On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
Not much, I don't really give a damn what goes on down in england but I think it's more a result of the increased activities of african gangs bringing weapons/drugs into the country than anything else, all these illegal firearms have to be coming from somewhere and there are the people (mostly immigrants) who are crazy enough to use them. Also Labour were pretty dumb and I'm glad to see the back of them. Regardless though, ~5,000 to ~10,000 is a small increase considering the large increase in population over the last 10 years and that statistic covers an area with over 50 million people living in it. And finally the article is from the Daily Fail, I wouldn't put too much faith in them.
On July 16 2010 11:51 jello_biafra wrote: Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
So do it. If you can't, your should statement is flat wrong.
So you want me to go back in time, join the US government and change the constitution myself?
I know it would be a next to impossible task because so many people already have firearms but you could at least stop exacerbating the problem by allowing anyone to by them freely now...
On July 16 2010 12:28 jello_biafra wrote: So you want me to go back in time, join the US government and change the constitution myself?
I know it would be a next to impossible task because so many people already have firearms but you could at least stop exacerbating the problem by allowing anyone to by them freely now...
You realize Congress can pass a constitutional amendment that invalidates the 2nd amendment, right?
Just exercise your right to vote.
Nobody has come remotely close to proving that gun ownership is even a problem, so your argument is pretty weak.
I should put those on youtube thread. The states has nominated some strange candidates and some have successfully taken office. But to be fair this exists in many parts of the world.
Ok, first of all, you dont know what the hell you are talking about. Second of all, bad people get guns, no matter what. There is nothing you can ever do to stop that, all you can do is be prepared for the worst. That is why I roll with my AR15 in the trunk and glock 45 in my backpack everywhere, because I dont want some dumb son of a bitch who decides he wants to play real life grand theft auto to be given the opportunity to get away with it. You can believe in whatever non existent liberal fairy tale land you like (where the tooth fairy Obama "HOPES for change", and gets it), but when shit hits the fan and the "right wing nutjob" packing heat kills the guy going on a killing spree, you'll have a change of heart. Unfortunately, you probably wont ever experience that, although you deserve to with your dumb ass ignorant attitude.
According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."
FOURTH:
I have PERSONALLY, had my retail store robbed, 3 times in the past 6th months. 3 TIMES IN 6 MONTHS. THOUSANDS, of dollars lost, each time. My retail store, is in what by most peoples standards would be considered, located in a middle, to upper class area. DIFFERENT, people each time. First two were white, 3rd time it was one white guy one black guy. I dont cite race as the issue, its all about the character of the individuals, and most of the time you dumb ass liberals like to ignore things like that, and turn things around on the justice system, when in reality the justice system is failing us by giving these people third and fourth and fifth chances...
The thing is, liberals everywhere, sympathize with these people. I can guarantee you, that each one of these bastards shares a common state of mind, THEY THINK THEY, ARE THE VICTIMS, and they use that mentality to justify the terrible crimes they commit. (And the more that people sympathize with people who are breaking the law and escaping our failing system, the more they will continue to do them) -- Things in this country have gotten so ass backwards in sympathy for people who are convinced THEY are the victims, that it is personified in the very personality of the fraud the majority of idiots in this country elected.
MORAL OF THE STORY IS:
Until Americans wake up and realize the justice system and MOST other systems in this country are failing us, good people in this country on BOTH sides will see evil continue to rise steadily, due to the backwards ass tolerance for crime, and the complete and absolute silencing of common sense that has run so rampant ever since Obama weaseled his way into office.
But hey, I guess we could just continue to sit around and "HOPE FOR CHANGE"!
Ham what a damn joke.
[QUOTE]On July 16 2010 08:02 mmp wrote: We already know that Arizona is the most [url=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=124879]openly racist state[/url] in the union, but things only get worse... to the point that they have become disturbingly hilarious.
Apparently credentials for public office now include marksmanship and assault weapons training.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
How do you propose a country with 90 guns per 100 people get rid of this "problem". There is no constitutional means by which you could do this. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2834893820070828 This article is from 2007 so I bet the number is even higher now.
Many countries have to deal with problems harder to solve, like AIDS and other diseases. Guns in the USA are a disease. People like this lady are trying to cure a wound the easy way and in the long term this method will fail. Oh wait, it already failed.
Oh and FIFTH. Do you know why Afghanistan is in the top 5% of the HIGHEST rate of crime and corruption in the world, where there are more murders and horrendous crimes committed by people than probably any country (excluding Somalia and maybe a couple other African countries), in the world? 1 Reason: The TALIBAN, have all the guns. (Which IS, by the way, our fault, for arming them, and also, another reason we have to be there to clean up OUR mess). The villages are spread so thin and its such a dark ages type situation in most of the areas, that the evil people with guns roll into villages, rape whoever they want, kill whoever they want, take whoever they wants children, and then brainwash them into joining them. (at least, before we entered this last time) -- But if everyone in Afghanistan had a gun, we wouldnt need to be there. Sure, there would be some killing, but probably in the span of a week all of the terrorists would either be dead, or give up fighting, because they are such a small percentage of the population, the problem is LITERALLY NO CITIZENS in afghanistan have guns because they are so poor that they cant afford them. And the government troops are scared as shit of them, because they know just how evil they are. Point is, that is the perfect example of what happens when you take away the option for someone to purchase and carry a gun, the bad people ignore the rules, and then become the ones who make the rules at everyone elses expense.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
On July 16 2010 12:48 lexusgs430 wrote: Oh and FIFTH. Do you know why Afghanistan is in the top 5% of the HIGHEST rate of crime and corruption in the world, where there are more murders and horrendous crimes committed by people than probably any country (excluding Somalia and maybe a couple other African countries), in the world? 1 Reason: The TALIBAN, have all the guns. (Which IS, by the way, our fault, for arming them, and also, another reason we have to be there to clean up OUR mess). The villages are spread so thin and its such a dark ages type situation in most of the areas, that the evil people with guns roll into villages, rape whoever they want, kill whoever they want, take whoever they wants children, and then brainwash them into joining them. (at least, before we entered this last time) -- But if everyone in Afghanistan had a gun, we wouldnt need to be there. Sure, there would be some killing, but probably in the span of a week all of the terrorists would either be dead, or give up fighting, because they are such a small percentage of the population, the problem is LITERALLY NO CITIZENS in afghanistan have guns because they are so poor that they cant afford them. And the government troops are scared as shit of them, because they know just how evil they are. Point is, that is the perfect example of what happens when you take away the option for someone to purchase and carry a gun, the bad people ignore the rules, and then become the ones who make the rules at everyone elses expense.
lmao dude I think you need to chill out and try to find the massive pitfalls in trying to present Afghanistan's problems as solely the result of gun ownership.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
Not much, I don't really give a damn what goes on down in england but I think it's more a result of the increased activities of african gangs bringing weapons/drugs into the country than anything else, all these illegal firearms have to be coming from somewhere and there are the people (mostly immigrants) who are crazy enough to use them. Also Labour were pretty dumb and I'm glad to see the back of them. Regardless though, ~5,000 to ~10,000 is a small increase considering the large increase in population over the last 10 years and that statistic covers an area with over 50 million people living in it. And finally the article is from the Daily Fail, I wouldn't put too much faith in them.
5,000 to 10,000 isn't a small increase. That's a 100% increase. Meanwhile the population has gone up by less than 5% over the last decade, according to wiki. How is a 100% increase a small increase while a 5% increase is a large increase?
Gun crime is lower(Edit: In the UK), but most likely more deadly on average per incident (since law enforcement over in the UK doesn't have direct access to guns at all, and a special unit needs to be called in (similar to SWAT in the US) in the event of a gun-related emergency).
When owning a gun is illegal, only the criminals have them.~serves as a strong argument for the allowance of private gun ownership.
Edited: since a few people responded between me and the person I was responding to.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
Well isn't that convenient! People are happy to throw out "zomgz europe is safe because there are no guns", but the second that statement is disprove it isn't relevant.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
Well isn't that convenient! People are happy to throw out "zomgz europe is safe because there are no guns", but the second that statement is disprove it isn't relevant.
It says right in the article you shouldn't compare. For example, the USA only reports felony assault as a violent crime. Edit: lesser assaults are not considered violent crime. Sure, you can compare gun deaths\crime, knife deaths\crime, home invasions, whatever specific category you want, but "violent crime" is widely differently defined.
Edit2: or you could set the definition of the components of violent crime and then add them up, but as of now the self-reported violent crime definitions are very much different.
Arizona is fine; people like to freak out to generate jouissance. The law sucked as originally written. They fixed it but no one gives a shit because it's about furthering the realization of progressive ideology, not about studying the situation with rational detachment.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because most of the time the people questioning the founding fathers are random liberals on the Internet who don't know shit? Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because most of the time the people questioning the founding fathers are random liberals on the Internet who don't know shit? Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because most of the time the people questioning the founding fathers are random liberals on the Internet who don't know shit? Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
Yes.
Of course I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do so. But there's a reason people assume the founding fathers had a better vision for this country than random posters on TL which is why people respond in that way.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
spare your time lalush. this "discussion" really has nothing to offer than a bunch of gun-trolls and people jumping them in thinking it matters.
oh yeah ...
On July 16 2010 13:22 QuakerOats wrote: Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
actually, here where i live, we do. seems we accepted that, especially with social groups, there are no absolutes or real constants. you us guys will figure it out ... eventually.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because most of the time the people questioning the founding fathers are random liberals on the Internet who don't know shit? Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
Yes.
Of course I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do so. But there's a reason people assume the founding fathers had a better vision for this country than random posters on TL which is why people respond in that way.
They did a pretty damn good job ^.^ .
Specifically about the 2nd Amendment... there are limitations just like any other amendment. This is NOT an excuse to ban handguns like Washington D.C., implement strong restrictions, that sort of thing.
Admittedly that is a really hard line to find, but at least we could agree outright bans violate the second amendment quite clearly.
EPT
But there's a reason people assume the founding fathers had a better vision for this country than random posters on TL which is why people respond in that way.
