|
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 16 2012 13:42 Caphe wrote:
Oh fuck I though the religion vs religion is the worst argurment on TL forum, this is worse. Well I am out of this thread, just wait for another shooting to happen in the US so we can all be back at square one in this thread again. I am pretty sure everything we argue about today had been discussed before in this thread.
The conclusion is, pro gun people will want to keep their gun no matter what happens, even purchase more of them after incident like CT shooting.
I really don't see the US will have any gun control law at all in a foreseeable future so really no point of discussing it here.
The fact you don't acknowledge that US already has tons of gun laws is a testament to your ignorance.
|
On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad.
Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence.
|
On December 16 2012 13:44 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:17 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:04 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:56 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:48 SayGen wrote:
I after reading page after page (not the entire thread, but p damn close)
I still can not understand a counter to the
'Criminals don't obey gun laws'
'Law abading citizens do'
argument for the pro gun side.
Why would you want to take guns away and trust only one 'group' the government to have them.
It just doens't make sense, life is about balance not giving one group something that has no checks or balances.
Every citizen imho who has not commited a felony should be able to buy and carry (in the open) a firearm.
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
It takes the police a long time to respond, and that's after the long time it takes for someone to be competent enough to call the police. So many people were freaking out and didn't call the police right away. Panic is not the friend of good decesion making.
The most obvious counter to it is, why would you make it easier for the "criminals" to get them in the first place, making the crime an easy one they can pull off especially as a crime of passion. You also failed to realize that most of these "criminals" got their guns perfectly legally,a dn were perfectly legal and considered safe gun owning citizens, until AFTER they committed the crime. And the other concern with what you say is whos to say an untrained citizen such as yourself, not the member of the military or a militia, would not cave under the pressure of the situation and accidentally end up harming yourself or others rather than actually stopping the crime? Something to think about. I'm in the military and am trained on 6 weapons- M16A1/M9/M-4 and while I think you make a good point about most criminals getting their weapons legally, doesn't mean they wouldn't get them if it was illegal. The point is- one group would still get weapons, while one would not. the group that would not would be oppressed by the group who does. I've actually defended myself thanks to a weapon- and it resulted in no loss of life/limb. I've been extra pro gun ever since. Okay so you are trained, that is good, you probably wouldn't cave to that pressure then. But you really think average joe wouldn't, would you want to risk that? Both groups would get weapons under stricter gun control, the main difference is how much harder it would be for either group to get them. if it's harder to get, there will not only be less citizens with guns, but less criminals, and potential criminals with guns. Also it would be a lot harder for criminals to get away with having guns in the first place. The frequency of events like this latest one is a result of how easy it is to pull off, it would be way less frequent if it was much harder, in large part due to the fact that these people tend to do it because its easy, and it being difficult would be a deterrent for most of them. You think guns are an easy way to kill? If you wanted to kill people in a movie theatre, use bombs. Anarchist Cookbook. Make bombs from material at any convince store. Bar/explode the side doors and a few incendiary bombs later you get a 100% kill rate. A gun at least has ammo that runs out. Carry 200 rounds of ammo isn't easy, despite what video games/movies may show. A bomb that starts a raging fire will burn every human inside. A gun will not kill everyone inside. You still seems to be making the argument that because guns are easy to get (which isn't true) that by getting rid of them the murder rate will go down. Guns are only one method of murder. The aurora colorado shooter bought and had 6000 rounds of ammunition. No one thought it was suspicious or that anything illegal was going to go down. That's a lot more than you 200 comment.
It's literally and utterly impossible to carry 6k rounds be it handgun or rifle lol. It is true however that you can purchase large amounts of ammo at a time, any serious shooter buys ammo in bulk due to price constraints.
|
On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence.
It has nothing at all to do with possessions. It however has everything to do with your safety. Don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed taking someones life was worth saving possessions. I said taking someones life to save my own is worth it. Every single time.
|
On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence.
Your logic is backwards.
I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer.
|
On December 16 2012 13:44 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:17 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:04 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:56 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:48 SayGen wrote:
I after reading page after page (not the entire thread, but p damn close)
I still can not understand a counter to the
'Criminals don't obey gun laws'
'Law abading citizens do'
argument for the pro gun side.
Why would you want to take guns away and trust only one 'group' the government to have them.
It just doens't make sense, life is about balance not giving one group something that has no checks or balances.
Every citizen imho who has not commited a felony should be able to buy and carry (in the open) a firearm.
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
It takes the police a long time to respond, and that's after the long time it takes for someone to be competent enough to call the police. So many people were freaking out and didn't call the police right away. Panic is not the friend of good decesion making.
The most obvious counter to it is, why would you make it easier for the "criminals" to get them in the first place, making the crime an easy one they can pull off especially as a crime of passion. You also failed to realize that most of these "criminals" got their guns perfectly legally,a dn were perfectly legal and considered safe gun owning citizens, until AFTER they committed the crime. And the other concern with what you say is whos to say an untrained citizen such as yourself, not the member of the military or a militia, would not cave under the pressure of the situation and accidentally end up harming yourself or others rather than actually stopping the crime? Something to think about. I'm in the military and am trained on 6 weapons- M16A1/M9/M-4 and while I think you make a good point about most criminals getting their weapons legally, doesn't mean they wouldn't get them if it was illegal. The point is- one group would still get weapons, while one would not. the group that would not would be oppressed by the group who does. I've actually defended myself thanks to a weapon- and it resulted in no loss of life/limb. I've been extra pro gun ever since. Okay so you are trained, that is good, you probably wouldn't cave to that pressure then. But you really think average joe wouldn't, would you want to risk that? Both groups would get weapons under stricter gun control, the main difference is how much harder it would be for either group to get them. if it's harder to get, there will not only be less citizens with guns, but less criminals, and potential criminals with guns. Also it would be a lot harder for criminals to get away with having guns in the first place. The frequency of events like this latest one is a result of how easy it is to pull off, it would be way less frequent if it was much harder, in large part due to the fact that these people tend to do it because its easy, and it being difficult would be a deterrent for most of them. You think guns are an easy way to kill? If you wanted to kill people in a movie theatre, use bombs. Anarchist Cookbook. Make bombs from material at any convince store. Bar/explode the side doors and a few incendiary bombs later you get a 100% kill rate. A gun at least has ammo that runs out. Carry 200 rounds of ammo isn't easy, despite what video games/movies may show. A bomb that starts a raging fire will burn every human inside. A gun will not kill everyone inside. You still seems to be making the argument that because guns are easy to get (which isn't true) that by getting rid of them the murder rate will go down. Guns are only one method of murder. The aurora colorado shooter bought and had 6000 rounds of ammunition. No one thought it was suspicious or that anything illegal was going to go down. That's a lot more than you 200 comment.
He purchased 6000 rounds. It does not mean he carried 6000 rounds. I doubt he had more than 500. A standard combat load for US soldiers is only a few hundred rounds.
|
On December 16 2012 13:50 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. It has nothing at all to do with possessions. It however has everything to do with your safety. Don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed taking someones life was worth saving possessions. I said taking someones life to save my own is worth it. Every single time.
In a life or death situation, yes it is.
|
On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer.
pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else.
|
On December 16 2012 13:46 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:42 Caphe wrote:
Oh fuck I though the religion vs religion is the worst argurment on TL forum, this is worse. Well I am out of this thread, just wait for another shooting to happen in the US so we can all be back at square one in this thread again. I am pretty sure everything we argue about today had been discussed before in this thread.
The conclusion is, pro gun people will want to keep their gun no matter what happens, even purchase more of them after incident like CT shooting.
I really don't see the US will have any gun control law at all in a foreseeable future so really no point of discussing it here.
The fact you don't acknowledge that US already has tons of gun laws is a testament to your ignorance.
But far fewer than just about every other developed nation. So in comparison to just about every other comparable country, no. the US has virtually no gun laws.
|
On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence.
We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that.
Criminals can not be tolerated.
I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good.
"Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding."
You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals.
You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia.
|
On December 16 2012 13:52 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:50 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. It has nothing at all to do with possessions. It however has everything to do with your safety. Don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed taking someones life was worth saving possessions. I said taking someones life to save my own is worth it. Every single time. In a life or death situation, yes it is.
You're not even making any sense at this point. I'll say it one more time. Defending yourself with a firearm is about protecting your own life. It's got nothing to do with items. People get murdered all the time in the US while going along with muggings and robberies. If you want to take your chances be my guest, I'm going to do my best to ensure I'm the one staying alive.
|
On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia.
In Saudi Arabia they behead you in public because of accusations of you being involved in witchcraft.
|
On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else.
Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is.
|
On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is.
Care to elaborate?
|
On December 16 2012 13:56 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia they behead you in public because of accusations of you being involved in witchcraft.
What does that have to do with anything? Stay on topic please.
|
On December 16 2012 13:37 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:34 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:30 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:27 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:21 SayGen wrote:
The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them.
Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone. Surely then you could easily defend yourself with a grenade. I mean, who would fuck with a guy with a grenade? What the hell? Grenades clearly have no defensive purposes. If you were going to mug someone, and they pulled out a grenade, you'd surely think twice. Are you trying to make some kind of point?
Do average citizens really need assault rifles (MP-9, M-16 or19 or whatever) for 'home defense'? Unless you're confronted by a rival militia in some primitive land despute, there should be no need for firearms outside of hunting and maybe a precautionary hand-gun if you don't feel secure.
I'm not sure on how easy it is in America to obtain a firearm that isn't a 30-6 or .22 or whatever hunting rifle, but up here just to go to a recreational firing range where you 'rent' a hand-gun and buy ammo for use in target practise, requires an instant computer-based police/criminal record check.
(off-topic: don't fire off a .357 with your feet squared with your shoulders. I tried it even after )
|
On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia.
They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam.
Edit: Its also hard to convict a man of domestic violence in Saudi Arabia. Lets use them as a model for our laws!
|
On December 16 2012 13:59 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:56 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia they behead you in public because of accusations of you being involved in witchcraft. What does that have to do with anything? Stay on topic please.
You brought up Saudi Arabia, and I brought up their barbaric practices as an oppressive and totalitarian regime. That's not the kind of country I want to live in, but if you do by all means.
|
On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate?
From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet.
Just seems completely irrational to me.
|
On December 16 2012 14:00 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam.
/sigh your getting offtopic. I was making a point about how crime is handled- not how relgion is handled or woman's rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
