

You're attempting Circular Logic.

No, you are. Rights don't require reasons. That's why they're called inherent. The burden is on those who would take the right away to provide justification as to why that must be done. If you can't do that, then you have no basis to remove the right.

What makes a Right Inherent? Is it not because someone observed something and deemed it important for some Reason? Or did they just pick them out of a hat?
 

adairusmc

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,095
78
91
Originally posted by: dbk
Do what Chris Rock said...make bullets $5,000 Bullet control, bitch!

Wont work for those of us that re-load and cast our own bullets. It is not hard. ;)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: dbk
Do what Chris Rock said...make bullets $5,000 Bullet control, bitch!

Chris Rock is an idiot. You can buy the equipment to make as many bullets as you want for $5k.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

You don't "retire" rights. Would you say it's ok to give up the 1st Amendment because it can be used to speak bad about the President or it can be used to call someone a n*gger, sp*c, g**k, bitch, wise and beautiful woman, asshole?
Where do you draw the line with the rest of OUR rights? At what point do i not get a trial by jury? When do I have to testify against myself?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

You don't "retire" rights. Would you say it's ok to give up the 1st Amendment because it can be used to speak bad about the President or it can be used to call someone a n*gger, sp*c, g**k, bitch, wise and beautiful woman, asshole?
Where do you draw the line with the rest of OUR rights? At what point do i not get a trial by jury? When do I have to testify against myself?

The Constitution can be Amended. Things can be added or subtracted.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,174
28,826
136
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Where do you draw the line with the rest of OUR rights? At what point do i not get a trial by jury? When do I have to testify against myself?

Sept 12, 2001. Welcome to the new world order, brought to you by the folks who thought Bush would protect the 2nd Amendment, which he has.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

You don't "retire" rights. Would you say it's ok to give up the 1st Amendment because it can be used to speak bad about the President or it can be used to call someone a n*gger, sp*c, g**k, bitch, wise and beautiful woman, asshole?
Where do you draw the line with the rest of OUR rights? At what point do i not get a trial by jury? When do I have to testify against myself?

The Constitution can be Amended. Things can be added or subtracted.

When has the Bill of Rights been amended?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Do you know what a "Right" is? Rights don't need reasons. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't have a big list that someone checks to make sure that there are good reasons for it.

You are mistaken. Many argue the validity of Rights all the time. Nothing gets the status of "Right' without a Reason first. That's where this whole issue centers on. The original Reasons for that Right no longer exist. Should it still be a Right and why?

You're attempting Circular Logic.

No, you are. Rights don't require reasons. That's why they're called inherent. The burden is on those who would take the right away to provide justification as to why that must be done. If you can't do that, then you have no basis to remove the right.

What makes a Right Inherent? Is it not because someone observed something and deemed it important for some Reason? Or did they just pick them out of a hat?

Actually, all rights are inherent. Everything exists until taken away, and then only upon reasonable justification. Nothing is picked out of a hat.
Take murder for example. There is no right to commit murder because the harm is obvious. Same with rape and robbery and so forth.
Now whittle every imaginable thing down from there. In each and every case, the burden lies upon the state as to why a citizen should not be allowed something.
So I don't have to prove to you why I can't own something, you do if you want to take it away.

The weird thing is that I know you call yourself a liberal, and yet what I'm saying here is like the very bedrock of liberal philosophy... and you apparently don't know it.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: MercenaryYoureFired
I don't necessarily like the 2nd Amendment because I feel it doesn't belong with our current culture. As time passes the need for change arises, especially concerning something like this. The availability of firearms today in the US is pretty absurd; and I highly doubt the very smart people who wrote the Amendments were expecting the firearm industry to be where it's at today.

I also hate the fact that if you're in possession of a gun it gives you absolute power over everyone without one. This isn't a bad thing until you realize the ease of getting one, moreover thinking about some of the people who have/had access to this kind of power is disturbing, and why it's such a big problem here.

Believe it or not, but a higher percentage of Americans owned guns when the Constitution was written.

Times were very different. Wild Animals were common, you never knew if a rival European power was going to land causing problems(although this wasn't terribly often, but Britain and France were always at war or close to it), there simply were no Police in most places, Military Forces were often days away.

So I'm supposed to rely on the police to protect me? The average police to civilian rate in the US is something like 1 officer per 10,000 civilians. The average 911 response time in my city, Dallas TX is 15-18 minutes.
And lastly, there is no mandate or law requiring a police officer to take a bullet for you.

Yes.

Let me know how that works out when someone breaks into your house, rapes, and kills your family.

HAH! I don't have a family!! :p:D ;)

Thank God. You haven't reproduced yet, and if you are up this late arguing on the internet then your chances of reproducing are pretty slim.
Though I believe this also shows a reason for your thinking. I as a parent would walk through the gates of Hell for my children if it meant they would be safe. That is why I carry a gun every day. For the safety of my family. My oldest daughter is 7 years old and autistic. She does not understand much of anything even about personal safety. She'd run into traffic if someone didn't stop her. She's been in a house with (many) guns her entire life and she's not dead, not missing any fingers and doesn't have any bullet holes in her.
If guns were so evil and bad wouldn't they have jumped at the chance to shoot my autistic child because she is an easy target?

As for your "reason" I have them for protection and because they can be fun. We went shooting this morning. Drove up to the river and shot stuff. Even took an old beat up plastic yard Santa and pumped him full of lead.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: nkgreen
2ND AMENDMENT.
NATURAL RIGHT.

That's not really a reason.

They're the reason you don't need a reason.

Nah, that's just a copout. If you can't come up with some good reasons as to why a Firearm is necessary, perhaps it's time for that "Right" to be retired?

Do you know what a "Right" is? Rights don't need reasons. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't have a big list that someone checks to make sure that there are good reasons for it.

You are mistaken. Many argue the validity of Rights all the time. Nothing gets the status of "Right' without a Reason first. That's where this whole issue centers on. The original Reasons for that Right no longer exist. Should it still be a Right and why?

You're attempting Circular Logic.

No, you are. Rights don't require reasons. That's why they're called inherent. The burden is on those who would take the right away to provide justification as to why that must be done. If you can't do that, then you have no basis to remove the right.

What makes a Right Inherent? Is it not because someone observed something and deemed it important for some Reason? Or did they just pick them out of a hat?

Actually, all rights are inherent. Everything exists until taken away, and then only upon reasonable justification. Nothing is picked out of a hat.
Take murder for example. There is no right to commit murder because the harm is obvious. Same with rape and robbery and so forth.
Now whittle every imaginable thing down from there. In each and every case, the burden lies upon the state as to why a citizen should not be allowed something.
So I don't have to prove to you why I can't own something, you do if you want to take it away.

The weird thing is that I know you call yourself a liberal, and yet what I'm saying here is like the very bedrock of liberal philosophy... and you apparently don't know it.

I'm a Pragmatist. Blindly adhering to a Philosophy is simply being Blind.