|
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 29 2012 05:44 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 05:41 Millitron wrote:On December 28 2012 18:34 Velr wrote:
Banning a killing tool with next to no other purpose is hardly the same as banning certain drugs.
Drugs might are a part of the reason why someone goes on a killing spree, but it's still the, often easily obtained, gun that makes them possible.
If you want an outright ban or not is another story, but some kind of regulation does not sound like a bad idea? I personally just see about 0 reasons to own a gun... Thats probably because I live in a society where the state protects his citizens well and not many fucked up people walk around.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked drunk driving is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your drunk driving. I personally just see about 0 reasons to drink alcohol... That's probably because I like to maintain my presence of mind. Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked shooting at people is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your shooting. Reproduction. Alcohol is the poison many of us needs to get over the shyness level required to talk to girls..or to simply have fun for that matter.
And guns are merely a tool many of us use to simply have fun. Some people also need them to hunt or defend livestock from predators.
Basically, both alcohol and guns are harmless when used responsibly, both have limited markets that absolutely need them, and both have larger markets that really enjoy them.
|
On December 29 2012 06:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 05:44 Excludos wrote:On December 29 2012 05:41 Millitron wrote:On December 28 2012 18:34 Velr wrote:
Banning a killing tool with next to no other purpose is hardly the same as banning certain drugs.
Drugs might are a part of the reason why someone goes on a killing spree, but it's still the, often easily obtained, gun that makes them possible.
If you want an outright ban or not is another story, but some kind of regulation does not sound like a bad idea? I personally just see about 0 reasons to own a gun... Thats probably because I live in a society where the state protects his citizens well and not many fucked up people walk around.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked drunk driving is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your drunk driving. I personally just see about 0 reasons to drink alcohol... That's probably because I like to maintain my presence of mind. Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked shooting at people is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your shooting. Reproduction. Alcohol is the poison many of us needs to get over the shyness level required to talk to girls..or to simply have fun for that matter. And guns are merely a tool many of us use to simply have fun. Some people also need them to hunt or defend livestock from predators. Basically, both alcohol and guns are harmless when used responsibly, both have limited markets that absolutely need them, and both have larger markets that really enjoy them.
And, speaking of alcohol, let's just take a peek at how prohibition of things that weren't protected in the Constitution went for the US. Let's start with say, marijuana and booze...
|
On December 26 2012 04:54 Kalingingsong wrote:
I personally feel I need my own nukes to deter my government.
This man is right. We need more than simply guns if the government turns against us. And it will. It is just a matter of time now. The zombies are coming soon.
|
On December 29 2012 06:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 05:44 Excludos wrote:On December 29 2012 05:41 Millitron wrote:On December 28 2012 18:34 Velr wrote:
Banning a killing tool with next to no other purpose is hardly the same as banning certain drugs.
Drugs might are a part of the reason why someone goes on a killing spree, but it's still the, often easily obtained, gun that makes them possible.
If you want an outright ban or not is another story, but some kind of regulation does not sound like a bad idea? I personally just see about 0 reasons to own a gun... Thats probably because I live in a society where the state protects his citizens well and not many fucked up people walk around.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked drunk driving is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your drunk driving. I personally just see about 0 reasons to drink alcohol... That's probably because I like to maintain my presence of mind. Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked shooting at people is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your shooting. Reproduction. Alcohol is the poison many of us needs to get over the shyness level required to talk to girls..or to simply have fun for that matter. And guns are merely a tool many of us use to simply have fun. Some people also need them to hunt or defend livestock from predators. Basically, both alcohol and guns are harmless when used responsibly, both have limited markets that absolutely need them, and both have larger markets that really enjoy them.
I don't disagree with that. I just think we need better control. Alcohol usually only hurts yourself if you're being an idiot. Guns can turn into mass murders. Cars are also essential, and can be used for killing either by accident or on purpose. Thats why we have laws regarding cars and licenses. Same needs to be applied to guns.
|
the my little pony topic was right below this so it looked like "Should little people be allowed to own and carry Guns?" for a sec
end discrimination against dwarves!
|
On December 29 2012 06:22 Mosquitow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:54 Kalingingsong wrote:
I personally feel I need my own nukes to deter my government. This man is right. We need more than simply guns if the government turns against us. And it will. It is just a matter of time now. The zombies are coming soon.
Then all we need are some plants and sunflowers.
On topic, I just went shooting yesterday had a blast... sorry for the pun but we had 20-30 people out on the ranges shooting targets, just having a bunch of fun. So yes they are lethal and in the wrong hands do a lot of damage. If you take guns away they will just move on to the next step to kill people,
Bombs, Fires, Ninja Lessons, etc...
|
I can speak from experience: We don't have that many terrorist ninjas over here. Bombs and fires neither, but most importantly no ninjas. That'd scare the crap out of me.
|
The last line of defense for civilians against tyranny is guns.
|
On December 29 2012 07:03 Amityville wrote:
The last line of defense for civilians against tyranny is guns.
You are living in a tyranny already, a tyranny of money called plutocracy where people with money decide and make the rules. This is reality in the USA and no gun will help you. And if guns would make a country safer, the US should be the safes country in the world, but it isn't so this argument is flawed. And guns can also bring tyranny for example if an elected government is overthrown by an armed group of rebels or thugs, guns are meant to kill and hurt people and this why they are wrong.
If you want protection against tyranny teach ethics, make social justice and basic moral standards and live by them instead of buying a gun ...
|
On December 29 2012 08:35 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 07:03 Amityville wrote:
The last line of defense for civilians against tyranny is guns. You are living in a tyranny already, a tyranny of money called plutocracy where people with money decide and make the rules. This is reality in the USA and no gun will help you. And if guns would make a country safer, the US should be the safes country in the world, but it isn't so this argument is flawed. And guns can also bring tyranny for example if an elected government is overthrown by an armed group of rebels or thugs, guns are meant to kill and hurt people and this why they are wrong. If you want protection against tyranny teach ethics, make social justice and basic moral standards and live by them instead of buying a gun ...
While I agree with some of what you said, you couldn't be more wrong when you said "guns are meant to kill and hurt people and this why they are wrong."
Guns aren't wrong. Violence against other people is wrong.
I use my guns to hunt animals to feed my family. Archery/trapping simply isn't humane and as effective as firearms and even pneumatic guns.
|
On December 29 2012 08:35 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 07:03 Amityville wrote:
The last line of defense for civilians against tyranny is guns. You are living in a tyranny already, a tyranny of money called plutocracy where people with money decide and make the rules. This is reality in the USA and no gun will help you. And if guns would make a country safer, the US should be the safes country in the world, but it isn't so this argument is flawed. And guns can also bring tyranny for example if an elected government is overthrown by an armed group of rebels or thugs, guns are meant to kill and hurt people and this why they are wrong. If you want protection against tyranny teach ethics, make social justice and basic moral standards and live by them instead of buying a gun ...
Complete retard
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 29 2012 06:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 05:44 Excludos wrote:On December 29 2012 05:41 Millitron wrote:On December 28 2012 18:34 Velr wrote:
Banning a killing tool with next to no other purpose is hardly the same as banning certain drugs.
Drugs might are a part of the reason why someone goes on a killing spree, but it's still the, often easily obtained, gun that makes them possible.
If you want an outright ban or not is another story, but some kind of regulation does not sound like a bad idea? I personally just see about 0 reasons to own a gun... Thats probably because I live in a society where the state protects his citizens well and not many fucked up people walk around.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked drunk driving is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your drunk driving. I personally just see about 0 reasons to drink alcohol... That's probably because I like to maintain my presence of mind. Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked shooting at people is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your shooting. Reproduction. Alcohol is the poison many of us needs to get over the shyness level required to talk to girls..or to simply have fun for that matter. And guns are merely a tool many of us use to simply have fun. Some people also need them to hunt or defend livestock from predators. Basically, both alcohol and guns are harmless when used responsibly, both have limited markets that absolutely need them, and both have larger markets that really enjoy them.
Placing them into a category with Nuclear Fission/Fusion, Iron Maidens, dictatorships, etc. All these things are harmless when used "responsibly" and can be quite fun. Sometimes though - I think it is necessary to sacrifice what is fun for what is right.
|
On December 29 2012 07:03 Amityville wrote:
The last line of defense for civilians against tyranny is guns.
Please tell me how your small arms would help you against anything military grade. You are not living in the 1800s anymore.
|
On December 29 2012 08:56 Amityville wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 08:35 Holy_AT wrote:On December 29 2012 07:03 Amityville wrote:
The last line of defense for civilians against tyranny is guns. You are living in a tyranny already, a tyranny of money called plutocracy where people with money decide and make the rules. This is reality in the USA and no gun will help you. And if guns would make a country safer, the US should be the safes country in the world, but it isn't so this argument is flawed. And guns can also bring tyranny for example if an elected government is overthrown by an armed group of rebels or thugs, guns are meant to kill and hurt people and this why they are wrong. If you want protection against tyranny teach ethics, make social justice and basic moral standards and live by them instead of buying a gun ... Complete retard
?
Though his grasp of grammar and spelling is incredibly basic I think we can deduce from his post that he is not a complete retard (perhaps a high-functioning mentally handicapped individual or possibly Autistic). However - from your post (and inspirational lack thereof) we can in fact deduce that you are a Complete Douchebag.
|
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28/three-cops-reportedly-shot-inside-new-jersey-police-station/
With the heated debates lately about gun control and the NRA's statement suggesting armed guards be placed in schools around the country, this story caught my attention.
A man who had been arrested for allegedly stalking an ex-girlfriend overpowered an officer inside a police station, grabbed her gun and shot her and two other officers before being killed by police early Friday, authorities said.
If this guy can do it in a police station, what would stop someone from doing it to an unsuspecting officer in a school?[
|
On December 29 2012 09:34 Roonweld wrote:
I made a thread but bitches be hatin' hard
I don't think that's an appropriate comment to be honest.
Anyway, your argument at the end of the day is equal to saying that police officers shouldn't carry guns because they might get overpowered and then their guns will be used by maniacs to shoot people.
While it's clear you are anti-gun and you may or may not hold the correct viewpoint on this matter that's one of the most pathetic and self-defeating arguments I've heard on this debate so far, particularly in a country with as many guns as the USA already has.
Your thread was closed because it wasn't an impartial report on an event but as explicitly stated in your OP a discussion about guns, which we already have and after being directed to you are now posting in.
Edit: If you are going to PM me saying you think that comment was 100% appropriate then why have you edited it out of your post? 
|
On December 29 2012 09:35 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 09:34 Roonweld wrote:
I made a thread but bitches be hatin' hard
I don't think that's an appropriate comment to be honest. FYI you can't copy paste a spoiler in the lazy fashion that you have attempted. Also, your argument at the end of the day is equal to saying that police officers shouldn't carry guns because they might get overpowered and then their guns will be used by maniacs to shoot people. While it's clear you are anti-gun and you may or may not hold the correct viewpoint on this matter that's one of the most pathetic and self-defeating arguments I've heard on this debate so far, particularly in a country with as many guns as the USA already has. Your thread was closed because it wasn't an impartial report on an event but explicitly stated in your OP a discussion about guns, which we already have and after being directed to you are now posting in. Edit: If you are going to PM me saying you think that comment was 100% appropriate then why have you edited it out of your post?
roonweld owned so hard by this post. wow
|
On December 26 2012 05:13 J_Slim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:49 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:46 J_Slim wrote:On December 26 2012 04:21 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:15 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:
[quote]
Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars.
Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home. Historically, plenty of governments have "suddenly changed to a dictatorship". And while widespread availability of firearms is not the sole deterrant of tyrannical government, it does contribute to said deterrence. And a lot of governments have been overthrown by armed rebels only to become more violent, controlling governments. While your point is true, how does it have any relevance to the main point that armed populaces deter tyrannical governments? When someone makes the argument that they're protecting themselves from the government by having guns, it sounds to me like they are rebel insurgents, waiting for a chance to "take back the country," as I keep hearing them say. I don't remember hearing anything anywhere near as bad back when we got the patriot act compared to when we got the healthcare changes. One was actually a move towards a move invasive government, taking away rights, while the other was an attempt to help fix the healthcare situation in the country. So it sounds to me like people are more concerned about having guns to 'take back the country' when they don't like who the country voted for. Which is essentially what rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever you want to call them are.
Strawman. No one here has made the argument that the purpose of firearms is to "take back the country when they don't like who the country voted for".
You're simply making shit up by saying what "it sounds to you like".
On December 29 2012 09:02 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 07:03 Amityville wrote:
The last line of defense for civilians against tyranny is guns. Please tell me how your small arms would help you against anything military grade. You are not living in the 1800s anymore.
Read up on the asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Mexico, Ireland, etc.
|
On December 29 2012 09:49 sunprince wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 26 2012 05:13 J_Slim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:49 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:46 J_Slim wrote:On December 26 2012 04:21 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:15 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:
[quote]
Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars.
Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home. Historically, plenty of governments have "suddenly changed to a dictatorship". And while widespread availability of firearms is not the sole deterrant of tyrannical government, it does contribute to said deterrence. And a lot of governments have been overthrown by armed rebels only to become more violent, controlling governments. While your point is true, how does it have any relevance to the main point that armed populaces deter tyrannical governments? When someone makes the argument that they're protecting themselves from the government by having guns, it sounds to me like they are rebel insurgents, waiting for a chance to "take back the country," as I keep hearing them say. I don't remember hearing anything anywhere near as bad back when we got the patriot act compared to when we got the healthcare changes. One was actually a move towards a move invasive government, taking away rights, while the other was an attempt to help fix the healthcare situation in the country. So it sounds to me like people are more concerned about having guns to 'take back the country' when they don't like who the country voted for. Which is essentially what rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever you want to call them are. Strawman. No one here has made the argument that the purpose of firearms is to "take back the country". You're simply making shit up by saying what "it sounds to you like".
I believe it was an attempted reference to the 2nd amendment.
|
On December 29 2012 09:54 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 09:49 sunprince wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 26 2012 05:13 J_Slim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:49 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:46 J_Slim wrote:On December 26 2012 04:21 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:15 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:
[quote]
Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars.
Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home. Historically, plenty of governments have "suddenly changed to a dictatorship". And while widespread availability of firearms is not the sole deterrant of tyrannical government, it does contribute to said deterrence. And a lot of governments have been overthrown by armed rebels only to become more violent, controlling governments. While your point is true, how does it have any relevance to the main point that armed populaces deter tyrannical governments? When someone makes the argument that they're protecting themselves from the government by having guns, it sounds to me like they are rebel insurgents, waiting for a chance to "take back the country," as I keep hearing them say. I don't remember hearing anything anywhere near as bad back when we got the patriot act compared to when we got the healthcare changes. One was actually a move towards a move invasive government, taking away rights, while the other was an attempt to help fix the healthcare situation in the country. So it sounds to me like people are more concerned about having guns to 'take back the country' when they don't like who the country voted for. Which is essentially what rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever you want to call them are. Strawman. No one here has made the argument that the purpose of firearms is to "take back the country". You're simply making shit up by saying what "it sounds to you like". I believe it was an attempted reference to the 2nd amendment.
Read the whole conversation. J_Slim is trying to smear proponents of gun ownership as ultraconservatives who only want firearms in order to rebel because they don't like Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
