|
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 April 24 2013 10:59 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 10:51 Defacer wrote:On April 24 2013 10:15 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 06:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Kmillz you ought to not argue like Sean Hannity. Just saying. Discussions will be more productive. It would behoove you (and a lot of people in this thread) not to argue like Piers Morgan, you bring up all of the same points he brought up when he got eviscerated in a debate. If you're going to just make a vague accusation of sounding like a very conservative talking head (hint: I'm not conservative) then at least share your reasoning for the accusation. Off-topic, but I don't remember an argument that Morgan got 'eviscerated' in. To be fair, Morgan dragged out the most cartoonish and craziest of Yosemite Sams to 'argue' with. All I remember was a carousel of obnoxious angry guys yelling at an obnoxious smug guy. Well, he goes on a 5 minute tangent about "do you think we should be allowed to own tanks" in one debate with these 2 women and just doesn't let it go, and even when they give him an answer (which is, some people own tanks, fighter jets, etc. etc. and how often do you hear them in the news committing crimes? so yes) he still keeps going on about it just because he isn't hearing the answer he wants to hear. It was just really annoying. Then he goes on and on about 10 round magazines being the limit, and just doesn't seem to let things go and keeps trying to argue the same points over and over again despite already getting a reasonable answer.
Um, people own tanks? Like, operational ones?
|
On April 24 2013 11:00 norjoncal wrote:
someone mentioned that Americans with guns would not be up to the task of dealing with a modern military. Have you not considered Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Have you not considered that civilians armed with shotguns, handguns, and rifles are not equivalent to the Iraqi army, Iraqi insurgency, Afghan-Pakistani Taliban, and North Vietnamese Army?
|
On April 24 2013 10:59 FallDownMarigold wrote:Serm, come on. I read his post and am having a hard time finding where he shows that he his completely ignorant, strawman filled, blind, ignorant, opposite of logical and ethical, filled with so much hate, doesn't understand, and the embodiment of what he hates. In fact I almost thought you were a troll account upon reading that response, heh. I think you're being very hard on him for no reason, when instead you could pick out some of his points with which you disagree, and elaborate on why you disagree. Maybe even just pick one of them. Literally 
1st point: "Why not let the gangs have rocket launchers and machine guns?"
This is implying that gangs don't already have rocket launchers and machine guns, so it is moot.
2nd point: "Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold"
This is under the assumption that criminals obey the law, quite an ignorant assumption.
Everything he says is just making wild assumptions that taking away citizens rights is also going to prevent criminals from breaking the law, nothing to back up his claims. It's just a meaningless tangent.
|
On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate.
Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily.
I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives.
|
On April 24 2013 11:05 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate. Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily. I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives.
Well if someone is willing to shoot somebody with a gun (breaking a law) why would it logically make sense that a law would stop them from obtaining one? There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, just because we have access to guns doesn't make us criminals. Being a criminal makes you a criminal.
I think you just can't handle that some laws won't save innocent lives.
|
Lol. I think you just can't handle that eventually gun control will exist in the US, as it exists everywhere else in desirable ally nations. It will take time, just as civil rights legislation took time. Just as abortion legislation and gay marriage legislation is taking time. Rational people and ultimately enlightened leadership will eventually have their way.
Enjoy your fantasy where your freedom to own a gun at the expense of creating a less safe environment for others likely unconnected to you lasts forever. :D
inb4 "but criminals doesnt obeys the laws"
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 24 2013 11:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Lol. I think you just can't handle that eventually gun control will exist in the US, as it exists everywhere else in desirable ally nations. It will take time, just as civil rights legislation took time. Just as abortion legislation and gay marriage legislation is taking time. Rational people and ultimately enlightened leadership will eventually have their way.
Enjoy your fantasy where your freedom to own a gun at the expense of creating a less safe environment for others likely unconnected to you lasts forever. :D
inb4 "but criminals doesnt obeys the laws"
I am shaking in boots dude, I don't even own a gun, but you're right...I can't handle it. Your circular logic is astonishing.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 24 2013 11:04 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 10:59 FallDownMarigold wrote:Serm, come on. I read his post and am having a hard time finding where he shows that he his completely ignorant, strawman filled, blind, ignorant, opposite of logical and ethical, filled with so much hate, doesn't understand, and the embodiment of what he hates. In fact I almost thought you were a troll account upon reading that response, heh. I think you're being very hard on him for no reason, when instead you could pick out some of his points with which you disagree, and elaborate on why you disagree. Maybe even just pick one of them. Literally 1st point: "Why not let the gangs have rocket launchers and machine guns?" This is implying that gangs don't already have rocket launchers and machine guns, so it is moot. 2nd point: "Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold" This is under the assumption that criminals obey the law, quite an ignorant assumption. Everything he says is just making wild assumptions that taking away citizens rights is also going to prevent criminals from breaking the law, nothing to back up his claims. It's just a meaningless tangent.
Firstly I didn't think it was necessary to make an airtight case with regards to why we should not allow unrestricted weapons to anyone, as I thought it was pretty obvious that it is a terrible idea.
1st point: No I did not imply that they don't, so the point is not moot, I said that we should not give them these weapons. Are you honestly saying it would be a good idea to legally give them access to these weapons? There is a huge difference between gangs acquiring them through illegal means and just allowing them to waltz up to their general store and purchase "without infringement".
2nd point: No it is not under the assumption that criminals will not break the law, it is under the assumption that if there were no laws, then acquiring a weapon capable of killing a lot of people suddenly becomes a hell of a lot easier. Do you not agree with that assumption?
Please don't assume to know what my assumptions/implications are, because you clearly have no clue. Those points were just examples to highlight what I feel would be the negative outcomes of the idea of "without infringement". If you wish to provide counter points or counter examples feel free to do so.
|
On April 24 2013 11:03 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 11:00 norjoncal wrote:
someone mentioned that Americans with guns would not be up to the task of dealing with a modern military. Have you not considered Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Have you not considered that civilians armed with shotguns, handguns, and rifles are not equivalent to the Iraqi army, Iraqi insurgency, Afghan-Pakistani Taliban, and North Vietnamese Army?
I would argue that the average gun owner is more highly trained than the above named groups. You would also have to consider what percent of the armed forces including the National Guard and law enforcement agency would either not participate in such a war against US citizens or would support a citizen uprising. According to the ATF there are 500,000 legal machine guns in the USA.
Look how long it took to apprehend Christopher Dorden and the Boston Massacre suspects. I would not call these individuals highly trained. They are criminals and there crimes abhorrent but look how many resources were tied up trying to catch three individuals.
|
On April 24 2013 11:26 Myrddraal wrote:
2nd point: No it is not under the assumption that criminals will not break the law, it is under the assumption that if there were no laws, then acquiring a weapon capable of killing a lot of people suddenly becomes a hell of a lot easier. Do you not agree with that assumption?
I do not agree with that assumption. If a weapon is capable of killing someone then it is capable of killing someone. By your wording I question, would a weapon capable of killing a few people would become non-existent, or equally as easy to obtain as one capable of killing a lot? Are you proposing to enforce laws that limit weapons that fall under the "capability of killing a lot" over weapons that are capable of killing a few? By your definition what is considered a weapon capable of killing a lot of people?
|
On April 24 2013 11:13 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 11:05 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate. Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily. I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives. Well if someone is willing to shoot somebody with a gun (breaking a law) why would it logically make sense that a law would stop them from obtaining one? There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, just because we have access to guns doesn't make us criminals. Being a criminal makes you a criminal. I think you just can't handle that some laws won't save innocent lives.
Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not. Not every gun crime is premeditated, not every person who decides to kill someone has a bunch of illegal contacts with which to acquire guns.
Laws can make it harder for someone to commit crimes, just because they wont stop it completely doesn't mean they are useless. Seatbelts don't stop car crash fatalities %100 yet we still put them in every car "just in case".
Logically, you can say that laws do not prevent all gun related incidents but you cannot say that they prevent zero gun related incidents. If you want to argue about the validity of the current laws or proposed laws, that is another topic and is much more difficult to quantify.
While you are right that there are plenty of guns already circulating, that doesn't mean it makes sense to make it any easier to acquire them, and it doesn't mean that other ideas couldn't make gun related crimes harder to commit or easier to track.
|
On April 24 2013 11:30 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 11:03 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 24 2013 11:00 norjoncal wrote:
someone mentioned that Americans with guns would not be up to the task of dealing with a modern military. Have you not considered Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Have you not considered that civilians armed with shotguns, handguns, and rifles are not equivalent to the Iraqi army, Iraqi insurgency, Afghan-Pakistani Taliban, and North Vietnamese Army? I would argue that the average gun owner is more highly trained than the above named groups. You would also have to consider what percent of the armed forces including the National Guard and law enforcement agency would either not participate in such a war against US citizens or would support a citizen uprising. According to the ATF there are 500,000 legal machine guns in the USA. Look how long it took to apprehend Christopher Dorden and the Boston Massacre suspects. I would not call these individuals highly trained. They are criminals and there crimes abhorrent but look how many resources were tied up trying to catch three individuals.
Dorden had years of training in both the police and the navy.
The boston kids didn't take long to catch at all. Once identified (which is always difficult) they were apprehended in a day or two.
What that tells me is that a trained military soldier can be given a gun and end up killing a lot of cops and take days to chase down while civilians with explosives takes about 1-2 days to catch after getting tagged. Probably less if they weren't just random kids hiding in a sea of innocent people.
|
On April 24 2013 11:42 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 11:13 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 11:05 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate. Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily. I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives. Well if someone is willing to shoot somebody with a gun (breaking a law) why would it logically make sense that a law would stop them from obtaining one? There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, just because we have access to guns doesn't make us criminals. Being a criminal makes you a criminal. I think you just can't handle that some laws won't save innocent lives. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not. Not every gun crime is premeditated, not every person who decides to kill someone has a bunch of illegal contacts with which to acquire guns. Laws can make it harder for someone to commit crimes, just because they wont stop it completely doesn't mean they are useless. Seatbelts don't stop car crash fatalities %100 yet we still put them in every car "just in case". Logically, you can say that laws do not prevent all gun related incidents but you cannot say that they prevent zero gun related incidents. If you want to argue about the validity of the current laws or proposed laws, that is another topic and is much more difficult to quantify. While you are right that there are plenty of guns already circulating, that doesn't mean it makes sense to make it any easier to acquire them, and it doesn't mean that other ideas couldn't make gun related crimes harder to commit or easier to track.
I think about it like this.
We made Rape illegal--because we think it's bad.
Rape still happens despite laws making it illegal--should we just say that rape is legal and not waste our time?
No--that would be foolish and goes against our moral character as a society.
Laws are in place not to say that X cannot happen but to make a societal stance that X *should* not happen be it rape, gangland shootings, or jaywalking. Arguing that gun laws won't stop all gun crimes is as foolish as arguing that gun laws would stop all gun crimes. How much is stops or doesn't stop is irrelevant much like how many rapes are prevented or not prevented is irrelevant. Rape is illegal because we as a society believe it is bad to rape someone. Gun control advocates want there to be stricter laws because they believe it is bad to when people shoot each other.
Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have a law for or against it--much like rapes will happen whether we have laws for or against it. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have gun control or we don't have gun control. The question is whether or not you believe that society should be against killing each other or for killing each other. That is the crux of the argument.
|
+ Show Spoiler [Fulloriginalpostforreference] +On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect.
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake?
Borderline sarcasm in anyway and can best be described as dickish snobbery.
"Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest?
Lets look at this one right here. This line is the most coherent part of his second paragraph and it makes no god damm sense at all. Look bro I know you think that this constitution thing that defines how your nation works has got your people pretty far in the past 250 years. But do you even think that it was a good idea in any way in the slightest? Well seeing how were I live has no crime and we all have guns... yeah I think it might have been a good idea. What does he even want to set up with this sentence? Is he trying to tell me that I think that "shall not be infringed" means that guns + government = literaly hitler?
Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom.
So lets make a law for those people who are going to break the law so that they won't get something because this group that we're going to define as people who break the law are going to follow the law. If that last sentence made any sense to you go see a doctor. Lets study for a moment just how dripping these words are with hate. You can feel him snapping his fingers like this was mean girls mentally after every haphazardly delivered punctuation point. Lets just not have laws for these criminals to break and watch the madness unfold.
It will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily.
this is where it really goes off the deep end. Hes not even playing for his own team the whole time
Or is he?, !
it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back.
Literally trying to convince me into moving to Africa, but thats not even the crazy part of it. Lets break down what hes communicating. I'm sorry if Modern America is your idea of good, but you'd be better off living in Africa because that would be more like the America you want to live in then the america that you are living in. I'm just going to let that one soak in for a bit because we've got to move onto paragraph 2.
As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people
Because when you want logical and ethical discussion with people you turn your entire post into sarcasm to attempt to make a joke out of it at the expense of whoever your picking a fight with. The only way I can make his post make any sense at all is to use the exact same speaking style as him. Its literaly like speaking another language but without any idea of what the words mean.
every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect.
The bolded "my" is what really gets me out of all this. Its not the thinly veiled attempt to cast blame on me for the murder of innocent people. Its not the complete elitist dickishness of assuming that I don't give a shit about innocent people dieing. Its not some this snide insistence that because I don't believe in a police state I must hate my country. Its not him trying to make giving up fundamental rights as small potatoes. Its not even that he ends his post with effectively "I have no understanding of where your coming from or why you don't support handing over your guns". Its this one small pignoted point of pure jingoistic notion of it being about me and mine own problem. This gigantically offensive notion of how I must be the doing all of this because I need my guns in some way. The way that its so lightly passed off as humor long after you never tried to be funny.
Hes not even doing it to come off this poorly. Thats not the point at all. I'm not even offended or that pissed off by the whole thing. Hes just being a dick and trying to pass off his ignorance and hate with sarcasm and make the whole thing just one big joke.
|
1) As an outsider looking in, the speed that the Boston Massacre suspects were identified and apprehended was impressive as hell. USA! USA! USA!
2) As an outsider looking in, the thing I found the most bewildering about the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech shootings was that the first law these perpetrators broke (more or less) was shoot a bunch of people in a public space.
While I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, it doesn't seem like gun legislation in most states makes it particularly difficult for criminals to build an arsenal legally.
I wish more gun owners and sellers (and the NRA) would see things like mandatory background checks, licenses and training as less of an imposition or limitation on 'their freedoms', and more like a civic duty — one that differentiates from 'the commoners' and riff-raff that want to 'play' with guns abd use them irresponsibly.
|
On April 24 2013 11:40 DanceSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 11:26 Myrddraal wrote:
2nd point: No it is not under the assumption that criminals will not break the law, it is under the assumption that if there were no laws, then acquiring a weapon capable of killing a lot of people suddenly becomes a hell of a lot easier. Do you not agree with that assumption?
I do not agree with that assumption. If a weapon is capable of killing someone then it is capable of killing someone. By your wording I question, would a weapon capable of killing a few people would become non-existent, or equally as easy to obtain as one capable of killing a lot?
Assuming zero laws or restrictions, legally they would be equally easy to obtain, if you have the money for them.
Are you proposing to enforce laws that limit weapons that fall under the "capability of killing a lot" over weapons that are capable of killing a few?
No, I am saying that currently there are already laws/restrictions in place to prevent/track/hinder your average citizen from acquiring certain weapons.
By your definition what is considered a weapon capable of killing a lot of people?
Sorry I think I should have specified "capable of killing a lot people easily", where easily is relative to other guns. For example, the rate of fire, accuracy, effective range or explosiveness are factors which I would say make it easier to kill people.
|
On April 24 2013 11:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 11:42 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 11:13 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 11:05 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate. Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily. I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives. Well if someone is willing to shoot somebody with a gun (breaking a law) why would it logically make sense that a law would stop them from obtaining one? There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, just because we have access to guns doesn't make us criminals. Being a criminal makes you a criminal. I think you just can't handle that some laws won't save innocent lives. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not. Not every gun crime is premeditated, not every person who decides to kill someone has a bunch of illegal contacts with which to acquire guns. Laws can make it harder for someone to commit crimes, just because they wont stop it completely doesn't mean they are useless. Seatbelts don't stop car crash fatalities %100 yet we still put them in every car "just in case". Logically, you can say that laws do not prevent all gun related incidents but you cannot say that they prevent zero gun related incidents. If you want to argue about the validity of the current laws or proposed laws, that is another topic and is much more difficult to quantify. While you are right that there are plenty of guns already circulating, that doesn't mean it makes sense to make it any easier to acquire them, and it doesn't mean that other ideas couldn't make gun related crimes harder to commit or easier to track. I think about it like this. We made Rape illegal--because we think it's bad. Rape still happens despite laws making it illegal--should we just say that rape is legal and not waste our time? No--that would be foolish and goes against our moral character as a society. Laws are in place not to say that X cannot happen but to make a societal stance that X *should* not happen be it rape, gangland shootings, or jaywalking. Arguing that gun laws won't stop all gun crimes is as foolish as arguing that gun laws would stop all gun crimes. How much is stops or doesn't stop is irrelevant much like how many rapes are prevented or not prevented is irrelevant. Rape is illegal because we as a society believe it is bad to rape someone. Gun control advocates want there to be stricter laws because they believe it is bad to when people shoot each other. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have a law for or against it--much like rapes will happen whether we have laws for or against it. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have gun control or we don't have gun control. The question is whether or not you believe that society should be against killing each other or for killing each other. That is the crux of the argument.
If you frame the whole debate like that the answer is pretty simple: society should be for killing each other.
I'm serious. Putting your whole society in some bubble where nothing bad happens is only going to get burst by other people who will abuse that bubble. There is nothing like war as a propellant for human progress. Encouraging society to stop progressing is simply ideological and physical suicide.
|
On April 24 2013 12:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 11:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 11:42 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 11:13 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 11:05 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years.
the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population.
Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have.
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate. Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily. I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives. Well if someone is willing to shoot somebody with a gun (breaking a law) why would it logically make sense that a law would stop them from obtaining one? There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, just because we have access to guns doesn't make us criminals. Being a criminal makes you a criminal. I think you just can't handle that some laws won't save innocent lives. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not. Not every gun crime is premeditated, not every person who decides to kill someone has a bunch of illegal contacts with which to acquire guns. Laws can make it harder for someone to commit crimes, just because they wont stop it completely doesn't mean they are useless. Seatbelts don't stop car crash fatalities %100 yet we still put them in every car "just in case". Logically, you can say that laws do not prevent all gun related incidents but you cannot say that they prevent zero gun related incidents. If you want to argue about the validity of the current laws or proposed laws, that is another topic and is much more difficult to quantify. While you are right that there are plenty of guns already circulating, that doesn't mean it makes sense to make it any easier to acquire them, and it doesn't mean that other ideas couldn't make gun related crimes harder to commit or easier to track. I think about it like this. We made Rape illegal--because we think it's bad. Rape still happens despite laws making it illegal--should we just say that rape is legal and not waste our time? No--that would be foolish and goes against our moral character as a society. Laws are in place not to say that X cannot happen but to make a societal stance that X *should* not happen be it rape, gangland shootings, or jaywalking. Arguing that gun laws won't stop all gun crimes is as foolish as arguing that gun laws would stop all gun crimes. How much is stops or doesn't stop is irrelevant much like how many rapes are prevented or not prevented is irrelevant. Rape is illegal because we as a society believe it is bad to rape someone. Gun control advocates want there to be stricter laws because they believe it is bad to when people shoot each other. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have a law for or against it--much like rapes will happen whether we have laws for or against it. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have gun control or we don't have gun control. The question is whether or not you believe that society should be against killing each other or for killing each other. That is the crux of the argument. If you frame the whole debate like that the answer is pretty simple: society should be for killing each other. I'm serious. Putting your whole society in some bubble where nothing bad happens is only going to get burst by other people who will abuse that bubble. There is nothing like war as a propellant for human progress. Encouraging society to stop progressing is simply ideological and physical suicide.
Wait--let me get this straight.
Holding on to an amendment designed to fight off kings is human progress? Is that really your argument?
|
On April 24 2013 12:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 11:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 11:42 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 11:13 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 11:05 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years.
the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population.
Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have.
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate. Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily. I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives. Well if someone is willing to shoot somebody with a gun (breaking a law) why would it logically make sense that a law would stop them from obtaining one? There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, just because we have access to guns doesn't make us criminals. Being a criminal makes you a criminal. I think you just can't handle that some laws won't save innocent lives. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not. Not every gun crime is premeditated, not every person who decides to kill someone has a bunch of illegal contacts with which to acquire guns. Laws can make it harder for someone to commit crimes, just because they wont stop it completely doesn't mean they are useless. Seatbelts don't stop car crash fatalities %100 yet we still put them in every car "just in case". Logically, you can say that laws do not prevent all gun related incidents but you cannot say that they prevent zero gun related incidents. If you want to argue about the validity of the current laws or proposed laws, that is another topic and is much more difficult to quantify. While you are right that there are plenty of guns already circulating, that doesn't mean it makes sense to make it any easier to acquire them, and it doesn't mean that other ideas couldn't make gun related crimes harder to commit or easier to track. I think about it like this. We made Rape illegal--because we think it's bad. Rape still happens despite laws making it illegal--should we just say that rape is legal and not waste our time? No--that would be foolish and goes against our moral character as a society. Laws are in place not to say that X cannot happen but to make a societal stance that X *should* not happen be it rape, gangland shootings, or jaywalking. Arguing that gun laws won't stop all gun crimes is as foolish as arguing that gun laws would stop all gun crimes. How much is stops or doesn't stop is irrelevant much like how many rapes are prevented or not prevented is irrelevant. Rape is illegal because we as a society believe it is bad to rape someone. Gun control advocates want there to be stricter laws because they believe it is bad to when people shoot each other. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have a law for or against it--much like rapes will happen whether we have laws for or against it. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have gun control or we don't have gun control. The question is whether or not you believe that society should be against killing each other or for killing each other. That is the crux of the argument. If you frame the whole debate like that the answer is pretty simple: society should be for killing each other. I'm serious. Putting your whole society in some bubble where nothing bad happens is only going to get burst by other people who will abuse that bubble. There is nothing like war as a propellant for human progress. Encouraging society to stop progressing is simply ideological and physical suicide.
Alright this is getting really silly, and almost has nothing to do with whether or not current gun legislation is sufficient.
I think you should take a mulligan on this one and take another crack at your argument.
|
On April 24 2013 12:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 12:19 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 11:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 11:42 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 11:13 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 11:05 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:
[quote]
Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate. Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily. I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives. Well if someone is willing to shoot somebody with a gun (breaking a law) why would it logically make sense that a law would stop them from obtaining one? There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, just because we have access to guns doesn't make us criminals. Being a criminal makes you a criminal. I think you just can't handle that some laws won't save innocent lives. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not. Not every gun crime is premeditated, not every person who decides to kill someone has a bunch of illegal contacts with which to acquire guns. Laws can make it harder for someone to commit crimes, just because they wont stop it completely doesn't mean they are useless. Seatbelts don't stop car crash fatalities %100 yet we still put them in every car "just in case". Logically, you can say that laws do not prevent all gun related incidents but you cannot say that they prevent zero gun related incidents. If you want to argue about the validity of the current laws or proposed laws, that is another topic and is much more difficult to quantify. While you are right that there are plenty of guns already circulating, that doesn't mean it makes sense to make it any easier to acquire them, and it doesn't mean that other ideas couldn't make gun related crimes harder to commit or easier to track. I think about it like this. We made Rape illegal--because we think it's bad. Rape still happens despite laws making it illegal--should we just say that rape is legal and not waste our time? No--that would be foolish and goes against our moral character as a society. Laws are in place not to say that X cannot happen but to make a societal stance that X *should* not happen be it rape, gangland shootings, or jaywalking. Arguing that gun laws won't stop all gun crimes is as foolish as arguing that gun laws would stop all gun crimes. How much is stops or doesn't stop is irrelevant much like how many rapes are prevented or not prevented is irrelevant. Rape is illegal because we as a society believe it is bad to rape someone. Gun control advocates want there to be stricter laws because they believe it is bad to when people shoot each other. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have a law for or against it--much like rapes will happen whether we have laws for or against it. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have gun control or we don't have gun control. The question is whether or not you believe that society should be against killing each other or for killing each other. That is the crux of the argument. If you frame the whole debate like that the answer is pretty simple: society should be for killing each other. I'm serious. Putting your whole society in some bubble where nothing bad happens is only going to get burst by other people who will abuse that bubble. There is nothing like war as a propellant for human progress. Encouraging society to stop progressing is simply ideological and physical suicide. Wait--let me get this straight. Holding on to an amendment designed to fight off kings is human progress? Is that really your argument?
No my argument was that your point was stupid and short sighted.
Holding onto the virtues that made you strong is not weakness its simply logical. The problems that the country faces now with gun control weren't caused by the amendment, its not the amendments fault, there's no reason to not hold onto the amendment.
On April 24 2013 12:26 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 12:19 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 11:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 11:42 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 11:13 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 11:05 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 10:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:
[quote]
Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance. Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate. Wow I think I must have touched on a nerve here. When did I ever express any hate for anyone or express that they were to blame for it? What I said is perfectly true, if you wish to have the freedom to access guns easily, you have to realise that this means that people who are going to misuse them are also going to be able to access guns easily. I think you just can't handle that your freedom might endanger innocent lives. Well if someone is willing to shoot somebody with a gun (breaking a law) why would it logically make sense that a law would stop them from obtaining one? There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, just because we have access to guns doesn't make us criminals. Being a criminal makes you a criminal. I think you just can't handle that some laws won't save innocent lives. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not. Not every gun crime is premeditated, not every person who decides to kill someone has a bunch of illegal contacts with which to acquire guns. Laws can make it harder for someone to commit crimes, just because they wont stop it completely doesn't mean they are useless. Seatbelts don't stop car crash fatalities %100 yet we still put them in every car "just in case". Logically, you can say that laws do not prevent all gun related incidents but you cannot say that they prevent zero gun related incidents. If you want to argue about the validity of the current laws or proposed laws, that is another topic and is much more difficult to quantify. While you are right that there are plenty of guns already circulating, that doesn't mean it makes sense to make it any easier to acquire them, and it doesn't mean that other ideas couldn't make gun related crimes harder to commit or easier to track. I think about it like this. We made Rape illegal--because we think it's bad. Rape still happens despite laws making it illegal--should we just say that rape is legal and not waste our time? No--that would be foolish and goes against our moral character as a society. Laws are in place not to say that X cannot happen but to make a societal stance that X *should* not happen be it rape, gangland shootings, or jaywalking. Arguing that gun laws won't stop all gun crimes is as foolish as arguing that gun laws would stop all gun crimes. How much is stops or doesn't stop is irrelevant much like how many rapes are prevented or not prevented is irrelevant. Rape is illegal because we as a society believe it is bad to rape someone. Gun control advocates want there to be stricter laws because they believe it is bad to when people shoot each other. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have a law for or against it--much like rapes will happen whether we have laws for or against it. Gun crimes will happen whether or not we have gun control or we don't have gun control. The question is whether or not you believe that society should be against killing each other or for killing each other. That is the crux of the argument. If you frame the whole debate like that the answer is pretty simple: society should be for killing each other. I'm serious. Putting your whole society in some bubble where nothing bad happens is only going to get burst by other people who will abuse that bubble. There is nothing like war as a propellant for human progress. Encouraging society to stop progressing is simply ideological and physical suicide. Alright this is getting really silly, and almost has nothing to do with whether or not current gun legislation is sufficient. I think you should take a mulligan on this one and take another crack at your argument.
He boiled down the entire argument into a simple question and I answered it in a way that supported my side. Its literaly just the kind of logical and ethical debate about gun control that I'm looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
