White House to Push Gun Control

[nick1985]

It absolutely does

lol

 

[HAL9000]

Shot guns can have bullets, they're called slugs, and I would never, ever want to intersect a 12 gauge slug's trajectory.

Neither would I, I know what a slug is, but I wouldn't call it a bullet. :hmm:

 

[xj0hnx]

Quoted because apparently shotguns have bullets now, and you're trying to lecture me on firearms.

Dumbass, a bullet is a projectile fired from a firearm. You are clueless.

The ignore list is successfully updated now.

Pussy

 

[HAL9000]

lol

:biggrin:

 

[irishScott]

I want to live in a world without the threat of gun crime, I don't want every locked down and...



Sorry, you misunderstand, a shotgun can kill easily, you can't easily conceal it.

And you are under no threat of gun crime from me or any other legal gun owner I know of. I do know of a couple of guys with New Jersey mafia connections who have guns you might want to be afraid of. Obviously you shouldn't watch them and catch them for criminal acts, you should just take away all of our guns.

It's like cutting off half an arm because of one gangrenous finger.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry dude, that fat useless insult wasn't aimed at you thought it may have seemed it, it was aimed at BoberFett as he insulted the UK as being ugly etc. No insult meant, the use of "apparently" was meant to indicate that based on that guys post it would appear that americans are...

Don't worry about irishscott. I appreciated the irony in his bashing the UK versus the US, while he puts 'Irish' in his name, though (I don't know if Scott is for Scottish).

He doesn't have a clue about why the US is more 'prominent' in the world today than England, who in fact ruled a far larger empire.

Not a clue about the history, the terrible things about being too 'prominent' in the world, the wrongs England gave up or the wrongs the US has taken up.

He doesn't actually read any good books, like Chalmers Johnson's series on the choice for 'prominent' countries who have democracy at home and tyranny abroad, that they have to eventually pick one or the other for both, to keep democracy and give up empire, or to bring tyranny home. As he notes, the UK chose to keep democracy; Rome to keep empire.

He can't tell the difference between 'prominence' from having great qualities - or from being 'effective' tyrants. In fact, his simple understanding leaves only the choices of 'be a tyrant over everyone, or you will be the target of a tyrant', so that all wrongs are justified, for him. He's a shining example of the failure of democracy and its challenge to not have too many citizens like him lest it fall to disaster.

The US, as it has unwittingly stuck with policies more like irishscott and is so 'prominent', has been crashing badly, really, amassing debt and losing influence in the world, ironically paving the way for actual tyrants like China to do all the better because of his bad policies.

The US can deserve to succeed or fail - views like his are the latter.

Ignorant - every benefit of wrongdoing just more proof to him the nation is 'great'.

 

[nick1985]

99% of what craig234 says is horseshit. The other 1% nobody cares about.

 

[bfdd]

I want to live in a world without the threat of gun crime, I don't want every locked down and...



Sorry, you misunderstand, a shotgun can kill easily, you can't easily conceal it.

Why worry about gun crime when you're more likely to commit suicide in any form than you are to be a victim of gun crime? Looks like we should ban freedom and everything that could be used to kill yourself.

I'm starting up a petition to ban bottled water. Why would they sell such devices that could be so easily used to drown a person?

 

[HAL9000]

And you are under no threat of gun crime from me or any other legal gun owner I know of. I do know of a couple of guys with New Jersey mafia connections who have guns you might want to be afraid of. Obviously you shouldn't watch them and catch them for criminal acts, you should just take away all of our guns.

It's like cutting off half an arm because of one gangrenous finger.

Gun != Arm.

An Arm is something that everyone needs (generally) something we are born with (generally) and something that provides daily use and benefit to the human race

A Gun is made to kill, it is bought by people who want to defend themselves against other people with guns. A rather circular stand point, as neither side is ready to give up their guns they should be taken away, to save lives. 1 Life is more important than what america considers a "right" to own a gun.

 

[irishScott]

Don't worry about irishscott. I appreciated the irony in his bashing the UK versus the US, while he puts 'Irish' in his name, though (I don't know if Scott is for Scottish).

He doesn't have a clue about why the US is more 'prominent' in the world today than England, who in fact ruled a far larger empire.

Not a clue about the history, the terrible things about being too 'prominent' in the world, the wrongs England gave up or the wrongs the US has taken up.

He doesn't actually read any good books, like Chalmers Johnson's series on the choice for 'prominent' countries who have democracy at home and tyranny abroad, that they have to eventually pick one or the other for both, to keep democracy and give up empire, or to bring tyranny home. As he notes, the UK chose to keep democracy; Rome to keep empire.

He can't tell the difference between 'prominence' from having great qualities - or from being 'effective' tyrants. In fact, his simple understanding leaves only the choices of 'be a tyrant over everyone, or you will be the target of a tyrant', so that all wrongs are justified, for him. He's a shining example of the failure of democracy and its challenge to not have too many citizens like him lest it fall to disaster.

The US, as it has unwittingly stuck with policies more like irishscott and is so 'prominent', has been crashing badly, really, amassing debt and losing influence in the world, ironically paving the way for actual tyrants like China to do all the better because of his bad policies.

The US can deserve to succeed or fail - views like his are the latter.

Ignorant - every benefit of wrongdoing just more proof to him the nation is 'great'.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm not even going to respond to the bulk of this, although I am curious how you know what books I read.

 

[HAL9000]

Don't worry about irishscott. I appreciated the irony in his bashing the UK versus the US, while he puts 'Irish' in his name, though (I don't know if Scott is for Scottish).

He doesn't have a clue about why the US is more 'prominent' in the world today than England, who in fact ruled a far larger empire.

Not a clue about the history, the terrible things about being too 'prominent' in the world, the wrongs England gave up or the wrongs the US has taken up.

He doesn't actually read any good books, like Chalmers Johnson's series on the choice for 'prominent' countries who have democracy at home and tyranny abroad, that they have to eventually pick one or the other for both, to keep democracy and give up empire, or to bring tyranny home. As he notes, the UK chose to keep democracy; Rome to keep empire.

He can't tell the difference between 'prominence' from having great qualities - or from being 'effective' tyrants. In fact, his simple understanding leaves only the choices of 'be a tyrant over everyone, or you will be the target of a tyrant', so that all wrongs are justified, for him. He's a shining example of the failure of democracy and its challenge to not have too many citizens like him lest it fall to disaster.

The US, as it has unwittingly stuck with policies more like irishscott and is so 'prominent', has been crashing badly, really, amassing debt and losing influence in the world, ironically paving the way for actual tyrants like China to do all the better because of his bad policies.

The US can deserve to succeed or fail - views like his are the latter.

Ignorant - every benefit of wrongdoing just more proof to him the nation is 'great'.

Thanks, I agree with the vast majority of that, particularly the Irish thing, it made me chuckle like all those boston irish or NYC irish, and the fact that America goes mental for St. Patricks day, there are more irish people in the England and we do nothing for it.

Why worry about gun crime when you're more likely to commit suicide in any form than you are to be a victim of gun crime? Looks like we should ban freedom and everything that could be used to kill yourself.

Suicide is a choice, being killed by someone else with a gun is not.

I'm starting up a petition to ban bottled water. Why would they sell such devices that could be so easily used to drown a person?

Bottled water wasn't meant to kill. It's also a very uncommon weapon

 

[xj0hnx]

99% of what craig234 says is horseshit. The other 1% nobody cares about.

100% of what Craig234 says is horseshit.

 

[irishScott]

Gun != Arm.

An Arm is something that everyone needs (generally) something we are born with (generally) and something that provides daily use and benefit to the human race

A Gun is made to kill, it is bought by people who want to defend themselves against other people with guns. A rather circular stand point, as neither side is ready to give up their guns they should be taken away, to save lives. 1 Life is more important than what america considers a "right" to own a gun.

Wrong, it is bought by people who want to defend themselves against bad people in general.

If someone comes at me with a knife, I'm not going to take him hand-to-hand because he doesn't have a gun, I'm going to draw and he/she's going to die.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I want criminals on a leash, fuck everyone else if thats the only way to do that. It would be better for the majority if guns were illegal, Fuck those who just want guns because.

I'm so glad your gum flapping is wasted, you're just a limey troll.

 

[Brigandier]

Neither would I, I know what a slug is, but I wouldn't call it a bullet. :hmm:

It's not a pellet, what is it then? I think every human should have to have responsibility over a firearm, like a child, when they become an adult. If that gun is ever used in a crime, they are also implicated. I think the problem with society is not enough gun responsibility programs. People think it's like video games, just as fun and just as inconsequential, but it's not. I was taught as a child what a firearm meant, in the small scale and large scale. I've seen animals killed by a firearm, I would not want to be that animal or make anyone else that animal. Unfortunately, sometimes others choose to make a firearm a tool to make humans animals, and for those times, I want a firestick of my own.

I only actually own a single shot 12 gauge and a 1022 ruger, and both of those are currently held by my mother in the country. I don't walk around the city like I need a gun, because I don't. if someone is being hostile in my immediate vicinity, I leave, as quickly as the situation permits. If I was in a situation where a lunatic opened up, and I was first hit, there would be nothing I could do, as a military man can't in an ambush, I wouldn't have needed my gun. Any other situation is vigilante justice, and is sad, but what people deserved in that situation (teach you to take a gun out in a room of CCW's, ex) . If someone was dumb enough to assault me during my walks int he woods with my basset, I would definitely poke 5.58mm holes in them(that's the size of my 22 lr cartridge). It's my right to both walk unmolested and protect myself from being molested, such as the situation dictates.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

100% of what Craig234 says is horseshit.

So true!!!

 

[xj0hnx]

And you are under no threat of gun crime from me or any other legal gun owner I know of.

That whole concept is alien to him.

 

[HAL9000]

To Sum Up:

Gun laws in america cause deaths. If guns were banned lives would be saved, and in the long run many many lives would be saved.

You can defend yourself fine without a gun, particularly in a world where you don't need to very often.

The UK has few gun deaths than in the US by a long way.

You don't need guns because the government have them, that is moronic paranoia and by the same logic if the government have nuclear bombs individuals should have the right to them.

The rights that Americans take for granted need re-evaluating.

Good Night.

/Neckarb Out.

P.S. Killing is wrong

 

[xj0hnx]

To Sum Up:

Gun laws in america cause deaths. If guns were banned lives would be saved, and in the long run many many lives would be saved.

You can defend yourself fine without a gun, particularly in a world where you don't need to very often.

The UK has few gun deaths than in the US by a long way.

You don't need guns because the government have them, that is moronic paranoia and by the same logic if the government have nuclear bombs individuals should have the right to them.

The rights that Americans take for granted need re-evaluating.

Good Night.

/Neckarb Out.

P.S. Killing is wrong

To sum it up:

Neckarb is an idiot. Guns don't cause anything, guns are inanimate objects.

 

[bfdd]

Thanks, I agree with the vast majority of that, particularly the Irish thing, it made me chuckle like all those boston irish or NYC irish, and the fact that America goes mental for St. Patricks day, there are more irish people in the England and we do nothing for it.




Bottled water wasn't meant to kill. It's also a very uncommon weapon

You have an irrational fear of others when you should fear yourself is my point. Why would you be so scared of other people who have a lower chance of killing you than you? That's just silly.

PS you can kill someone with a bottle of water, just because it wasn't designed to doesn't mean it can't be used for that. Kitchen knives aren't designed to kill either, but there have been a shit load of them involved in homicides around the world.

You start getting rid of weapons, then what? What are you going to do about people who are just so much physically bigger than others? Please don't bring up tasers as an equalizer either. I have been tased a few times and unless it's some heavier duty one, the little panzy tasers people get for self defense aren't going to stop someone like me.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I never said I do, but obviously I have to use my own morality to argue about ethics...

Yes, but acknowledging that it's YOURS and not MINE, how can you suggest a policy that supports yours at the expense of mine?

 

[nick1985]

If guns were banned lives would be saved

Not true.

 

[SparkyJJO]

To Sum Up:

Gun laws in america cause deaths. If guns were banned lives would be saved, and in the long run many many lives would be saved.

lol. If someone wants to kill you and somehow in some miraculous way banning guns kept them out of the bad guys hands (yeah right) they'll use something else to kill you. The evil is in the PERSON, NOT the object.

Oh, never mind the fact of a simple document called the Constitution. Although, certain groups prefer to ignore it and trample on it...

P.S. Killing is wrong

Correction - MURDER is wrong. Let's set that straight. Nothing wrong with me killing a nest full of hornets outside my door

 

[irishScott]

To Sum Up:

Gun laws in america cause deaths. If guns were banned lives would be saved, and in the long run many many lives would be saved.

You can defend yourself fine without a gun, particularly in a world where you don't need to very often.

The UK has few gun deaths than in the US by a long way.

You don't need guns because the government have them, that is moronic paranoia and by the same logic if the government have nuclear bombs individuals should have the right to them.

The rights that Americans take for granted need re-evaluating.

Good Night.

/Neckarb Out.

P.S. Killing is wrong

1. If guns were banned in the US only criminals would have guns

2. Yes, I'd like to see you defend yourself from me, where I'm armed with an aluminum baseball bat, without a gun.

3. The UK's gun prohibition is only effective due to its geography and the fact that it never had nearly as many guns as the US to start with.

4. While I agree that a full-blown armed revolution is extremely unlikely, the possibility is still there. I do agree that it's far down the priority list of reasons of owning a gun though.

5. And by re-evaluated you mean taken away, and held entirely by the government. The government is not some separate omnipotent entity, it is made up of the people. Our President isn't a king, he is a citizen like the rest of us and subject to the same laws. We are United States Citizens. You apparently enjoy being a English Peasant. Enjoy your peasantry, and stop participating in debates like this. After all your government knows better than you right? Decisions like these aren't your place. Leave issues like this to them.

Night!

 

[Craig234]

I agree with a lot of your points, but with a caveat. Laws are good when they do not deny a person's natural rights, and when laws are created to deter natural rights are when the law steps over bounds. It is not wrong to make murder, theft, or anything that suppresses a persons liberties (such as forced insubordination, be it slavery, coercion , blackmail, etc.) illegal, but it is wrong to limit any right to achieve that goal.

I appreciate your civil response. Let me direct you to the issue that my argument was not the overall issue you addressed - and of course was clearly sarcastic.

Rather, my argument was specifically aimed not at what it suggested, but at debunking the bad argument in the post it responded to.

It was his overly broad argument that could apply to pretty much why anything should be legal I was exposing, not actually arguing to legalize hit men.