Grab the guns while we still can

[CptStern]

Why do you keep calling us gun nuts? You are from Ireland, therefore I shall call you a bomb nut because everybody there is in the IRA...

that would be inaccurate because they werent all bomb makers ..some were breadmakers, and shoe cobblers, while others were captains of industry and homemakers and ladies of the night and bell hops and .. ... but all gun nuts are nuts about guns

it's a descriptive: you're nuts about guns ..completely innocent title ..except when used to denote that gun nut is crazy ..which can also be the case. so depending on context it's either a descriptive or an insult ...which in some cases can also be (an accurate) descriptive cuz many gun nuts are actually nuts




oh and you didnt answer his question

 

[Pesmerga]

Gun nuts seem to like quoting that. Explain again why you deserve liberty or safety given your failure to rise up against the Patriot Act etc?

Holy shit, I am being bombarded with stupid. I would like for you to READ MY POSTS.

Ugh, this whole ignoring the good arguments and attacking the idiot's display of ineptness thing is just exhausting. Ridge, you leave yourself open to attack with every poor word choice and RED FLAG sentence you make. Stop explaining your own shitty comments and focus on how your argument pisses on their's, with logical and reasonable rational.

 

[Ridge]

that would be inaccurate because not all irish made bombs but all gun nuts are nuts about guns

it's a descriptive: you're nuts about guns ..completely innocent title ..except when used to denote that gun nut is crazy ..which can also be the case. so depending on context it's either a descriptive or an insult ...which in some cases can also be (an accurate) descriptive cuz many gun nuts are actually nuts




oh and you didnt answer his question

And thank you for proving my case that you are a ****ing idiot. Not all Irish are bomb makers or in the IRA, not all gun owners are the kind of people that wear tinfoil and run a radio station talking about the government poisoning the drinking water or think the answer to everything is to blow the other guy away.

If I had a nickel for every time you didnt answer a question of mine...

 

[Pesmerga]

If I had a nickel for every time you left yourself open to "witty comeback", I'd be a monkey's uncle.

 

[CptStern]

And thank you for proving my case that you are a ****ing idiot. Not all Irish are bomb makers or in the IRA, not all gun owners are the kind of people that wear tinfoil and run a radio station talking about the government poisoning the drinking water or think the answer to everything is to blow the other guy away.

lol you really are dumb ..it's not so much that you dont uinderstand the words, it's just that you dont understand the meaning behind the words . I mean short of drawing pictograms or using smoke signals I dont know what else I can try ..I just have to resign myself to the fact that reading comprehension just isnt your forte

If I had a nickel for every time you didnt answer a question of mine...

you'd have a nickel?

 

[Top Secret]

Very well made video around the poor legislation surrounding assault weapon bans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

Also, Ridge is a right wing badgering idiot who couldn't argue to save his life and does not represent the more intelligent pro-firearm Americans.

The Patriot Act is an obvious violation to the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. NO amount of "privacy" is worth giving up for "safety".I don't even consider the "slippery slope" argument is needed for that justification. It simply isn't..

Ridge, if you're going to argue pro-firearm, you need to make the correct type of argument. For example, arguing that firearms make for a perfectly safe environment has obviously not proven true in America (at this time.) So stop arguing it. You are trying to use statistics stacked against you, which means in order for people to out debate you, they simply need to quote you and say "This."

Start arguing morals, ethics, etc. Bill Maher stated in a Stand-up routine that Pink Floyds "The Dark Side of the Moon" was worth 100 dead children. Similarly, I state that thousands of Firearms related deaths are worth the right to bear arms to me. It's hard to argue against because I left no rope to grab in my statement. Notice Stern did not respond? Because there's nothing that he can say to fight my statement. Sure, he can post a news story about 1,000 babies who blew their heads off because the parent did not secure the firearm properly, but it would be moot because I had already stated that it would still be worth it to me.

 

[CptStern]

Start arguing morals, ethics, etc. Bill Maher stated in a Stand-up routine that Pink Floyds "The Dark Side of the Moon" was worth 100 dead children.

I dont get the ccomparison ..how did the deaths of 100 children bring about the album Dark Side of the Moon? it's an apples and oranges comparison. the cost of your right to own guns is 1.2 million gun related crimes per year. the cost of Dark Side of the Moon wasnt 100 dead babies

Similarly, I state that thousands of Firearms related deaths are worth the right to bear arms to me. It's hard to argue against because I left no rope to grab in my statement. Notice Stern did not respond? Because there's nothing that he can say to fight my statement.

yes you did ..your statement isnt rational if you look at the evidence: 1.2 million gun related victemisations per year vs 87,000 instances where guns prevented crime (taken from top of my head but sourced somewhere in this thread) ...yes it's hard to argue against being illogical because the person isnt using reason as a justification; it's all emotional ..like you implied: you defend the indefensible

Sure, he can post a news story about 1,000 babies who blew their heads off because the parent did not secure the firearm properly, but it would be moot because I had already stated that it would still be worth it to me.

which says a lot about your character and about gun rights and ownership in general ..this whole "I need it for defense" or "I need it to overthrow the government" is just a smokescreen for "I want them because despite the fact that it's more harm than good I like em and no amount of facts are going to change my mind"

 

[CptStern]

The family of a man fatally shot by Everett police on Nov. 8 has hired a team of private attorneys to conduct an independent investigation.

They said they hope the team will help determine the truth about what happened when police responded to a burglary call and opened fire on Dustin Willard, 31.

Police say Willard came to his front door armed with a shotgun. Officers opened fire when Willard leveled the gun at them and refused to put it down, according to a search warrant filed in Cascade District Court.

"FROM MY DEAD COLD HANDS!!!"

"that can be arranged"

BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG

at least he stood up for his right to defend himself

 

[Top Secret]

I dont get the ccomparison ..how did the deaths of 100 children bring about the album Dark Side of the Moon? it's an apples and oranges comparison. the cost of your right to own guns is 1.2 million gun related crimes per year. the cost of Dark Side of the Moon wasnt 100 dead babies

Obviously that was far over your head. Don't tread on me, Stern.

yes you did ..your statement isnt rational if you look at the evidence: 1.2 million gun related victemisations per year vs 87,000 instances where guns prevented crime (taken from top of my head but sourced somewhere in this thread) ...yes it's hard to argue against being illogical because the person isnt using reason as a justification; it's all emotional ..like you implied: you defend the indefensible

I never claimed my statement to be rational, did I? I said it was how I felt on the issue. But no, I am not defending the indefensible. You are attacking the un-attackable.

which says a lot about your character and about gun rights and ownership in general ..this whole "I need it for defense" or "I need it to overthrow the government" is just a smokescreen for "I want them because despite the fact that it's more harm than good I like em and no amount of facts are going to change my mind"

So are you attacking my character now, Stern? Is that all you have left? Please.Tell me Stern, tell me all about me. You seem so well informed. I'm going to break this down for you.

which says a lot about your character and about gun rights and ownership in general

You want to talk shit, just say it. Don't walk around it.

this whole "I need it for defense" or "I need it to overthrow the government" is just a smokescreen

Prove it. PROVE that it is a smokescreen. You can't. I am not claiming that home defense or overthrowing the government is a good argument. I've stated several times that taking away firearms is simply taking away a right. And that is wrong. Is that a smokescreen too, Stern?

"I want them because despite the fact that it's more harm than good I like em and no amount of facts are going to change my mind"

Ah, I see where your problem is now. You think on a linear scale. 4 pounds of good vs 7 pounds of bad... your a rational person trying to rationalize everything. Don't get me wrong, I am too. It's human nature, to weigh the bad vs the good. The difference here is what we consider things weigh. I think that freedom is a very dense, heavy, and solid material. And so it outweighs the bad. You obviously think freedom is made out of balsa wood. Good for you. You keep throwing numbers at me as if I'm going to go "Oh, 1.2 million deaths? I was ok with 1.1, but not 1.2. We had better write in some legislation." I'm sure you think we should ban smoking too. I am a hardcore Constitutionalist. If this country falls, it won't be because of that piece of paper, but through false interpretation.

And for the record, I have stated several times that I do not own, nor intend to own a firearm. I don't "like em" as you so put it, or I would own one. Quit trying to take away my rights, asshole.


And, In ALL honesty, how did you feel about that youtube video I posted? I posted it because it did not seem biased. If you find anything false with it, please feel free to inform me.

 

[Krynn72]

I ****ing hate irrational people.

 

[Sheepo]

I never claimed my statement to be rational, did I? I said it was how I felt on the issue. But no, I am not defending the indefensible. You are attacking the un-attackable.

I know I haven't read a single other sentence in this thread, but even out of context this is WTF.

 

[Top Secret]

I know I haven't read a single other sentence in this thread, but even out of context this is WTF.

That statement was a response to Stern trying to quantify something that has no numeric value to me.

 

[Eejit]

So you think it is automatically good and beyond all reproach now and forever simply because it's part of the Bill of Rights?


Reason is dead.

 

[Pesmerga]

Let's throw away those silly ideals of freedom and justice, too!

 

[Eejit]

Slippery slope there Pesh.

Would you like the freedom to own any amount of controlled chemical substances you want? How about the Right to Pour Ethyl methanesulfonate Down The Drain? It's freedom, consequences to others be damned! You deserve it!

 

[Pesmerga]

But see, there's a big difference between consuming PCP and bringing the gun to the range. There's a big difference between pouring toxic chemicals into the drain and keeping a shotgun in the closet. I also might argue it is perfectly legal to OWN said toxic chemicals, it is their misuse that is unlawful.

False analogy is false.

 

[CptStern]

Obviously that was far over your head. Don't tread on me, Stern.

no that didnt go over my head, it's still not a valid comparison and I'm not "treading" on you, stop seeing everything as a personal attack

I never claimed my statement to be rational, did I? I said it was how I felt on the issue. But no, I am not defending the indefensible. You are attacking the un-attackable.

that's lyrical but untrue ..you can certainly attack irrationality with logic and rationality. But I give you points for acknowledging that the justification for gun ownership is irrational in most cases; it's an emotional justification

So are you attacking my character now, Stern? Is that all you have left? Please.Tell me Stern, tell me all about me. You seem so well informed. I'm going to break this down for you.



You want to talk shit, just say it. Don't walk around it.

I'm not, I'm just pointing out the obvious: that you or gun owners in general think about themselves; their self-gratification, their point of view over the needs of everyone else; their right of ownership supercedes other people's right to life ..it's purely selfish but no one wants to admit this so they rationalise it by using the mantra of home defense or the even more irrational; as a means of taking back the government
....it's not inclusive of anyone except people who subscribe to their ideals and pov. It's not an insult, it's just speaking frankly and honestly. no insult was intended so stop looking for one

Prove it. PROVE that it is a smokescreen. You can't.

I just did and have been doing so this entire thread. even you agree:

I am not claiming that home defense or overthrowing the government is a good argument.

home defense or overthrowing the government is a smokescreen for the real motivator

I've stated several times that taking away firearms is simply taking away a right. And that is wrong. Is that a smokescreen too, Stern?

I cant speak for you personally but why guns? why not loss of privacy, or the right to be protected from search and seizure? these rights have been curtailed in front of our eyes yet you dont see militia groups taking up arms ..you dont see those activists against abortion joining the fight against the attack on your freedoms ..it's completely self serving because you or those like you choose to fight for this particular right and no other

Ah, I see where your problem is now. You think on a linear scale. 4 pounds of good vs 7 pounds of bad... your a rational person trying to rationalize everything. Don't get me wrong, I am too. It's human nature, to weigh the bad vs the good. The difference here is what we consider things weigh. I think that freedom is a very dense, heavy, and solid material. And so it outweighs the bad. You obviously think freedom is made out of balsa wood. Good for you. You keep throwing numbers at me as if I'm going to go "Oh, 1.2 million deaths? I was ok with 1.1, but not 1.2. We had better write in some legislation." I'm sure you think we should ban smoking too. I am a hardcore Constitutionalist. If this country falls, it won't be because of that piece of paper, but through false interpretation.

you dont take much stock in facts and I think in some ways that's typical of the gun ownership movement. it's 1.2 million victemisations per year in the US (not deaths) vs 87,000 incidents where a crime was prevented ...the numbers are so lopsided that one cant help but think that the argument for gun onwership is literally crushed by the argument against gun ownership ..that anything else is irrational ..so defending this by extension is also irrational

but you're correct in saying that freedom goes as far as the piece of paper it's written on, but it's the application of that particular freedom that is most important ..you're against false interpretation yet the gun issue has been running on a false interpretation since it was written into law ..no one in their right mind would ever think that the right to own guns is neccessitated by the threat of government curtailing fundamental rights. that's the entire reasoning behind this particular issue from a legal standpoint

And for the record, I have stated several times that I do not own, nor intend to own a firearm. I don't "like em" as you so put it, or I would own one. Quit trying to take away my rights, asshole.

I'm not trying to take away your rights, I'm trying to point out how that's not a right to begin with

And, In ALL honesty, how did you feel about that youtube video I posted? I posted it because it did not seem biased. If you find anything false with it, please feel free to inform me.

I havent watched it, I'm at work and cant view videos

 

[nurizeko]

The civilized world collectively facepalms at America's constant obsession with personal ownership of lethal weaponry.

 

[xcellerate]

removed, I don't think I have the energy for this.

 

[CptStern]

Since when was america not included in the civilized world?

And the 'civilized world' is really upsetting me how they fail to acknowledge people like me who shoot inanimate targets for recreation. Guns were designed to kill people and can be used for other purposes, and cars were designed to drive people from A to B yet can be used to kill people.

which comes back to my point: your recreational hobby is more important than people losing their lives to firearms .

In fact "In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified." So people are so obsessed with banning assault rifles which are responsible for ~4% of all gun related homicides, and not focusing on pistols? Huh...

80% of guns produced in the US are handguns

Of course 10,100 people is a lot, but "the total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000. An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S."

this is a false analogy ..you've taken something out of context and compared it to something that's unrelated ..a proper analogy would be to compare the number of firearm related deaths with the number of firearm related deaths in other countries ..in this you are alone in the western world ..an average sized city in the US has more firearm related deaths than all of canada combined ..hell japan which has half the population of the US has 54 gun related murders per year (on average)

edit: and before somebody focuses on exactly the wrong point of this post and writes 10 paragraphs about how more people have cars than guns and cars are more of a necessity etc, it still doesn't change the fact that harder licensing tests and better training would help keep people alive.

sure, except it's still not a valid comparison to gun ownership

but omg, assault rifles kill 40 people a year, we need nation wide bans, better licensing, required blah blah blah..."I'm okay doing all sorts of irrational banning on something I have no experience with, but I do actually drive! I dont want to have to learn how to drive better, or take classes, or pay more and spend more time on licensing, waaaaaahhhh!"

I'm sure if legislators went after handguns instead of assualt rifles most americans would ignore it ..legislators are not stupid, they know which toes not to step on, or which laws have a snowballs chance in hell of passing

 

[Top Secret]

I'm not, I'm just pointing out the obvious: that you or gun owners in general think about themselves; their self-gratification, their point of view over the needs of everyone else; their right of ownership supercedes other people's right to life ..it's purely selfish but no one wants to admit this so they rationalise it by using the mantra of home defense or the even more irrational; as a means of taking back the government
....it's not inclusive of anyone except people who subscribe to their ideals and pov. It's not an insult, it's just speaking frankly and honestly. no insult was intended so stop looking for one

The only people superseding other people's right to live are people who use firearms for illicit things. You've heard it a thousand times, but it is still true: People kill people. Not firearms.

I just did and have been doing so this entire thread. even you agree:

No, I do not agree. I said it's a WEAK argument, not a smokescreen. Home defense is a legitimate argument. Please take care to read my entire post.

home defense or overthrowing the government is a smokescreen for the real motivator

Prove it.

I cant speak for you personally but why guns? why not loss of privacy, or the right to be protected from search and seizure? these rights have been curtailed in front of our eyes yet you dont see militia groups taking up arms ..you dont see those activists against abortion joining the fight against the attack on your freedoms ..it's completely self serving because you or those like you choose to fight for this particular right and no other

Because our current democratic system is still functioning. I recognize what a fallacy the Patriot Act is. Many do. And it will be fixed by the natural democratic process in time. Quit trying to act as if there is a debate there, you don't have anything. The point of the second Amendment is NOT to march on Washington DC with my AK-47 whenever they pass something I do not agree with. My AK-47 is for when a President somehow manages to abolish the other two branches, will not remove himself from office, etc etc.

This mistake is already being corrected. See election Obama vs McCain.

you dont take much stock in facts and I think in some ways that's typical of the gun ownership movement. it's 1.2 million victemisations per year in the US (not deaths) vs 87,000 incidents where a crime was prevented ...the numbers are so lopsided that one cant help but think that the argument for gun onwership is literally crushed by the argument against gun ownership ..that anything else is irrational ..so defending this by extension is also irrational

Nope. I am a fanatic. I can completely admit that. Could be 5 million deaths.

but you're correct in saying that freedom goes as far as the piece of paper it's written on, but it's the application of that particular freedom that is most important ..you're against false interpretation yet the gun issue has been running on a false interpretation since it was written into law ..no one in their right mind would ever think that the right to own guns is neccessitated by the threat of government curtailing fundamental rights. that's the entire reasoning behind this particular issue from a legal standpoint

I urge you to read about the Anti-Federalists. You seem to have a sore lack of United States history. Most do...

I'm not trying to take away your rights, I'm trying to point out how that's not a right to begin with

Oh, but it is. You see, it says it ever so plainly in the Bill of Rights. See amendment II...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As written originally; "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I havent watched it, I'm at work and cant view videos

Ignore the retarded people. There are political debates afoot.

Smoking kills innocent people. Should we ban it? People drive drunk, perhaps alcohol should be outlawed... (again)...

What about pointy knives? There's no reason for the point. We should pass legislation banning pointy knives...

Oh wait, Britain is beating us to that one.

Also, just because it's ****ing hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA

 

[CptStern]

The only people superseding other people's right to live are people who use firearms for illicit things. You've heard it a thousand times, but it is still true: People kill people. Not firearms.

and? the right to own guns still facilitates this, your right STILL supercedes other's right to life ..no amount of dancing around the issue changes that fact

No, I do not agree. I said it's a WEAK argument, not a smokescreen. Home defense is a legitimate argument. Please take care to read my entire post.

no it's not ..your chances of being killed by a complete stranger are much lower than your chances of being killed by someone you know ..surprisingly enough the relationship to the victem is almost always family or lover

Prove it.

ok now you're just being an ass. I've already proven that handgun ownership is irrational because the very right to won guns perpetuates and facilitates crime ..you make your own bed and lie in it ..it is also irrational to believe that a rag tag mob armed with hunting rifles and the odd assualt rifle stand a chance at overthrowing the government

Because our current democratic system is still functioning. I recognize what a fallacy the Patriot Act is. Many do. And it will be fixed by the natural democratic process in time. Quit trying to act as if there is a debate there, you don't have anything. The point of the second Amendment is NOT to march on Washington DC with my AK-47 whenever they pass something I do not agree with. My AK-47 is for when a President somehow manages to abolish the other two branches, will not remove himself from office, etc etc.

yes and that's a realistic scenario ..you and those like you armed with ak-47's marching on washington ..to be met with tanks, airplanes and the might of the US army

Nope. I am a fanatic. I can completely admit that. Could be 5 million deaths.

you're also irrational, and you prove my point: it's completely selfish, you're only thinking about your rights and no one elses

I urge you to read about the Anti-Federalists. You seem to have a sore lack of United States history. Most do...

ok ...

Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1787

anything else? could you be more specific? oh and what does this have to do with anything?

Oh, but it is. You see, it says it ever so plainly in the Bill of Rights. See amendment II...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As written originally; "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

it's not a right because in no way does this line apply to today:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

the US has a standing army, there is no need for an armed militia to keep security of a free state

funny how pro-gun people absolutely never mention that part of the bill of rights



Ignore the retarded people. There are political debates afoot.

Smoking kills innocent people. Should we ban it?

it is banned in public spaces

People drive drunk, perhaps alcohol should be outlawed... (again)...

it is ..it is against the law to drink and drive

What about pointy knives? There's no reason for the point. We should pass legislation banning pointy knives...

Oh wait, Britain is beating us to that one.

this is what I meant long ago about not jumping in mid thread ..we've already discussed this very issue, so lets not waste time on this since it's already been answered

Also, just because it's ****ing hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA

I cant watch it

 

[Kase]

i'm waving a CptStern Flag right now

 

[Pesmerga]

and? the right to own guns still facilitates this, your right STILL supercedes other's right to life ..no amount of dancing around the issue changes that fact

People will still kill people- we ought to control the most popular tool for killing so we can minimize the statistics, not completely ban. This is my final post on this thread, because the same arguments are being tossed around and around.

My conclusion is that if the United States Government enacts powerful, enforceable measures to ensure that small arm owners are CLINICALLY SANE, CRIMINALLY INNOCENT, ADULTS, and must go through a THOROUGH instruction class for the proper use and maintenance of the weapon, crime statistics will fall dramatically while still upholding basic freedoms of ownership.

 

[Krynn72]

Cpt.Stern: ∞
Top Secret: 0

 

[CptStern]

People will still kill people- we ought to control the most popular tool for killing so we can minimize the statistics, not completely ban. This is my final post on this thread, because the same arguments are being tossed around and around.

My conclusion is that if the United States Government enacts powerful, enforceable measures to ensure that small arm owners are CLINICALLY SANE, CRIMINALLY INNOCENT, ADULTS, and must go through a THOROUGH instruction class for the proper use and maintenance of the weapon, crime statistics will fall dramatically while still upholding basic freedoms of ownership.

In cases of intimate homicides (spouse/family/friends) most are killed by firearm ..overwelmingly so; 70% of the cases

in rape cases where the victem knew their offender a firearm was used in 97.6% of the reported incidents ..since the people are known to their offender it is safe to assume that not all had a prior criminal conviction (in fact in overall crime only 48% of the offenders had a previous criminal record) therefore no amount of training will stop people being victemised by someone they know who went through legal channels to obtain their firearms


table 66

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus04.pdf







lol this seems to work:

Beginning October 22, 2008, for a 5 week period, take advantage of an amnesty period that allows you to safely arrange for turning in a hand gun in exchange for a Nikon Coolpix digital camera from Henry's

more than 1200 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition have been handed in. The extended program, which was to end November 23rd, will now end Monday, December 1st.

and this is in Toronto, a city that has on average 28 firearm deaths per year

 

[jverne]

it might have been already discussed...but

how would enacting a tighter and more strict procedure for firearm ownership be an infringement of the constitution?

in my country firearm possession is not illegal if you go trough a strict training and medical/psychological course (and spend quite a bit of money).

stern already mentioned that alot of shooting were from people with no criminal record, but i still think this would cut a fair share of gun based crimes.

 

[Top Secret]

and? the right to own guns still facilitates this, your right STILL supercedes other's right to life ..no amount of dancing around the issue changes that fact

You're the one pulling the shuffle here, not me. People killing other people are the ones superseding their rights. Not the guy who likes to go to the local range and pop off a few rounds on the weekend.

no it's not ..your chances of being killed by a complete stranger are much lower than your chances of being killed by someone you know ..surprisingly enough the relationship to the victem is almost always family or lover

And this matters how? Is this not universal? Are most people in Britain, for instance, not killed by family/lovers/friends?

ok now you're just being an ass.

Says the asshole trying to take away others rights.

I've already proven that handgun ownership is irrational because the very right to won guns perpetuates and facilitates crime

Oh, right. And Canada doesn't have Firearms? Where is their soaring crime rate?

..you make your own bed and lie in it ..it is also irrational to believe that a rag tag mob armed with hunting rifles and the odd assualt rifle stand a chance at overthrowing the government

You don't need to "overthrow the government". It was never meant to be overthrown. You just need to kill the top. Cut off the head, the body dies. Again, please READ ABOUT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS.

Also, there was a minor incident known as the CIVIL WAR where half of the country disagreed with the government at hand and attempted to break free. Where do you think the South got it's rifles from before securing them from the North or making outside trade agreements?

Johnny Boy brought it from home, that's how. Quit trying to slay my government overthrow argument, it's VALID.

yes and that's a realistic scenario ..you and those like you armed with ak-47's marching on washington ..to be met with tanks, airplanes and the might of the US army

Obviously a figure of speech. I will try to say everything as plainly as I can from now on.

you're also irrational, and you prove my point: it's completely selfish, you're only thinking about your rights and no one elses

Two things.

First, me stating that I am a fanatic does not equal selfish. Please explain, very carefully, how you arrived at that conclusion based on the statement you quoted.

Second, repeatedly saying "you prove my point" does not make it so. You actually have to have your point proven by me in order to say "you prove my point".

For example, if you were trying to brand me a fanatic, you could quote my statement saying "I admit I am a fanatic." and then say "You prove my point."

anything else? could you be more specific? oh and what does this have to do with anything?

You stated: "no one in their right mind would ever think that the right to own guns is neccessitated by the threat of government curtailing fundamental rights. that's the entire reasoning behind this particular issue from a legal standpoint"

That "no-one" that you are referring to are the Anti-Federalists. The reason we have the Bill of Rights is because of the Anti-Federalists. If you read the memoirs, notes, etc of the Anti-Federalists, it is made quite clear that a large motivation for them implementing the second amendment was to protect a citizen from his government. Hence why I told you to read up on the Anti-Federalists. If you require SPECIFIC QUOTES from SPECIFIC PEOPLE that this is so that can be provided for you upon request.

it's not a right because in no way does this line apply to today:

the US has a standing army, there is no need for an armed militia to keep security of a free state

funny how pro-gun people absolutely never mention that part of the bill of rights

Do I really need to provide a link to prove that there are truck loads of militia groups in modern America? Really? Do I? I can... I just can't believe you really stated that. You act like the right isn't even exercised......

Also, who are you to say the United States doesn't need a militia? You can't rule out the possibility of an invasion by a foreign nation. Your statement makes no sense.

it is banned in public spaces

As are firearms. So again, why not ban cigarettes?

it is ..it is against the law to drink and drive

Again, as are firearms. I can't drive down the road holding a .45. So again, why not ban alcohol?

this is what I meant long ago about not jumping in mid thread ..we've already discussed this very issue, so lets not waste time on this since it's already been answered

Oh, afraid of arguing against slippery slope? Ok...

And for the record, I can jump in whenever I please. If you think you can stop me, by all means...

Cpt.Stern: ∞
Top Secret: 0

Not quite.

 

[Eejit]

Oh, afraid of arguing against slippery slope? Ok...

Priceless. He's "afraid" of arguing against the slippery slope fallacy? I bet he's afraid to argue against straw man arguments too, use one of those!!

 

[Saturos]

People will still kill people- we ought to control the most popular tool for killing so we can minimize the statistics, not completely ban. This is my final post on this thread, because the same arguments are being tossed around and around.

My conclusion is that if the United States Government enacts powerful, enforceable measures to ensure that small arm owners are CLINICALLY SANE, CRIMINALLY INNOCENT, ADULTS, and must go through a THOROUGH instruction class for the proper use and maintenance of the weapon, crime statistics will fall dramatically while still upholding basic freedoms of ownership.

^This, and I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Pesmerga for a change. Imagine that. :|

Pretty much sums up what I think should be done.

Also, very strict penalties should be in place just in case any accidental deaths occur (involutary manslaughter) due to mishandling. This would help filter out those who somehow still pass the tests and qualifications who are still irresponsible, insane, and/or underage.

 

[Krynn72]

Also, very strict penalties should be in place just in case any accidental deaths occur (involutary manslaughter) due to mishandling. This would help filter out those who somehow still pass the tests and qualifications who are still irresponsible, insane, and/or underage.

How would that filter anyone out? The damage would already have been done.

 

[Top Secret]

Priceless. He's "afraid" of arguing against the slippery slope fallacy? I bet he's afraid to argue against straw man arguments too, use one of those!!

"While the general form of the argument involving a slippery slope is not valid, the conclusion it leads to is not necessarily wrong."


Slippery slope is one of the few "logical fallacies" that can be used, if applied correctly.

For example, Alcohol.

If I were to say "They should not be able to ban driving while drunk, because they won't stop. Next they'll just flat out ban alcohol."

It would be a valid argument because alcohol was, in fact, banned before.

 

[leib10]

Went out and bought a handgun today. Taking advantage of it while I still have the right to do so.

 

[Absinthe]

I bought Hellfire missiles.

 

[Saturos]

How would that filter anyone out? The damage would already have been done.

True, but that would still be one less irresponsible/unstable person off the street. Guns or otherwise. Oh yeah, there is a law against concealed weapons in public too and many public places in the US already ban them altogether, so gun ownership is mostly a private thing until some emo teenager decides to shoot up a shopping center/school, or a mugger decides to hold up a convenient store. It makes me angry when people like this spoil things for others, but it makes me even more angry when people blame the "inanimate object" and would rather let big goverment sweep this issue under the carpet by banning guns rather than penalizing the socks off of people. (and I'm not even a gun owner, nor do I have much interest in them myself mind you, I just don't like BS) So here's my solution:

I know your argument, "but that person could still be alive", but someone with the intent to kill is still going to try to do just that. If the murder is caught, he should be sentenced the death penalty unless it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt it was out of self-defense for the sake of his life. If the assultant killed someone because they are psychos and just because they could, death penalty. If the assultant killed the victim because he punched him in the face or they caught him/her with his/her spouse, then it should be life in prison. If someone mugs/robs anyone/anyplace at the risk of others, but no one was harmed, life in prison, and I mean STRAIGHT to prison IF they are caught red-handed. Not even a trial.

What about the "kid blew his brains out with his dad's gun" scenario? Well, the father should get life in prison or a $1,000,000+ fine for being an irresponsible jackass. No fine could amount to a human life, however let's just say he/she'll be selling their underwear at a flea market just to eat everyday and the rest of their family will hate them for being such a tard. So once people are WELL AWARE of the penalties of irresponsible gun ownership, these accidental related deaths would be cut down dramatically too. As an added plus, it would also dissuade many people from buying guns altogether without having to "revise" the constitution. Having severe consequences is a good way to educate and promote responsible practices and demote illicit ones while at the same time dissuading most people from even buying guns altogether for fear they will screw up.

The idea is not to penalize "sane and responsible" people.

All this, and no revised second amendment.

...no revised second amendment.

...revised second amendment.

See? Now everyone should be happy! Except for the irresponsible/malicious gun owners of course.

 

[Krynn72]

So are you saying that the current penalty for murder (up to life in prision/death penalty) isnt enough?


How do you guys buy guns? From a local store or something? I want to find a Colt 1911.

 

[Jintor]

In all honesty, I have to say the only thing that makes me want to own a gun is fear of Zombie Apocolypse.

Australia is so screwed when the zombie apocolypse rolls around.

 

[leib10]

I bought Hellfire missiles.

If only...

Oh wait, you were probably being sarcastic.

 

[Saturos]

In all honesty, I have to say the only thing that makes me want to own a gun is fear of Zombie Apocolypse.

Australia is so screwed when the zombie apocolypse rolls around.

You aussies have your boomerangs to decapitate zombies with. :>

 

[Absinthe]

If only...

Oh wait, you were probably being sarcastic.

Nope.