Gun Control

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Guns are evil

No, no, no, people are evil.

Guns are merely innocently helpful tools for defending yourself against the satanic tyranny of squirrels, providing the conclusively winning argument in random traffic disputes, and combating the ever increasing Liberal/Negro/Latte slurping menace that is threatening to destroy our vibrantly loud and intolerant yahoo culture and to forcibly impregnate your sister, my friends, no matter how much her mustache and tiny, too close eyes highlight her jiggly morbid obesity.

Those Negroes don't care.

Buy more guns.

:laugh: Awesome :thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Guns are evil

No, no, no, people are evil.

Guns are merely innocently helpful tools for defending yourself against the satanic tyranny of squirrels, providing the conclusively winning argument in random traffic disputes, and combating the ever increasing Liberal/Negro/Latte slurping menace that is threatening to destroy our vibrantly loud and intolerant yahoo culture and to forcibly impregnate your sister, my friends, no matter how much her mustache and tiny, too close eyes highlight her jiggly morbid obesity.

Those Negroes don't care.

Buy more guns.

For the most part, you are absolutely correct.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Guns are evil

No, no, no, people are evil.

Guns are merely innocently helpful tools for defending yourself against the satanic tyranny of squirrels, providing the conclusively winning argument in random traffic disputes, and combating the ever increasing Liberal/Negro/Latte slurping menace that is threatening to destroy our vibrantly loud and intolerant yahoo culture and to forcibly impregnate your sister, my friends, no matter how much her mustache and tiny, too close eyes highlight her jiggly morbid obesity.

Those Negroes don't care.

Buy more guns.

For the most part, you are absolutely correct.

Scary isn't it?

 

[surfsatwerk]

There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

 

[Vic]

Yes, it's true, prohibitions never work. A wise Greek wrote a fable about that some 2500 years ago. The most impossible of solutions is always the easiest to propose.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

The philosophical element to the discussion (which you obviously missed) is that people would still own (and use) guns even if the 2nd amendment never existed.

The very notion that people will suddenly stop committing murder simply because a law is passed against owning guns is, well... naive at best.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

The philosophical element to the discussion (which you obviously missed) is that people would still own (and use) guns even if the 2nd amendment never existed.

The very notion that people will suddenly stop committing murder simply because a law is passed against owning guns is, well... naive at best.

So we shouldn't legislate speed limits on public roads because people are going to speed anyways? We should legislate guns like anything else that is a threat to public safety.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: irishScott
So I just had an extensive debate with some of my more liberal acquaintances and I need to get this out. They seem to be of the opinion that severe gun restrictions will magically lead to fewer killings by virtue of the fact that there will simply be fewer guns to go around.

And that's what pisses me off. Alcohol kills more people/year then gun crime. Why don't we give alcohol prohibition another shot? Oh, right, that utterly failed. So instead we've accepted alcohol as a part of life (as it has been for thousands of years), and try to teach people to drink responsibly. When someone doesn't drink responsibly, they are likely to kill themselves if not others. Yet when we hear about an alcohol related death, everyone accepts it as a tragedy and moves on. Maybe MADD makes some noise no one cares about.

When someone uses a gun irresponsibly, suddenly it's OMG WE NEED MOAR GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!oneone1! Now I'm not saying we should teach firearm responsibility in schools or anything (although the idea has some merit), as guns aren't as ubiquitous as alcohol (hence the fewer gun crime related deaths); but I'm just pointing out the relative hypocrisy here. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible when it comes to their firearms. If they get drunk however...

Thus the issue of deaths due to gun crime as an argument for gun control is laid to rest.

-snip-

I'll comment on your rant thus far (haven't read the rest, I feel I need to answer right here).

First of all, I'm not OK with those alcohol deaths, and you made no mention of the obvious fact that it's not just the alcohol that kills these people. In the vast majority of cases it's alcohol plus driving. I think the courts and legislative/judicial system is way too lenient on abusers of the privilege to drive a motor vehicle. Abusers are constantly getting back behind the wheel in circumstances when they should be barred from doing so. People do not have a God given right to drive. If they have demonstrated that they are not law abiding enough, not mature enough to drive safely, they should be prevented from driving.

Even if it were true that the alcohol attitudes of the nation are hypocritical, this does not put the gun control issue "to rest." Where the hell do you get that? The fact is that severely restricting gun ownership would/will eventually severely deplete the gun activity. It will take a while. People attached to guns are very much in denial concerning this, but it's the truth. It would take a while, a long time in some circumstances but it would eventually work out.

I get that from the fact that revealing that the proponent of a point is a hypocrite invalidates the proponent's judgement and thus the credibility of their argument. Debate 101. Anyone for sever gun restrictions should be for (at least) equally severe alcohol restrictions for the same reasons.

And severely restricting gun ownership in the USA might deplete gun activity. However, the black market would explode, violent crime would not go down (see Britain) and anyone who really wants a gun will still get one.

Case in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

And the argument that it is somehow harder to kill someone with a knife may have some merit from a scientific perspective, but in reality (from above link)

There are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-related killings.

Going to back to my hypocrisy argument, you say you're for increased regulation and punishment for DUIs among other alcohol relate things. Well there you go. Apply that same mentality to gun laws and I might even agree with you. Gun regulation is the answer, not restriction. Personally I think one should have a firearm's license in much the same way that one obtains a driver's license.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Do you work for the NRA?

Are they hiring?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Guns are evil

No, no, no, people are evil.

Guns are merely innocently helpful tools for defending yourself against the satanic tyranny of squirrels, providing the conclusively winning argument in random traffic disputes, and combating the ever increasing Liberal/Negro/Latte slurping menace that is threatening to destroy our vibrantly loud and intolerant yahoo culture and to forcibly impregnate your sister, my friends, no matter how much her mustache and tiny, too close eyes highlight her jiggly morbid obesity.

Those Negroes don't care.

Buy more guns.

For the most part, you are absolutely correct.

Scary isn't it?

Case in point, you're scared of guns. See my OP.

 

[OCGuy]

Come get my guns.

 

[Boobs McGee]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

That are quite a few things that weren't even imagined when our country was young and taking shape. There are reasons the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did. It was prevent government from taking away individual rights.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

It was around well before the internet, too. Want to see heavy government restriction and regulation there too? How about banning a range of websites because they "look dangerous"?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Come get my guns.

Bitch, lets go shooting

 

[manowar821]

I'm the most pro-gun social liberal you'll ever meet... My view is that if you can carry the fucking thing with two hands, you should be able to have it.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: jjsole
There's nothing philosophical about the easy of gunrunning within and outside of the US. There's virtually no accountability on behalf of the buyers and sellers that make the 2nd amendment the least of our country's issues with guns.

That's another issue. Gun regulation and registration is one thing. Gun restriction is a different story.

Regulation = you can do this if *insert requirements here*
Restrictions = you are not allowed to do this under any realistic circumstances

You bring up an excellent point because the second amendment says, "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."

So it definitely says regulate but the problem is, some people see regulate as restriction and if you're on one side, that means "yay we get to restrict" and on another side it's "well screw that, I want to do as I please".

I guess the debate is really about what is regulate and what is restrict.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: jjsole
There's nothing philosophical about the easy of gunrunning within and outside of the US. There's virtually no accountability on behalf of the buyers and sellers that make the 2nd amendment the least of our country's issues with guns.

That's another issue. Gun regulation and registration is one thing. Gun restriction is a different story.

Regulation = you can do this if *insert requirements here*
Restrictions = you are not allowed to do this under any realistic circumstances

You bring up an excellent point because the second amendment says, "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."

So it definitely says regulate but the problem is, some people see regulate as restriction and if you're on one side, that means "yay we get to restrict" and on another side it's "well screw that, I want to do as I please".

I guess the debate is really about what is regulate and what is restrict.

Except as used in the second amendment, regulate does not mean "to control" or "to limit". It means to "to keep or put in good order" or "to maintain".

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

I don't think the Framers imagined anything like the internet, so does the internet not fall under the first amendment? Your argument does not hold any water as the Framers intentionally wrote many aspects of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in a vague manner in order to limit government power.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I wouldn't be against regulation, but something like a driver's license where you must pass a reasonable gun safety course before you can get the boomstick.

What other Amendments in the Bill of Rights would you like to subject to licensing restrictions? Speech? Religion? Privacy? Fair trial?

What other irrelevant topics would you like to suggest? Pizza? Canine dental work? Anti-bacterial soap?

That's actually a completely valid and relevant comparison.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Guns are evil

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil!!!

(caps E for extra evilness)

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

The philosophical element to the discussion (which you obviously missed) is that people would still own (and use) guns even if the 2nd amendment never existed.

The very notion that people will suddenly stop committing murder simply because a law is passed against owning guns is, well... naive at best.

Yeah, not sure what people misunderstand about CRIMINALS not obeying the law. Adding laws won't deter them any more...

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
So we shouldn't legislate speed limits on public roads because people are going to speed anyways? We should legislate guns like anything else that is a threat to public safety.

Hmm, one post down we find one...

Murder/bodily harm is already illegal, right? What point does adding another law do?

 

[Phoenix86]

edit: why can't I delete my posts.... le sigh

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I'm all for the right to bear arms. I live in India, a country with a sordid history of communal violence (Hindu-Muslim). There have been several instances where thousands of rioters went on rape-pillaging-and-murder sprees while the police (and the government) waited a week before doing anything. Without turning this into P&N content, I will just say I remember watching a news interview where the CM of the state of Gujarat (2002 Gujarat Riots) made a comment to the effect, "The rioters have a reason to be angry, they need to get it out of their system."

Pregnant women had their fetuses ripped out of their bellies and lit on fire. Hundreds of small business were razed to the ground. Entire neighborhoods were lit up with Molotov cocktails while the law stood on the sidelines, waiting for 'approval' from the State Government to 'take action'.

Fuck it, those people should have had shotguns and a few thousand shells to defend themselves when their nation refused to.

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: magomago
how easy is it to get CC if you don't fall into the typical "i was threatened or attacked once" or "I work next to a drug ghetto" crowd? You need to reason for CC...does "I want to exercise as many rights available to me" actually work? I've looked into CC, and many places say that you need a "good/valid" reason and makes a list. The list basically says, "you must have your fucking life threatened first and then we can decide to issue you a CC license"...

I want to eventually get a weapon because I think it can be a good tool, I'm exerscising my second amendment rights, and it (god forbid) may come in use in the future. However, I really haven't had my life threatened, I don't work in the ghetto. I would still want to CC because as a preventative measure in case anything MAY arise (better safe than sorry), and to further exercise rights available to me that fall in line with the 2nd amendment.
That is really the truth...and has anyone had that work?

Many places? You mean the 10 states that are "may issue"? 34 states are "shall issue" and 6 are "no issue". Looks like the, hey I want to use my rights states are in the lead.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Sup everyone... I have a gun, thus I'm better than you-- and I won't let you forget it.

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: jjsole
There's nothing philosophical about the easy of gunrunning within and outside of the US. There's virtually no accountability on behalf of the buyers and sellers that make the 2nd amendment the least of our country's issues with guns.

That's another issue. Gun regulation and registration is one thing. Gun restriction is a different story.

Regulation = you can do this if *insert requirements here*
Restrictions = you are not allowed to do this under any realistic circumstances

You bring up an excellent point because the second amendment says, "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."

So it definitely says regulate but the problem is, some people see regulate as restriction and if you're on one side, that means "yay we get to restrict" and on another side it's "well screw that, I want to do as I please".

I guess the debate is really about what is regulate and what is restrict.

You're over looking something, and the supreme court agrees with this.

"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."

You see what I did there? I bolded the comma. The comma denotes a separate thought. The 2nd half of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with militias, and everything to do with personal ownership. There should be no gun laws. Period. I don't give a damn what you libtard's think.

The only reason we have gun laws are because guns scare the government. You will use the argument, oh they have tanks, and an army. Who gives a damn? If they didn't scare the politicians shitless, do you think they would push so hard to ban them?

Gun owners make politicians piss their pants.

, (comma placed to denote my second thought)

Take a look @ VT. No license to open or conceal carry, 18 is the age you can do it, it's valid for life, no finger prints, no background check, no blood in the streets.