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.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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."
What the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
A gun control person can read the arguments that you consider good all day and won't be swayed. It doesn't matter that some folks have cataloged 200 pages of shaky unsourced arguments, and some sourced but contestable arguments that only take into account fractions of the issues that deserve to be considered.
Internet forum debates are not about swaying the other side. That is not going to happen either way. They about the silent readers who are on the fence. The point is to made undecided people ask questions that they have not asked themselves before.
On December 16 2012 02:36 hzflank wrote: Internet forum debates are not about swaying the other side. That is not going to happen either way. They about the silent readers who are on the fence. The point is to made undecided people ask questions that they have not asked themselves before.
Right but I don't think reading this thread leans overwhelmingly on one side or the other. The question is incredibly complex and people have bullshit reductionist arguments that make sense in a vacuum. [This includes my posts]
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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."
What the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death: •Heart disease: 599,413 •Cancer: 567,628 •Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353 •Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842 •Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021 •Alzheimer's disease: 79,003 •Diabetes: 68,705 •Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692 •Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935 •Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
My friend legally bought a handgun the day he got out of rehab, and 3 months after he spent 2 weeks in jail. $200 cash, and it came with 50 rounds. Fuck yeah.
On December 16 2012 02:39 Reaps wrote: Funny stuff
My favorite part is how we apparently don't hear about heart disease, cancer, diseases, accidents, alzheimer's, diabetes, flu and pneumonia and suicide in the media.
On December 16 2012 02:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My friend legally bought a handgun the day he got out of rehab, and 3 months after he spent 2 weeks in jail. $200 cash, and it came with 50 rounds. Fuck yeah.
And that's a great argument for better oversight and more efficiency in the bureaucracy. It doesn't inherently mean anything negative about gun ownership in and of itself.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Yes, please enlighten us with your infinite wisdom.
Have you ever talked with someone from the NRA or listen to their arguments. It's really nutty and its on the same chord as religious fanatics, tea partiers, and other over-enthusiasts. The 2nd amendment gives the people right to guns, but gun-rights supporters are too extreme and too absolutist. Absolutism doesn't help move society forward; it's just a reflection of selfishness and the arrogance to project your personal feelings onto others and ultimately at their cost.
On December 16 2012 02:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My friend legally bought a handgun the day he got out of rehab, and 3 months after he spent 2 weeks in jail. $200 cash, and it came with 50 rounds. Fuck yeah.
And that's a great argument for better oversight and more efficiency in the bureaucracy. It doesn't inherently mean anything negative about gun ownership in and of itself.
Pretty much this. Gun-rights owners take it up the ass too much. It's not about taking away your personal rights, even if you believe it is. Gun-rights supporters see guns as an extension of their personal liberty and any attempt to regulate it is hits their personal nerves. It shouldn't be so hard to understand.
On December 16 2012 02:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My friend legally bought a handgun the day he got out of rehab, and 3 months after he spent 2 weeks in jail. $200 cash, and it came with 50 rounds. Fuck yeah.
And that's a great argument for better oversight and more efficiency in the bureaucracy. It doesn't inherently mean anything negative about gun ownership in and of itself.
I interpret that more as a the state of gun ownership laws in the country being a joke.
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote: It seems foreigners are with the idea of thinking where the evil actions of a few dictate what the laws are going to be for everyone. The fact is these shootings are perpetrated by a very few sick people, while %99.9 of gun owners are resonsible and don't use their guns illegally. It's the same concept of what's going on at airports now, we have one hijacking that crashed into the Twin Towers (which could've been avoided if the pilots were allowed to carry guns, or if the cockpit door was more secure) and now all of us have to go through TSA screenings like we're all criminals. They body scan us with radioactive technology or they sexually assault you with pat downs. Each time one bad guy does something stupid, the idea is to punish everyone with stupid laws and take our rights away. USA was founded on the principles that are opposite of this, which is why it's sad some things have even gotten this far in the US.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Are you telling me that those kinds of people can walk into the store right now and legally buy a gun?O_o
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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."
What the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote: It seems foreigners are with the idea of thinking where the evil actions of a few dictate what the laws are going to be for everyone. The fact is these shootings are perpetrated by a very few sick people, while %99.9 of gun owners are resonsible and don't use their guns illegally. It's the same concept of what's going on at airports now, we have one hijacking that crashed into the Twin Towers (which could've been avoided if the pilots were allowed to carry guns, or if the cockpit door was more secure) and now all of us have to go through TSA screenings like we're all criminals. They body scan us with radioactive technology or they sexually assault you with pat downs. Each time one bad guy does something stupid, the idea is to punish everyone with stupid laws and take our rights away. USA was founded on the principles that are opposite of this, which is why it's sad some things have even gotten this far in the US.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Are you telling me that those kinds of people can walk into the store right now and legally buy a gun?O_o
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote: It seems foreigners are with the idea of thinking where the evil actions of a few dictate what the laws are going to be for everyone. The fact is these shootings are perpetrated by a very few sick people, while %99.9 of gun owners are resonsible and don't use their guns illegally. It's the same concept of what's going on at airports now, we have one hijacking that crashed into the Twin Towers (which could've been avoided if the pilots were allowed to carry guns, or if the cockpit door was more secure) and now all of us have to go through TSA screenings like we're all criminals. They body scan us with radioactive technology or they sexually assault you with pat downs. Each time one bad guy does something stupid, the idea is to punish everyone with stupid laws and take our rights away. USA was founded on the principles that are opposite of this, which is why it's sad some things have even gotten this far in the US.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Are you telling me that those kinds of people can walk into the store right now and legally buy a gun?O_o
On December 16 2012 02:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My friend legally bought a handgun the day he got out of rehab, and 3 months after he spent 2 weeks in jail. $200 cash, and it came with 50 rounds. Fuck yeah.
And that's a great argument for better oversight and more efficiency in the bureaucracy. It doesn't inherently mean anything negative about gun ownership in and of itself.
I interpret that more as a the state of gun ownership laws in the country being a joke.
Well, yes, the difference is I can word it in a way conducive to productive dialogue, whereas you try to twist it to an agenda. I'm probably one of the most moderate gun owners I know, and I'm all for vastly improved gun laws, without taking them away completely.
But what I said suggests directions that the legislators could look if they wanted to make the processes work better for the actual goal of protecting and representing their constituency, where you just made a negative statement.
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote: It seems foreigners are with the idea of thinking where the evil actions of a few dictate what the laws are going to be for everyone. The fact is these shootings are perpetrated by a very few sick people, while %99.9 of gun owners are resonsible and don't use their guns illegally. It's the same concept of what's going on at airports now, we have one hijacking that crashed into the Twin Towers (which could've been avoided if the pilots were allowed to carry guns, or if the cockpit door was more secure) and now all of us have to go through TSA screenings like we're all criminals. They body scan us with radioactive technology or they sexually assault you with pat downs. Each time one bad guy does something stupid, the idea is to punish everyone with stupid laws and take our rights away. USA was founded on the principles that are opposite of this, which is why it's sad some things have even gotten this far in the US.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Are you telling me that those kinds of people can walk into the store right now and legally buy a gun?O_o
No, but it's not enforced enough as maybe it should. The shooter who killed 26 people yesterday stole his mom's guns.
On December 16 2012 02:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My friend legally bought a handgun the day he got out of rehab, and 3 months after he spent 2 weeks in jail. $200 cash, and it came with 50 rounds. Fuck yeah.
And that's a great argument for better oversight and more efficiency in the bureaucracy. It doesn't inherently mean anything negative about gun ownership in and of itself.
I interpret that more as a the state of gun ownership laws in the country being a joke.
Well, yes, the difference is I can word it in a way conducive to productive dialogue, whereas you try to twist it to an agenda. I'm probably one of the most moderate gun owners I know, and I'm all for vastly improved gun laws, without taking them away completely.
But what I said suggests directions that the legislators could look if they wanted to make the processes work better for the actual goal of protecting and representing their constituency, where you just made a negative statement.
The situation I described is negative. I'm not going to try and spin it as something it's not.
I'm a gun owner. Shit is still a joke. I have no agenda, and I don't think gun laws will change substantially in my lifetime. I think most of my countrymen are idiots, and I find it amusing that any of them can buy an arsenal, legally, immediately, and for cheap.
On December 16 2012 02:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My friend legally bought a handgun the day he got out of rehab, and 3 months after he spent 2 weeks in jail. $200 cash, and it came with 50 rounds. Fuck yeah.
And that's a great argument for better oversight and more efficiency in the bureaucracy. It doesn't inherently mean anything negative about gun ownership in and of itself.
I interpret that more as a the state of gun ownership laws in the country being a joke.
Well, yes, the difference is I can word it in a way conducive to productive dialogue, whereas you try to twist it to an agenda. I'm probably one of the most moderate gun owners I know, and I'm all for vastly improved gun laws, without taking them away completely.
But what I said suggests directions that the legislators could look if they wanted to make the processes work better for the actual goal of protecting and representing their constituency, where you just made a negative statement.
The situation I described is negative. I'm not going to try and spin it as something it's not.
I'm a gun owner. Shit is still a joke. I have no agenda, and I don't think gun laws will change substantially in my lifetime. I think most of my countrymen are idiots, and I find it amusing that any of them can buy an arsenal, legally, immediately, and for cheap.
Yes, the situation is negative, but more negativity doesn't lead to productive dialogue. It just breeds negativity.
EPT
