Jump to content



Photo

Bystander wrestles armed felon to ground

washington state robbery ski mask video 1st degree assault

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#16 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,005 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 20 December 2012 - 19:02

Are you just assuming this, or do you personally know some and asked?


They'd just shoot everybody on sight if they didn't care.


#17 SupportGeek

SupportGeek

    Neowinian

  • 483 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 19:15

Pro Gun guys just can't seem to grasp the idea that if you limit the supply, make it illegal, and harder to get, that the product will be harder for the "average" to get, and will only lay in the hands of the really hard criminals, which you wouldn't win against even if you had a gun yourself.
So you want a gun to protect yourself from a gun.... can i get a missle to protect myself from one? Can I get a bomb? Can i get some plutonium? If we are to protect ourselves against the illegals who get everything anyway, why should we limit what we can protect ourselves with...... oh ya, because most people who got their drivers license doesn't even deserve it, and having something that can take the life of others in a instant is a responcibility most people can and shouldnot have.


Anti-gun guys cant seem to understand that limiting supply and making firearms illegal is a violation of the second amendment. They also dont seem to understand that owning firearms for self defense has already been affirmed by the SCOTUS.
I also like the hyperbole they use "Can I get a nuke to defend against a nuke?" Do home invasions or muggings take place with the criminal armed with missiles? Or are they armed with firearms and knives?
Ownership statistics and basic reasoning would fly in the face of your "its a responsibility that most people shouldnt have" thought, since MOST people store, handle and keep their firearms in a safe manner. If you were right, the 80+ million firearms owners would have wiped everyone in North America out a long time ago.

You can grow marijuana and other drugs. You can not grow guns. You have to actually make them. Much harder, much more expensive. Also then you have to make the ammo. Comparing drugs to guns is dumb.


Ever made a firearm? I have, its not anywhere CLOSE to as hard as you would have other believe.
3d printing is also a couple of years from changing that idea yet again, where it will go from already moderately easy to clicking "print"
Also reloading ammo is simple too.
In fact, it takes a lot MORE effort to grow a decent marijuana plant than it does to manufacture a firearm.
So he has a valid point.

#18 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • 8,013 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 20 December 2012 - 19:16

You'd base gun restrictions on those that have been successful in countries like the UK and Japan.


The US is much much more diverse and there are many times more poor people here, which is mostly correlated to the violence.
The more crimes per capita here isn't just attributed to the abundance of guns. There are a lot of rich here and a lot of poor here, which causes a lot of aggression as you could easily see by our political diversity. Guns don't commit crimes, people commit crimes.

Border patrols and law enforcement. That's how guns are stopped in other countries.


There's too much coastline to protect in this country. If guns become illegal, they will be smuggled here on the same boats and semis as drugs are. Actually it would probably become huge in the black market since guns would bring a bigger profit than drugs.

Regardless, none of it even matters because guns will never completely disappear. Until they do, it will never be difficult for criminals to get one. I would first say good luck at trying to dismantle a multi-trillion dollar industry.

#19 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,492 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows Embedded Standard 8 & Server 2012/08 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 20 December 2012 - 19:18

Anti-gun guys cant seem to understand that limiting supply and making firearms illegal is a violation of the second amendment.


Show me where it says hallow point, assault rifle, high capacity mag in the constitution ? You cant . By this logic limiting citizen access to machine guns is a violation of the second amendment.

#20 SupportGeek

SupportGeek

    Neowinian

  • 483 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 19:37

Show me where it says hallow point, assault rifle, high capacity mag in the constitution ? You cant . By this logic limiting citizen access to machine guns is a violation of the second amendment.


Those items fall under "Shall not be infringed"

#21 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,005 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 20 December 2012 - 19:39

The US is much much more diverse and there are many times more poor people here, which is mostly correlated to the violence.


In which case you need to raise taxes on the rich to improve quality of life for the poor. Considering that the US is supposedly a Christian country there shouldn't be any issue with getting support for such a plan. There really isn't any excuse for such wealth inequality, especially given the GDP per capita for the US is higher than virtually any other country.

#22 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,492 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows Embedded Standard 8 & Server 2012/08 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 20 December 2012 - 19:40

Those items fall under "Shall not be infringed"


What about rocket launchers, turrets, grenade launchers :rofl:

There is no second amendment issue not with the previous relegation and not with the upcoming regulation

#23 Richteralan

Richteralan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,354 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 03
  • Location: Madison, Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 4 E960

Posted 20 December 2012 - 20:51

People are the ones who kill. That lunatic in China stabbed 70 people at a school, killed more than 30 people. Someone with a gun could've put him down easily. Nice of you to take things out of context.

If you are referring to the news 5 days ago a Chinese attacked and injured 22 kids in school, you are seriously twisting the fact.

Do you actually believe what you've said? Stabbed 70 people? For the sake of science, I want you buy 70 apples and cut them in half. Tell me how long it takes, not mention you have to chase the kids down to stab them. Killed more than 30 people? with knife? Again, for the science, I want you to use a bigger knife, buy 30 watermelons, and stab those. Tell me how long it takes and how much effort you need.

Do you guys just pull the numbers from your behind and plug it in some generic "people kill people" conundrum?

#24 SupportGeek

SupportGeek

    Neowinian

  • 483 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 21:44

What about rocket launchers, turrets, grenade launchers :rofl:

There is no second amendment issue not with the previous relegation and not with the upcoming regulation


Grenade launchers can be had with a tax stamp IIRC. Rocket launchers too, the launchers themselves are in limited supply iirc though so its usually purchase cost that causes the prohibition. Turrets are perfectly legal, they are not a weapon in and of themselves.

As far as what is and is not an issue with the second amendment, you need not take my word on it, nor will I take an outsiders word on it either.

Ultimately the issue will end up decided in the courts, regardless what tries to get passed, and with recent SCOTUS decisions, it doesnt look good for passing much more than a magazine size limit.

#25 McKay

McKay

    Neowinian Stallion

  • 5,901 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 10
  • Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Lane
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: LG G3

Posted 20 December 2012 - 21:51

Anti-gun guys cant seem to understand that limiting supply and making firearms illegal is a violation of the second amendment.


Yea something written hundreds of years ago must still be relevant and hold true today. A law passed to help defend America from invasion because it had no Army is still relevant, anyway doesnt it state this to allow the people to bear arms in "Well regulated Militias"?

If you're willing to endanger lives so you can continue to remain sentimental over a piece of paper that's already been amended plenty, go ahead.

#26 rippleman

rippleman

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09
  • Location: Near Calgary, Alberta
  • OS: Windows 8.1 (w/ Classic Shell)
  • Phone: s4

Posted 20 December 2012 - 21:59

Are you just assuming this, or do you personally know some and asked?

are you assuming they do?

Those items fall under "Shall not be infringed"

pretty sure i saw you write one time saying that the bible was dated and even if true was written long ago when times were different and things have changed. But... not the constitution?

#27 SpeedyTheSnail

SpeedyTheSnail

    Neowinian

  • 1,466 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 04
  • Location: Caprica

Posted 20 December 2012 - 22:06

Are you trying to suggest that arming 6-7yr olds with guns would lead to a lower death toll? :huh: Or perhaps you're suggesting that every teacher should be armed and trained how to use weapons but then where do you draw the line? Does everybody have to be armed just to be able to get throw the day without being shot up? Yet that neglects the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. And what happens if a teacher gets stressed and because they're armed decides to lock the door and then shoot up their entire class?

How about arming the adults numskull.

#28 shakey

shakey

    It's soooooo Educational

  • 11,021 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 04
  • Location: Austin, Tx

Posted 20 December 2012 - 22:15

Anti-gun guys cant seem to understand that limiting supply and making firearms illegal is a violation of the second amendment. They also dont seem to understand that owning firearms for self defense has already been affirmed by the SCOTUS.
I also like the hyperbole they use "Can I get a nuke to defend against a nuke?" Do home invasions or muggings take place with the criminal armed with missiles? Or are they armed with firearms and knives?
Ownership statistics and basic reasoning would fly in the face of your "its a responsibility that most people shouldnt have" thought, since MOST people store, handle and keep their firearms in a safe manner. If you were right, the 80+ million firearms owners would have wiped everyone in North America out a long time ago.



Ever made a firearm? I have, its not anywhere CLOSE to as hard as you would have other believe.
3d printing is also a couple of years from changing that idea yet again, where it will go from already moderately easy to clicking "print"
Also reloading ammo is simple too.
In fact, it takes a lot MORE effort to grow a decent marijuana plant than it does to manufacture a firearm.
So he has a valid point.


To make a good fire arm, yes it does require really good metal smithing and understanding. You can make a crappy one yes, but good luck hitting your target.
3d printers in a couple of years...Good reason to have more gun regulations is the population can just start making them......Congress is already thinking of ways to regulate 3D printers and how they will be bought and used, due to such things.
Actually, it takes more time to grow a plant, but more effort to make a gun. Time does not equal effort. Most homemade guns are pretty shabby too.

So, you guys don't want a ban on guns, but where is the outcry on the ban on swords? We can't have knives that are longer than the average palm length, yet I hear no one claiming they should have the right to defend with a sword and how the government is taking it away. Swords are a great way to protect yourself and others, and bring less danger of killing someone accidentally unless you are just really really untrained and swinging around wildly. Yet, they are banned, and there is no outcry....

All your crying is just useless stupidity over a weapon that most civilians shouldn't have access to. You just want some easy big boom stick so that you feel better about the scary scary world, when in fact, if anything actually did happen, you still wouldn't be properly prepared.

And the day you say Marijuana is as bad as Guns, is the day you truely lost your argument.


Oh, and who cares what a piece of paper says. I evolve. I don't let archaic scriptures rule my life. the 2nd amendment for baring arms was all fine and dandy when everyone had basically the same technology. It doesn't work now. There is no way a militia will stand up to a proper army. The difference in sheer fire power and technology behind them is just too large to believe in such a theory. But hey, if you want to live by archaic pieces of paper, you should read the bible and start following that as well.

#29 SupportGeek

SupportGeek

    Neowinian

  • 483 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 23:40

Yea something written hundreds of years ago must still be relevant and hold true today. A law passed to help defend America from invasion because it had no Army is still relevant, anyway doesnt it state this to allow the people to bear arms in "Well regulated Militias"?

If you're willing to endanger lives so you can continue to remain sentimental over a piece of paper that's already been amended plenty, go ahead.


Actually It wasnt JUST written because America had no army, that was one purpose, it was also to have a Militia available in case it was needed in event of a grave emergency. While the US has never had to call on the unorganized militia, in recent times, a country we all know and love has. In WWII after Dunkirk, under threat of invasion the UK called up ordinary citizens to form a "Home Guard" and at the time, the biggest problem for this group was a lack of weapons, most had nothing more than pitchforks and broomsticks. At the time, the army had absorbed the entire output of the weapons factories to re-equip an army that had lost everything in Europe. While not invaded, it often still fell to Home Guard to hunt down German Fighter pilots and capture them, who were often better equipped than they were.
Given this, its certainly not impossible that the US may need to call on the civillian militia.

As for the second part of your claim, *I* am not endangering lives, neither are any law abiding gun owners, your statement is nothing more than pure fantasy and fear mongering, I cant even give credit to it for attempting to paint me as an "evil" gun owner its so much nonsense.


are you assuming they do?

Did I make that statement? He made the claim they wouldnt though.

pretty sure i saw you write one time saying that the bible was dated and even if true was written long ago when times were different and things have changed. But... not the constitution?


Highly unlikely that was me, I dont believe in the Bible, it has some nice stories in it with interesting lessons, but its no different than any other morality story.
Are you saying that the Bible, something that has no force of law, and certainly not drawn up by the leaders of any country is equivelant to the founding documents of the country, which is backed by the executive and judicial branches at the very least? Apples to oranges bud.

#30 rippleman

rippleman

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09
  • Location: Near Calgary, Alberta
  • OS: Windows 8.1 (w/ Classic Shell)
  • Phone: s4

Posted 20 December 2012 - 23:45

Highly unlikely that was me, I dont believe in the Bible, it has some nice stories in it with interesting lessons, but its no different than any other morality story.
Are you saying that the Bible, something that has no force of law, and certainly not drawn up by the leaders of any country is equivelant to the founding documents of the country, which is backed by the executive and judicial branches at the very least? Apples to oranges bud.

Law is what you make of it, just like lawyers in court room. Its all subject to interpretation, as with everything written.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!