|
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 December 15 2012 11:57 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead.
Nice comment man. You should say that in every gun debate topic from here on.
|
On December 15 2012 12:06 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:55 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:53 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:51 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:48 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:28 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:23 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:22 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 11:16 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Guns will never be banned in the United States. Argue, disagree, do what makes you feel good, but at the end of your rant remember that it won't happen in my lifetime or yours (unless of course we lose the constitution and have to draft another one and forget to put that little insignificant clause in there). Thats a very defeatist argument. I can almost guarantee you, that your parents probably said the same for gay marriage, marijuana, and to a lesser extent, civil rights. Its silly to think that nothing can change in our lifetime.. people can do anything. our generation is very different from the one currently in power.. think how things might be when we are all in our 50s-60s... You want to protect rights? Civil rights and gay rights fall under the 14th amendment, marijuana under the 10th amendment for states' rights and sovereignty. The right to bear arms falls under the 2nd amendment. You can't pick and choose which constitutional rights you want, buddy. 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. 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. Sure but why not anti aircraft missiles for everyone? I need to defend the states!! 9/11!!!?? When you're ready to come back down to reason let me know. Oh I am dead serious. Modern warfare relies heavily on aircraft superiority. Thus to properly defend the US every well organized Militia needs gta missiles.
Ignoring the fact that this is a blatant and poorly thought out troll, a militia doesn't need to have the same equipment as a military. A militia would be supplementary, which would mean they wouldn't need the same hardware, because the military hardware would already be on their side.
Of course, if they were rebelling against the lawful government anyways and just calling themselves a militia, I don't think the average armed insurgency is excessively concerned about the laws of the regime they're trying to overthrow, as a rule.
|
On December 15 2012 12:09 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 12:05 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 11:57 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead. People don't want to think/talk about examples like this. Not sure why... Because people dont like logic in here I won't speak for these people you are referring to, but I will point out that interpreting statistics like those is actually very complicated. Furthermore, planning a course of action, even in light of seemingly illuminating statistics such as those, is very complicated. It's not a matter of "if only the other side was able to understand fourth grade logic."
Would you agree it is a good example to look at? Obviously it is just one example, but you have two elementary schools attacked on the same day, one in a country with lots of gun control, the other without gun control. In one, a man with suspected mental problems stabs twenty kids and a teacher with the most dangerous weapon he can easily obtain, a knife, and they all survive. In the other country a man with suspected mental problems shoots twenty kids and teachers with the most dangerous weapons he can easily obtain, firearms, and they all die.
|
On December 15 2012 12:00 goldenwitch wrote:
The biggest problem I have with banning guns is the question of, "What do we do as a nation when we no longer agree with the course of governments actions?"
If guns are illegal in that situation, eventually our government can simply shoot people who dissent. We would no longer have any chance of overthrowing the government without a military coup. Immigrating to another country can be limited in the same way North Korea limits escape(ie. shooting your family if you leave). If you look back to the american revolution, you can see quite clearly that free access to weaponry and the ability to form a militia was one of the most important things that allowed the colonies to escape from under the kings thumb.
Without guns in the hands of the citizens, it's quite simply impossible to have any sort of revolution. Not that we want one at the current time, but government gets more and more corrupt over time if history is any judge.
The hard question that this brings up is, "Is banning guns and preventing a small amount of deaths(even smaller if you subtract deaths that would have happened with a different weapon and deaths that would happen with illegal guns) worth giving the government the power to do whatever it wants regardless of its citizens wishes?"
I don't think that anybody is for banning all weapons. But on the other hand: who wants to take on the US Army with his local militia?
|
Lets just draw some facts and conclusions that i think both sides of the argument can agree on...
1: Guns are to be respected and used with extreme care, caution, and intelligence.
2: Compared to other western countries it is very easy to obtain a firearm in the USA
3: A large portion of the population owns firearms.
4: A large portion of the population is stupid.
5: They allow stupid people to own firearms.
6: They allow stupid people to sell firearms.
7: Stupid people use and enjoy firearms.
8: Americans must follow the commands of those really old guys in funny wigs who died hundreds of years ago, and invoke their RIGHT to give stupid people firearms.
9: this whole fucking thing is stupid.
|
On December 15 2012 12:00 goldenwitch wrote:
The biggest problem I have with banning guns is the question of, "What do we do as a nation when we no longer agree with the course of governments actions?"
If guns are illegal in that situation, eventually our government can simply shoot people who dissent. We would no longer have any chance of overthrowing the government without a military coup. Immigrating to another country can be limited in the same way North Korea limits escape(ie. shooting your family if you leave). If you look back to the american revolution, you can see quite clearly that free access to weaponry and the ability to form a militia was one of the most important things that allowed the colonies to escape from under the kings thumb.
Without guns in the hands of the citizens, it's quite simply impossible to have any sort of revolution. Not that we want one at the current time, but government gets more and more corrupt over time if history is any judge.
The hard question that this brings up is, "Is banning guns and preventing a small amount of deaths(even smaller if you subtract deaths that would have happened with a different weapon and deaths that would happen with illegal guns) worth giving the government the power to do whatever it wants regardless of its citizens wishes?"
You are not much better off going against tanks and aircrafts with a hand gun than a knife......
|
On December 15 2012 12:14 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:00 goldenwitch wrote:
The biggest problem I have with banning guns is the question of, "What do we do as a nation when we no longer agree with the course of governments actions?"
If guns are illegal in that situation, eventually our government can simply shoot people who dissent. We would no longer have any chance of overthrowing the government without a military coup. Immigrating to another country can be limited in the same way North Korea limits escape(ie. shooting your family if you leave). If you look back to the american revolution, you can see quite clearly that free access to weaponry and the ability to form a militia was one of the most important things that allowed the colonies to escape from under the kings thumb.
Without guns in the hands of the citizens, it's quite simply impossible to have any sort of revolution. Not that we want one at the current time, but government gets more and more corrupt over time if history is any judge.
The hard question that this brings up is, "Is banning guns and preventing a small amount of deaths(even smaller if you subtract deaths that would have happened with a different weapon and deaths that would happen with illegal guns) worth giving the government the power to do whatever it wants regardless of its citizens wishes?" You are not much better off going against tanks and aircrafts with a hand gun than a knife......
you obviously aren`t a fan of the rambo series.
|
I was just thinking about Rambo when I was typing that haha
|
On December 15 2012 12:13 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:09 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 12:05 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 11:57 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead. People don't want to think/talk about examples like this. Not sure why... Because people dont like logic in here I won't speak for these people you are referring to, but I will point out that interpreting statistics like those is actually very complicated. Furthermore, planning a course of action, even in light of seemingly illuminating statistics such as those, is very complicated. It's not a matter of "if only the other side was able to understand fourth grade logic." Would you agree it is a very good example to look at? Obviously it is just one example to look at, but you have to elementary schools attacked on the same day, one in a country with lots of gun control, the other without gun control. In one, a man with suspected mental problems stabs twenty kids and a teacher with the most dangerous weapon he can easily obtain, a knife, and they all survive. In the other country a man with suspected mental problems shoots twenty kids and teachers with the most dangerous weapons he can easily obtain, firearms, and they all die.
And last year...
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13448753-norway-massacre-gunman-anders-breivik-declared-sane-gets-21-year-sentence?lite
I mean, if we're going to leverage tragedies politically, let's take legal complications out of the equation, and over-dramatize another tragedy to make the opposite point.
Strict gun control doesn't always stop gun crime, or violent crime. We can play hypothetical scenarios all day long without ever knowing what a situation would have been in a parallel universe.
Let's let the dead stay buried, and mourn them instead of exploiting them. Then, instead of insane what-if's, we can just consider that it's a complex situation, and those frequently have complex answers.
I don't like these arguments from either side of the isle. It's exploitative, and reprehensible, I'm only doing it to make a point, and feel dirty doing it, so I find myself editing in this caveat. Gun control isn't some simple True/False thing that determines crime rates.
|
On December 15 2012 12:06 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:55 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:53 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:51 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:48 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:28 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:23 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:22 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 11:16 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Guns will never be banned in the United States. Argue, disagree, do what makes you feel good, but at the end of your rant remember that it won't happen in my lifetime or yours (unless of course we lose the constitution and have to draft another one and forget to put that little insignificant clause in there). Thats a very defeatist argument. I can almost guarantee you, that your parents probably said the same for gay marriage, marijuana, and to a lesser extent, civil rights. Its silly to think that nothing can change in our lifetime.. people can do anything. our generation is very different from the one currently in power.. think how things might be when we are all in our 50s-60s... You want to protect rights? Civil rights and gay rights fall under the 14th amendment, marijuana under the 10th amendment for states' rights and sovereignty. The right to bear arms falls under the 2nd amendment. You can't pick and choose which constitutional rights you want, buddy. 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. 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. Sure but why not anti aircraft missiles for everyone? I need to defend the states!! 9/11!!!?? When you're ready to come back down to reason let me know. Oh I am dead serious. Modern warfare relies heavily on aircraft superiority. Thus to properly defend the US every well organized Militia needs gta missiles.
And some people believe that the right to bear arms included that kind of provision because it was meant for military purposes. That kind of firepower helped in fighting military forces during the uprising in Libya, and I'm sure it's being used by rebels in Syria. Now I realize you're trying to poke fun by attempting to place 2nd amendments rights people into a corner where if they feel "firearms are ok, why not nukes?" But there is historical significance in the 2nd amendment, observable in many areas of the world today. You don't like it, I know that, but it is a right we have to uphold. It's not a popular position to take, but it's the right one.
|
United States24671 Posts
On December 15 2012 12:13 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:09 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 12:05 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 11:57 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead. People don't want to think/talk about examples like this. Not sure why... Because people dont like logic in here I won't speak for these people you are referring to, but I will point out that interpreting statistics like those is actually very complicated. Furthermore, planning a course of action, even in light of seemingly illuminating statistics such as those, is very complicated. It's not a matter of "if only the other side was able to understand fourth grade logic." Would you agree it is a good example to look at? Obviously it is just one example, but you have to elementary schools attacked on the same day, one in a country with lots of gun control, the other without gun control. In one, a man with suspected mental problems stabs twenty kids and a teacher with the most dangerous weapon he can easily obtain, a knife, and they all survive. In the other country a man with suspected mental problems shoots twenty kids and teachers with the most dangerous weapons he can easily obtain, firearms, and they all die.
If you follow it up with more data, then yes, it can be a helpful component in this discussion, in theory.
|
I've taken this quote from someone else who has put it quite succinctly: "In Australia, we had the Port Arthur massacre, we introduced gun control and we haven't had a massacre since."
People are kidding themselves if they think gun control won't reduce gun crime. It really is head-in-the-sand philosophy at it's worst. At best, it's taking statistics from other countries that don't really make sense in the US.
|
On December 15 2012 12:13 Destro wrote:
8: Americans must follow the commands of those really old guys in funny wigs who died hundreds of years ago, and invoke their RIGHT to give stupid people firearms.
9: this whole fucking thing is stupid.
Just as I argue for the rest of the constitutional amendments, including freedom of speech, against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and on. If you think referring to them as really old guys in funny wigs helps your cause, then that shows how much respect you have for principles of modern western societies.
|
On December 15 2012 12:18 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:13 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 12:09 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 12:05 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 11:57 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead. People don't want to think/talk about examples like this. Not sure why... Because people dont like logic in here I won't speak for these people you are referring to, but I will point out that interpreting statistics like those is actually very complicated. Furthermore, planning a course of action, even in light of seemingly illuminating statistics such as those, is very complicated. It's not a matter of "if only the other side was able to understand fourth grade logic." Would you agree it is a good example to look at? Obviously it is just one example, but you have to elementary schools attacked on the same day, one in a country with lots of gun control, the other without gun control. In one, a man with suspected mental problems stabs twenty kids and a teacher with the most dangerous weapon he can easily obtain, a knife, and they all survive. In the other country a man with suspected mental problems shoots twenty kids and teachers with the most dangerous weapons he can easily obtain, firearms, and they all die. If you follow it up with more data, then yes, it can be a helpful component in this discussion, in theory.
Knives are non-lethal, according to his post. At best, it takes more time to deal the same damage. But is that what this discussion has come down to? How many extra seconds it takes to kill as many children? If the firearms rights debate has come to this then you know it's not a good argument.
|
On December 15 2012 12:19 magicmUnky wrote:
I've taken this quote from someone else who has put it quite succinctly: "In Australia, we had the Port Arthur massacre, we introduced gun control and we haven't had a massacre since."
People are kidding themselves if they think gun control won't reduce gun crime. It really is head-in-the-sand philosophy at it's worst. At best, it's taking statistics from other countries that don't really make sense in the US.
I agree with that, but also to be fair, Australia also has a much smaller population thus massacres naturally aren't going to occur as much.
|
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
On December 15 2012 12:23 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:13 Destro wrote:
8: Americans must follow the commands of those really old guys in funny wigs who died hundreds of years ago, and invoke their RIGHT to give stupid people firearms.
9: this whole fucking thing is stupid. Just as I argue for the rest of the constitutional amendments, including freedom of speech, against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and on. If you think referring to them as really old guys in funny wigs helps your cause, then that shows how much respect you have for principles of modern western societies.
Fun fact
those are not american invented ideals.
Also fun fact
some of those same guys kept human beings as slaves. great principles.
And lets not be silly, American society is far from modern.
|
On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents.
That is true, but you talk as if reducing the amount of guns on the street is a bad thing? Surely, people who require them, will still get access to guns, but that is up to the protocols set up by the government to stop, and if those protocols don't work then that system needs to be fixed.
Gun Control isn't going to 100% stop illegal usage of weaponry, but it will certainly reduce it.
|
Analogies can't be drawn against the drug argument because of the different nature of the products. I mean, there are plenty of other things that are illegal, that people might want, that they can't get (from the silly: military explosives, to the creepy: top notch spying equipment).
Some counter-arguments to gun control make it sound like every kid who deals weed is gonna start carrying automatic weapons too? It just doesn't make sense.
Until there are effective gun control systems in place, people are going to pick up easily accessible, military weapons and turn them on their fellow citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
