EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:28 Hryul wrote: 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. This doesn't read like: give every wacko a gun because hurr durr he wants it. No, no it doesn't. It does, however, explicitly state that we keep the right available to every citizen qualified for it. There are many restrictions as to who can purchase what type of weapon, varying state to state. The man who shot up the school today had unlocked access to his mother's firearms. According to news sources he was also mentally unstable, autistic, and had personality disorders. The logical conclusion here is to not abandon founding principles but to look at how this man fell through the cracks. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:28 Hryul wrote: 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. This doesn't read like: give every wacko a gun because hurr durr he wants it. And I pretty sure the founders didn't have the foresight to predict that guns would be sold and shipped all over the country by using an unregulated virtual market called "the internet". | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:26 gn1k wrote: Retarded America will decide we need more guns so that some random guy with a gun will save us from big shootings like this. Has that ever happened? Have you ever come out of the closet your hiding in and read some of the news that isn't hyper-reported by the media (not a homosexual reference, just a poor choice of words)? Maybe you should do some searching before asking a dumb question like that. I'll start you out: Would you really be able to determine in many cases that someone was about to commit mass murder if they were killed before they carried it out? | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:31 archonOOid wrote: I think there should be a differentiation between rifles and handguns in terms legal restrictions. A pistol or a small handgun is often easily concealed so that a potential shooter can attack as many people as possible. Rifles like those used by hunters and professional bounty hunters aren't the problem. Handguns aren't as useful as a shootguns or rifles when defending yourself against home intruders. Only policemen and secret service personal have truly a great reason for wearing them as defensive or offensive tools. About 1/2 the states do. | ||
|
Eishi_Ki
Korea (South)1667 Posts
Do you really think there is a single person in a true first world country who feels even remotely oppressed that they can't own a gun? A car causes deaths. Verb association: driving A cigarette causes deaths. Verb association: smoking Alcohol causes deaths. Verb association: drinking Guns cause deaths. Verb association: ............. Fill in the blank; but if I was to see a gun, it certainly wouldn't be ' protecting' | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:27 Nagano wrote: I believe you're seriously misrepresenting people who own firearms and "assault weapons". Most are professional, middle-aged family people with careers. I have no problem with firearms that could be used for practical purposes as I stated. Perhaps you could provide a legitimate or practical reason why somebody would want a handgun that doesn't stem from a desire for a sense of power or a misguided belief that they are making people around them safer by carrying these weapons. I dont care if the owners are middle aged with careers. Lots of people in that category try to fill insecurities with objects like cars etc. and I dot see guns being any different. Guns are for killing people, period, get another hobby. You have to respect the weapon, and I don't believe it's possible to respect it while treating it like a toy. Again, don't think we should ban assault weapons, we should treat them like hummers and mercilessly call owners out for being dbags. that way the next time some sorry insecure fuck who thinks they need a lethal weapon to provide a sense of self with will reconsider and just buy a car they can't afford instead. | ||
|
Dienosore
Brunei Darussalam622 Posts
He ordered it online, it came in two days. Then to get his hunting permit so he could legally use it, he had to take an online gun/hunting safety test. Except my bro knows nothing about guns or hunting safety, so he got a friend of his to take the test for him. His friend didn't really know the answers either, so he just looked them up online as they were asked. That being said, my brother had a successful hunting season, killing multiple deer and filing our stomachs up with delicious homemade deer jerky and deer burgers. Do I feel safe living in the same house knowing he has a rifle despite not having a legit permit? Sure, my brother isn't a complete idiot. Was it way too easy for him to get a rifle? Yeah totally. | ||
|
guN-viCe
United States687 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:19 Hryul wrote: IT's still not that easy. The police found a bomb in Bonn (germany) just a few days ago. News reports say that the bomb triggered but failed to explode. One needs at least some basic understanding in electric engineering and chemistry. It's difficult to construct a bomb properly I'm sure, yet I'm finding articles on google about people killing others with bombs. It's possible and it happens. What about suicide bombers? Legal explosives? Black market already assembled explosives? | ||
|
spacemonkeyy
Australia477 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:27 ClanRH.TV wrote: No not really. Where as a person getting their permit plans on excising their newly acquired privilege ASAP (and will for the most part be required for them to do for the rest of their lives), very few people purchase a weapon with the intent to immediately go out and defend themselves. It doesn't take a genius to know you only use a weapon when your lives in eminent danger (generally its fairly easy to tell when someone is trying to kill you). It doesn't take a genius, no. But not every state has stand-your-ground or 'Castle' laws, for instance. If you've just moved from Florida to Illinois, maybe you don't understand the differences. Also, as evidenced by recent events, there needs to be a process to screen fucking nut bars and weirdos. Would you, for instance, sell a gun to a guy that could barely write legibly, obviously couldn't read or couldn't sit still long enough to fill out a fifteen minute test? What's this guy's mental competence? Ideally, simply understanding the law and your rights should be one cursory step in a systematic process towards gun ownership. And it's important for gun sellers feel confident that the person they're selling the gun to understands the law, instead of just assuming they do. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
-treating "forefathers" like some kind of deities that could predict what is right for the country hundreds of years later -good middle class families needing to protect one another from good middle class families(?lol?) -FUCK YEA GUNZZZZZ | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:40 YumYumGranola wrote: I have no problem with firearms that could be used for practical purposes as I stated. Perhaps you could provide a legitimate or practical reason why somebody would want a handgun that doesn't stem from a desire for a sense of power or a misguided belief that they are making people around them safer by carrying these weapons. I dont care if the owners are middle aged with careers. Lots of people in that category try to fill insecurities with objects like cars etc. and I dot see guns being any different. Guns are for killing people, period, get another hobby. You have to respect the weapon, and I don't believe it's possible to respect it while treating it like a toy. Again, don't think we should ban assault weapons, we should treat them like hummers and mercilessly call owners out for being dbags. that way the next time some sorry insecure fuck who thinks they need a lethal weapon to provide a sense of self with will reconsider and just buy a car they can't afford instead. That's quite the judgment on people you don't know. Maybe that's just how you personally feel instead of what you think to be an accurate description of those people? "sense of power, misguided, dbags, sorry insecure fuck". I'm sorry I can't take this post seriously. Get help. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife, there is no question. however, in making killing easier we also make it more accessible. is this a bad thing? that depends, do you think defending yourself with lethal force is sometimes necessary? if so, do you think we should make it easier for the 5'2" 90 pound girl down the street to defend herself in a life threatening situation or harder? killing is made easier so that in grave situations law abiding citizens who would would never normally resort to violence can preserve their lives. it's a tradeoff that many think are worth it. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:41 Dienosore wrote: K so my bro has a hunting rifle. He ordered it online, it came in two days. Then to get his hunting permit so he could legally use it, he had to take an online gun/hunting safety test. Except my bro knows nothing about guns or hunting safety, so he got a friend of his to take the test for him. His friend didn't really know the answers either, so he just looked them up online as they were asked. That being said, my brother had a successful hunting season, killing multiple deer and filing our stomachs up with delicious homemade deer jerky and deer burgers. Do I feel safe living in the same house knowing he has a rifle despite not having a legit permit? Sure, my brother isn't a complete idiot. Was it way too easy for him to get a rifle? Yeah totally. Googling for guns. Sigh. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:31 Nagano wrote: No, no it doesn't. It does, however, explicitly state that we keep the right available to every citizen qualified for it. There are many restrictions as to who can purchase what type of weapon, varying state to state. The man who shot up the school today had unlocked access to his mother's firearms. According to news sources he was also mentally unstable, autistic, and had personality disorders. The logical conclusion here is to not abandon founding principles but to look at how this man fell through the cracks. Well for me the first part shows the intend that the Arms should be used to organize to defend the security of the free state. This job was taken by real Militias until 1905. Now you have so called militias who paint their rifle in Hello Kitty style and meet at the weekend to fire some bullets into the wilderness. I thought the 2nd amendment just said: Weapons for everyone but upon seeing the exact wording in the context of the defensive system of the US at that time I do believe it is a relict of the past which lost its validity. Because strictly speaking also the right to own anti tank/aircraft/ship missiles could be justified with the defense of the nation. But hey, even judges at the supreme court disagree with me so who cares  | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:44 Destro wrote: This thread is actually starting to freak me out.. the lengths people are going to in order to try and validate having guns is really weird.. -treating "forefathers" like some kind of deities that could predict what is right for the country hundreds of years later -good middle class families needing to protect one another from good middle class families(?lol?) -FUCK YEA GUNZZZZZ 1. Forefathers is a name for the people who drafted the constitution. The term "father" might sound like God, but it's the term used for them. 2. From criminals, not from other "good middle class famillies". That's the self defense argument. There's also other traditional uses for firearms that might not be in your country's culture. 3. Guns need to be respected. The firearm community looks down upon those who view it as toys or those who feel they're GI Joe. I agree, they're douchebags. | ||
micronesia
United States24670 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:44 Destro wrote: This thread is actually starting to freak me out.. the lengths people are going to in order to try and validate having guns is really weird.. -treating "forefathers" like some kind of deities that could predict what is right for the country hundreds of years later -good middle class families needing to protect one another from good middle class families(?lol?) -FUCK YEA GUNZZZZZ Some people use their guns for hunting regularly, and never have safety issues. Some people go target shooting multiple times a week, and have never been within earshot of gun violence (other than silhouette targets getting bullet holes in them of course). To say that it's weird for them to want to validate their having guns, when it's a big and safe part of their lives is to not put yourself in their shoes. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:48 Hryul wrote: Well for me the first part shows the intend that the Arms should be used to organize to defend the security of the free state. This job was taken by real Militias until 1905. Now you have so called militias who paint their rifle in Hello Kitty style and meet at the weekend to fire some bullets into the wilderness. I thought the 2nd amendment just said: Weapons for everyone but upon seeing the exact wording in the context of the defensive system of the US at that time I do believe it is a relict of the past which lost its validity. Because strictly speaking also the right to own anti tank/aircraft/ship missiles could be justified with the defense of the nation. But hey, even judges at the supreme court disagree with me so who cares You're right, Supreme Court judges do disagree with you. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:42 guN-viCe wrote: It's difficult to construct a bomb properly I'm sure, yet I'm finding articles on google about people killing others with bombs. It's possible and it happens. What about suicide bombers? Legal explosives? Black market already assembled explosives? The point I tried to make was: It is harder to make a homemade bombe properly than to shop a gun and use it. | ||
| ||
