|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one
|
I believe all Sweden(might be wrong country i am thinking of but i know there's one out there that does this) Males have to own a pistol/rifle by the age of 21-25 or something, nothing like the batman shooting has ever happened there. no Columbine, no shootings at military bases... i could go on and on about how well that works for them. Imagine if every single adult male was required by law to own a handgun/rifle how much these insane attacks against people would have mitigated damages. people want to take guns away from us, this will only lead to higher crime rates, because without a deterrent what is to stop a gang members or criminals in general from getting an illegal gun(nothing not even laws against owning weapons would prevent this) You would be disarming the general public taking away their safety from our Government and from those that would harm us on our god given soil.
God Bless America and the families harmed by the recent shooting, my heart and prayers go out to all, even the batman killers family deserves our prayers this is probably very hard on them they lost a son in this just like the people who lost loved ones that terrible night.
|
On July 22 2012 10:23 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one
I agree heavily with this position. One of the great flaws of gun ownership is that in a lot of places in the US, it's easy for anyone but a felon to get weapons. In the state of Delaware, where I live, there are more or less 3 restrictions. You must be 18 for any long gun (a rifle with a barrel of at least 16" or a shotgun with a barrel of at least 18"), 21 for any handgun (a short weapon designed to be held and operated in a single hand), and no class 3 weapons (including AOWs). But while I was still in high school I was able to go out and buy any rifle or shotgun that I wanted, no questions, no license. Kinda silly.
|
On July 22 2012 10:28 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:23 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one I agree heavily with this position. One of the great flaws of gun ownership is that in a lot of places in the US, it's easy for anyone but a felon to get weapons. In the state of Delaware, where I live, there are more or less 3 restrictions. You must be 18 for any long gun (a rifle with a barrel of at least 16" or a shotgun with a barrel of at least 18"), 21 for any handgun (a short weapon designed to be held and operated in a single hand), and no class 3 weapons (including AOWs). But while I was still in high school I was able to go out and buy any rifle or shotgun that I wanted, no questions, no license. Kinda silly.
Because the point is inherently anti-goverment. Its like registering to be a Jew in 1920s Germany.
|
On July 22 2012 10:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:05 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly. Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion? Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people. I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb. I don't see what Logical connection you are ascribing to me. I don't think debates about Citizens United belong here. I called out said poster for doing it and said they only reason he brought it in is because he believes in both causes. That is all. edit. Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:16 Shantastic wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim. And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government. 1. Your "old guns" context just changes the opportunity cost of freedom. Lots of things do that. I still feel that the cost is much less than the benefit. 2. Yes, the cops have better weapons than the average person. BUT, do you think the NoPD could impose martial law on the entirety of New Orleans? No, they can't, thats why they called in the National Guard during Katrina. Guess what, they can't call in the National Guard to every city in the country.
Not the National Guard, but the force of the United States military? If the President and Joint Chiefs decided to stage a coup d'etat, something tells me they won't care about posse comitatus. And don't forget the nuclear, biological, and intelligent weapons arsenal capable of destroying every living soul in America dozens of times over. One of their men can kill a thousand of us from a computer. Guess what: if the White House Press Secretary tells me his boss has a drone camping my front door, I'm not leaving my house.
If you think having an M4 keeps you safe from that, I got nothin'.
|
On July 22 2012 10:27 Nazarid wrote:
I believe all Sweden(might be wrong country i am thinking of but i know there's one out there that does this) Males have to own a pistol/rifle by the age of 21-25 or something, nothing like the batman shooting has ever happened there. no Columbine, no shootings at military bases... i could go on and on about how well that works for them. Imagine if every single adult male was required by law to own a handgun/rifle how much these insane attacks against people would have mitigated damages. people want to take guns away from us, this will only lead to higher crime rates, because without a deterrent what is to stop a gang members or criminals in general from getting an illegal gun(nothing not even laws against owning weapons would prevent this) You would be disarming the general public taking away their safety from our Government and from those that would harm us on our god given soil.
God Bless America and the families harmed by the recent shooting, my heart and prayers go out to all, even the batman killers family deserves our prayers this is probably very hard on them they lost a son in this just like the people who lost loved ones that terrible night.
Well at least it's not Sweden. I would like to know which country it is though.
|
On July 22 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:05 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly. Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion? Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people. Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:07 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Those things are relevant when you're living in a young nation that just broke free from forreign opression. Not in this modern world. How would armed citizens pose any threat to forreign agression. The only forreign agression/invasion you will encounter in the comming hundred years is terrorism. When have armed citizens of a wealthy western modern country stopped an invasion? And when there is a reason to rise up against your own goverment gun laws won't stop the population from arming themselfs. Having guns to protect your freedom to have guns is just fasle logic. And is the possibility of one of those (in my eyes) unrealistic events happening worth all the deaths by gun violence? Yes it is. And hundreds of armed civilians have broken free from oppression in Egypt and other Mideastern countries. Its not neccessary for the citizens to have a nuke to defends against a country with nukes. Go ahead and destroy what you are trying to oppress, thats not the point. Terrorism works, the relatively unadvanced and unarmed Iraqi and Afghani people have soured the overarmed American force in a decade. If those same American troops tried to Occupy Jacksonville they would have left in 2002.
i only bring up american politics because you make the argument that guns are linked to your ability to be free from tyranny and to defend yourself. and yet its pretty clear your liberties are in danger, companies are out to fuck you in the ass and your gun isnt helping you at all, sooo yeee...
|
On July 22 2012 10:27 Nazarid wrote:
I believe all Sweden(might be wrong country i am thinking of but i know there's one out there that does this) Males have to own a pistol/rifle by the age of 21-25 or something, nothing like the batman shooting has ever happened there. no Columbine, no shootings at military bases... i could go on and on about how well that works for them. Imagine if every single adult male was required by law to own a handgun/rifle how much these insane attacks against people would have mitigated damages. people want to take guns away from us, this will only lead to higher crime rates, because without a deterrent what is to stop a gang members or criminals in general from getting an illegal gun(nothing not even laws against owning weapons would prevent this) You would be disarming the general public taking away their safety from our Government and from those that would harm us on our god given soil.
God Bless America and the families harmed by the recent shooting, my heart and prayers go out to all, even the batman killers family deserves our prayers this is probably very hard on them they lost a son in this just like the people who lost loved ones that terrible night.
I think you are referring to Switzerland and I also believe that law is revoked.
As far as I know (and it has propably been discussed earlier) they had to have the gun locked up in their basement without ammo and they were to train with it every year or so for a day. In an emergency the ammo would be handed out by nearby storages.
The difference lies in the fact that you only get such a gun when you completed a training (military service? plz someone from swiiss come help me ^^)
|
On July 22 2012 10:31 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:18 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:05 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly. Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion? Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people. I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb. I don't see what Logical connection you are ascribing to me. I don't think debates about Citizens United belong here. I called out said poster for doing it and said they only reason he brought it in is because he believes in both causes. That is all. edit. On July 22 2012 10:16 Shantastic wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim. And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government. 1. Your "old guns" context just changes the opportunity cost of freedom. Lots of things do that. I still feel that the cost is much less than the benefit. 2. Yes, the cops have better weapons than the average person. BUT, do you think the NoPD could impose martial law on the entirety of New Orleans? No, they can't, thats why they called in the National Guard during Katrina. Guess what, they can't call in the National Guard to every city in the country. Not the National Guard, but the force of the United States military? If the President and Joint Chiefs decided to stage a coup d'etat, something tells me they won't care about posse comitatus. And don't forget the nuclear, biological, and intelligent weapons arsenal capable of destroying every living soul in America dozens of times over. One of their men can kill a thousand of us from a computer. Guess what: if the White House Press Secretary tells me his boss has a drone camping my front door, I'm not leaving my house. If you think having an M4 keeps you safe from that, I got nothin'.
If a country wants to wage total war on itself, then the leaders can do that, but that defeats the purpose of staging the coup, because now you are the leader of a crippled nation. NOTHING CAN PREVENT THAT. What a tyrant wants to do is take over with no resistance.
On July 22 2012 10:34 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:05 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly. Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion? Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people. On July 22 2012 10:07 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Those things are relevant when you're living in a young nation that just broke free from forreign opression. Not in this modern world. How would armed citizens pose any threat to forreign agression. The only forreign agression/invasion you will encounter in the comming hundred years is terrorism. When have armed citizens of a wealthy western modern country stopped an invasion? And when there is a reason to rise up against your own goverment gun laws won't stop the population from arming themselfs. Having guns to protect your freedom to have guns is just fasle logic. And is the possibility of one of those (in my eyes) unrealistic events happening worth all the deaths by gun violence? Yes it is. And hundreds of armed civilians have broken free from oppression in Egypt and other Mideastern countries. Its not neccessary for the citizens to have a nuke to defends against a country with nukes. Go ahead and destroy what you are trying to oppress, thats not the point. Terrorism works, the relatively unadvanced and unarmed Iraqi and Afghani people have soured the overarmed American force in a decade. If those same American troops tried to Occupy Jacksonville they would have left in 2002. i only bring up american politics because you make the argument that guns are linked to your ability to be free from tyranny and to defend yourself. and yet its pretty clear your liberties are in danger, companies are out to fuck you in the ass and your gun isnt helping you at all, sooo yeee...
A conpany cannot infringe on my liberties without help from the government. Unless it becomes a Pseudo-Government with its own police force and courts, etc.
|
On July 22 2012 10:30 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:28 Chargelot wrote:On July 22 2012 10:23 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one I agree heavily with this position. One of the great flaws of gun ownership is that in a lot of places in the US, it's easy for anyone but a felon to get weapons. In the state of Delaware, where I live, there are more or less 3 restrictions. You must be 18 for any long gun (a rifle with a barrel of at least 16" or a shotgun with a barrel of at least 18"), 21 for any handgun (a short weapon designed to be held and operated in a single hand), and no class 3 weapons (including AOWs). But while I was still in high school I was able to go out and buy any rifle or shotgun that I wanted, no questions, no license. Kinda silly. Because the point is inherently anti-goverment. Its like registering to be a Jew in 1920s Germany.
A) The Nazis didn't come to power in the 1920s, so being a Jew in 1920s Germany was like being a Jew in 1920s USA, but overall with more job opportunities.
B) I can't kill you from 100 yards away with a yarmulkah, so your analogy has absolutely no merit.
C) The point isn't inherently anti-government. There's no mention of government in the reasoning for the amendment. The language says nothing of protection against government, and it even suggests the militia in question be regulated: "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."
|
On July 22 2012 10:30 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:28 Chargelot wrote:On July 22 2012 10:23 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one I agree heavily with this position. One of the great flaws of gun ownership is that in a lot of places in the US, it's easy for anyone but a felon to get weapons. In the state of Delaware, where I live, there are more or less 3 restrictions. You must be 18 for any long gun (a rifle with a barrel of at least 16" or a shotgun with a barrel of at least 18"), 21 for any handgun (a short weapon designed to be held and operated in a single hand), and no class 3 weapons (including AOWs). But while I was still in high school I was able to go out and buy any rifle or shotgun that I wanted, no questions, no license. Kinda silly. Because the point is inherently anti-goverment. Its like registering to be a Jew in 1920s Germany.
Really?
I must be reading this wrong because I am tired.
You're saying being forced to get a license for a firearm is the same as early 20th century Germany for the Jews?
|
On July 22 2012 10:33 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:27 Nazarid wrote:
I believe all Sweden(might be wrong country i am thinking of but i know there's one out there that does this) Males have to own a pistol/rifle by the age of 21-25 or something, nothing like the batman shooting has ever happened there. no Columbine, no shootings at military bases... i could go on and on about how well that works for them. Imagine if every single adult male was required by law to own a handgun/rifle how much these insane attacks against people would have mitigated damages. people want to take guns away from us, this will only lead to higher crime rates, because without a deterrent what is to stop a gang members or criminals in general from getting an illegal gun(nothing not even laws against owning weapons would prevent this) You would be disarming the general public taking away their safety from our Government and from those that would harm us on our god given soil.
God Bless America and the families harmed by the recent shooting, my heart and prayers go out to all, even the batman killers family deserves our prayers this is probably very hard on them they lost a son in this just like the people who lost loved ones that terrible night. Well at least it's not Sweden. I would like to know which country it is though.
Think he's talking about Switzerland. Between the ages of 20-34 all males are tested then conscripted into the military where afterwards they are permitted to keep their weapons. Keep in mind the fitness test is very rigorous with Roger Federer failing it.
|
On July 22 2012 10:31 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:18 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:05 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly. Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion? Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people. I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb. I don't see what Logical connection you are ascribing to me. I don't think debates about Citizens United belong here. I called out said poster for doing it and said they only reason he brought it in is because he believes in both causes. That is all. edit. On July 22 2012 10:16 Shantastic wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim. And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government. 1. Your "old guns" context just changes the opportunity cost of freedom. Lots of things do that. I still feel that the cost is much less than the benefit. 2. Yes, the cops have better weapons than the average person. BUT, do you think the NoPD could impose martial law on the entirety of New Orleans? No, they can't, thats why they called in the National Guard during Katrina. Guess what, they can't call in the National Guard to every city in the country. Not the National Guard, but the force of the United States military? If the President and Joint Chiefs decided to stage a coup d'etat, something tells me they won't care about posse comitatus. And don't forget the nuclear, biological, and intelligent weapons arsenal capable of destroying every living soul in America dozens of times over. One of their men can kill a thousand of us from a computer. Guess what: if the White House Press Secretary tells me his boss has a drone camping my front door, I'm not leaving my house. If you think having an M4 keeps you safe from that, I got nothin'.
This type of argument is so fucking stupid it is beyond me. Ask yourself, why would they ever kill everyone ? What is the goal of that? People are there to work, killing all of your workers? non-logical. That's like saying "I have skin cancer in 4 of my limbs, I best cut all of them off and hope it works"
"facepalm"
|
On July 22 2012 10:35 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:27 Nazarid wrote:
I believe all Sweden(might be wrong country i am thinking of but i know there's one out there that does this) Males have to own a pistol/rifle by the age of 21-25 or something, nothing like the batman shooting has ever happened there. no Columbine, no shootings at military bases... i could go on and on about how well that works for them. Imagine if every single adult male was required by law to own a handgun/rifle how much these insane attacks against people would have mitigated damages. people want to take guns away from us, this will only lead to higher crime rates, because without a deterrent what is to stop a gang members or criminals in general from getting an illegal gun(nothing not even laws against owning weapons would prevent this) You would be disarming the general public taking away their safety from our Government and from those that would harm us on our god given soil.
God Bless America and the families harmed by the recent shooting, my heart and prayers go out to all, even the batman killers family deserves our prayers this is probably very hard on them they lost a son in this just like the people who lost loved ones that terrible night. I think you are referring to Switzerland and I also believe that law is revoked. As far as I know (and it has propably been discussed earlier) they had to have the gun locked up in their basement without ammo and they were to train with it every year or so for a day. In an emergency the ammo would be handed out by nearby storages. The difference lies in the fact that you only get such a gun when you completed a training (military service? plz someone from swiiss come help me ^^)
Part of owning a gun is being trained in how to use it. if you just own a gun and have no training you are giving yourself a disservice. ALL gun owners should have training with guns period. you wouldn't buy a car for yourself if you didn't know how to drive it would you?
|
On July 22 2012 10:30 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:28 Chargelot wrote:On July 22 2012 10:23 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one I agree heavily with this position. One of the great flaws of gun ownership is that in a lot of places in the US, it's easy for anyone but a felon to get weapons. In the state of Delaware, where I live, there are more or less 3 restrictions. You must be 18 for any long gun (a rifle with a barrel of at least 16" or a shotgun with a barrel of at least 18"), 21 for any handgun (a short weapon designed to be held and operated in a single hand), and no class 3 weapons (including AOWs). But while I was still in high school I was able to go out and buy any rifle or shotgun that I wanted, no questions, no license. Kinda silly. Because the point is inherently anti-goverment. Its like registering to be a Jew in 1920s Germany.
...
dude.
neglecting the low-blow, most people in the US possess at least one gun, right? so what is your fear. do you think uncle sam will go *okay we want to be a tyranny, let's first clear the areas where people have mostly AK-47s*? :D
is there no register for weapons in the US? im quite confused because it's the most simple tool when invetsigating daedly shootings, you can just compare the marks on the bullet to samples in a data base and bam you got a weapon and you know who is responsible for that weapon.
|
On July 22 2012 10:38 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:30 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:28 Chargelot wrote:On July 22 2012 10:23 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one I agree heavily with this position. One of the great flaws of gun ownership is that in a lot of places in the US, it's easy for anyone but a felon to get weapons. In the state of Delaware, where I live, there are more or less 3 restrictions. You must be 18 for any long gun (a rifle with a barrel of at least 16" or a shotgun with a barrel of at least 18"), 21 for any handgun (a short weapon designed to be held and operated in a single hand), and no class 3 weapons (including AOWs). But while I was still in high school I was able to go out and buy any rifle or shotgun that I wanted, no questions, no license. Kinda silly. Because the point is inherently anti-goverment. Its like registering to be a Jew in 1920s Germany. A) The Nazis didn't come to power in the 1920s, so being a Jew in 1920s Germany was like being a Jew in 1920s USA, but overall with more job opportunities. B) I can't kill you from 100 yards away with a yarmulkah, so your analogy has absolutely no merit. C) The point isn't inherently anti-government. There's no mention of government in the reasoning for the amendment. The language says nothing of protection against government, and it even suggests the militia in question be regulated: "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."
Well, when it says "to the security of a free state" it's being used as "free from unnecessary government intrustion". It means free as in freedom, being a synonym of liberty, which is the absence of external impediment. It is anti-government, but not just "anti-government". It's more anti-tyranny than anti-government. It is to protect the nation from an unnecessary lack of liberties caused by an oppressive governing body.
On July 22 2012 10:41 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:30 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:28 Chargelot wrote:On July 22 2012 10:23 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one I agree heavily with this position. One of the great flaws of gun ownership is that in a lot of places in the US, it's easy for anyone but a felon to get weapons. In the state of Delaware, where I live, there are more or less 3 restrictions. You must be 18 for any long gun (a rifle with a barrel of at least 16" or a shotgun with a barrel of at least 18"), 21 for any handgun (a short weapon designed to be held and operated in a single hand), and no class 3 weapons (including AOWs). But while I was still in high school I was able to go out and buy any rifle or shotgun that I wanted, no questions, no license. Kinda silly. Because the point is inherently anti-goverment. Its like registering to be a Jew in 1920s Germany. ... dude. neglecting the low-blow, most people in the US possess at least one gun, right? so what is your fear. do you think uncle sam will go *okay we want to be a tyranny, let's first clear the areas where people have mostly AK-47s*? :D is there no register for weapons in the US? im quite confused because it's the most simple tool when invetsigating daedly shootings, you can just compare the marks on the bullet to samples in a data base and bam you got a weapon and you know who is responsible for that weapon.
It's handled on a state by state basis. California and New York both require you to register all weapons, I believe. But here in Delaware I don't need to register anything unless I am getting a concealed carry license for a handgun.
|
On July 22 2012 10:38 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:30 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:28 Chargelot wrote:On July 22 2012 10:23 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. Why is gun freedom important? regulation imho does only mean that you have to take courses and such on your responsibilities as a gun owner before acquiring one and that you register your gun..doesn't take away anything from your right to possess one I agree heavily with this position. One of the great flaws of gun ownership is that in a lot of places in the US, it's easy for anyone but a felon to get weapons. In the state of Delaware, where I live, there are more or less 3 restrictions. You must be 18 for any long gun (a rifle with a barrel of at least 16" or a shotgun with a barrel of at least 18"), 21 for any handgun (a short weapon designed to be held and operated in a single hand), and no class 3 weapons (including AOWs). But while I was still in high school I was able to go out and buy any rifle or shotgun that I wanted, no questions, no license. Kinda silly. Because the point is inherently anti-goverment. Its like registering to be a Jew in 1920s Germany. Really? I must be reading this wrong because I am tired. You're saying being forced to get a license for a firearm is the same as early 20th century Germany for the Jews?
First aof all to an unquoted post. I said the 1920s because it Preceded the rise to power, thus would have enabled the Nazi's.
What I am saying is this: if you are intending to suppress liberties and expect resistance, the registry is really going to help you systematically cripple that resistance isn't it?
|
On July 22 2012 10:36 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:31 Shantastic wrote:On July 22 2012 10:18 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:05 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly. Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion? Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people. I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb. I don't see what Logical connection you are ascribing to me. I don't think debates about Citizens United belong here. I called out said poster for doing it and said they only reason he brought it in is because he believes in both causes. That is all. edit. On July 22 2012 10:16 Shantastic wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim. And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government. 1. Your "old guns" context just changes the opportunity cost of freedom. Lots of things do that. I still feel that the cost is much less than the benefit. 2. Yes, the cops have better weapons than the average person. BUT, do you think the NoPD could impose martial law on the entirety of New Orleans? No, they can't, thats why they called in the National Guard during Katrina. Guess what, they can't call in the National Guard to every city in the country. Not the National Guard, but the force of the United States military? If the President and Joint Chiefs decided to stage a coup d'etat, something tells me they won't care about posse comitatus. And don't forget the nuclear, biological, and intelligent weapons arsenal capable of destroying every living soul in America dozens of times over. One of their men can kill a thousand of us from a computer. Guess what: if the White House Press Secretary tells me his boss has a drone camping my front door, I'm not leaving my house. If you think having an M4 keeps you safe from that, I got nothin'. If a country wants to wage total war on itself, then the leaders can do that, but that defeats the purpose of staging the coup, because now you are the leader of a crippled nation. NOTHING CAN PREVENT THAT. What a tyrant wants to do is take over with no resistance.
Who ever said anything about actually using the weapon? Just like mutually assured destruction, minus the mutuality. They have the deterrent, not us.
|
On July 22 2012 10:40 Nazarid wrote:
Part of owning a gun is being trained in how to use it. if you just own a gun and have no training you are giving yourself a disservice. ALL gun owners should have training with guns period. you wouldn't buy a car for yourself if you didn't know how to drive it would you?
is it required?
|
On July 22 2012 10:44 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:36 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:31 Shantastic wrote:On July 22 2012 10:18 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 10:05 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote:Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not. Edit: In case someone wants to dispute this... ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion. edit On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:
[quote]
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme. Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree. No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly. Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion? Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people. I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb. I don't see what Logical connection you are ascribing to me. I don't think debates about Citizens United belong here. I called out said poster for doing it and said they only reason he brought it in is because he believes in both causes. That is all. edit. On July 22 2012 10:16 Shantastic wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim. And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government. 1. Your "old guns" context just changes the opportunity cost of freedom. Lots of things do that. I still feel that the cost is much less than the benefit. 2. Yes, the cops have better weapons than the average person. BUT, do you think the NoPD could impose martial law on the entirety of New Orleans? No, they can't, thats why they called in the National Guard during Katrina. Guess what, they can't call in the National Guard to every city in the country. Not the National Guard, but the force of the United States military? If the President and Joint Chiefs decided to stage a coup d'etat, something tells me they won't care about posse comitatus. And don't forget the nuclear, biological, and intelligent weapons arsenal capable of destroying every living soul in America dozens of times over. One of their men can kill a thousand of us from a computer. Guess what: if the White House Press Secretary tells me his boss has a drone camping my front door, I'm not leaving my house. If you think having an M4 keeps you safe from that, I got nothin'. If a country wants to wage total war on itself, then the leaders can do that, but that defeats the purpose of staging the coup, because now you are the leader of a crippled nation. NOTHING CAN PREVENT THAT. What a tyrant wants to do is take over with no resistance. Who ever said anything about actually using the weapon? Just like mutually assured destruction, minus the mutuality. They have the deterrent, not us.
Please further explain your hypothetical where the government successfully threatens to use Nukes/Bioweapons against a territory they are occupying because resistance it too much, and how that ends well for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
6516
2289
1694
EPT
