My sometimes short fuse is a personal flaw. If I harm someone because of it, I should be the one to blame, not any tools that I happened to be using. Hell, maybe an innocent person will be saved one day becuase they were armed, and I wasn't.

Hi 5 Blameless. NRA REPRESENT.

>.<

Stupid people who use guns should be illegal.

Hi 5 Blameless. NRA REPRESENT.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/_ashin/emot-ughh.gif

I smell anti-war and Going Green threads on the horizon.

i doubt it

My sometimes short fuse is a personal flaw. If I harm someone because of it, I should be the one to blame, not any tools that I happened to be using. Hell, maybe an innocent person will be saved one day because they were armed, and I wasn't.

Or maybe you could work on your temper? And if guns were made legal the world would become even more fucked up.

I never know whether to take your threads seriously, because I know you're prone to being a troll. Still, your idea is silly. Maybe people who think it would be sensible to allow everyone to carry firearms on the off chance they cross a moody cunt should be made illegal?

(pretty sure this isn't a serious thread by the way. But I thought I'd put my two penneth in)

it's a serious thread, but the OP is a direct quote from someone else and doesn't reflect my viewpoints.

In Soviet Russia, my temper works on you!

At least without guns people have a chance to fight.

At least with guns people have a chance to fight.

Once the reptilians get here all you bleeding heart liberals will be crying out for guns.

Zombie Ninja Nazis

2012, ARE YOU READY?!?!

YES

I could go on about how firearms have countless legitimate uses, how the number of people harmed by their illegal use is pretty small compared to countless other things, or how draconic gun control can't do any good when so many firearms are already in circulation...but everyone with any sense already realises that.

When it comes right down to it, I'm against most firearm restriction/regulation on the principle that people (I) should not be punished for the actions of others and that everyone should be able to do as they please, as long as they don't bring harm to others (me). The simple fact that one can use a firearm safely and responsibly, is all that is needed to validate their existence and use, in my view.

If through malice or incompetence someone harms another, blame them. Assigning any responsibility to the tool isn't going to get anything done (that box can't be shut), just goes to partially absolve who is really responsible.

The same idea applies to many other situations.

I'm sure at least some of you think alcohol is responsible for drunk driving, fire for arson, tsunamis for the deaths of people who flock to watch them come in, or scanty clothing for rape. Well, you're idiots.

NRA REPRESENT.


Stupid people who use guns should be illegal.


Zombie Ninja Nazis

2012, ARE YOU READY?!?!

I could go on about how firearms have countless legitimate uses, how the number of people harmed by their illegal use is pretty small compared to countless other things, or how draconic gun control can't do any good when so many firearms are already in circulation...but everyone with any sense already realises that.

When it comes right down to it, I'm against most firearm restriction/regulation on the principle that people (I) should not be punished for the actions of others and that everyone should be able to do as they please, as long as they don't bring harm to others (me). The simple fact that one can use a firearm safely and responsibly, is all that is needed to validate their existence and use, in my view.

If through malice or incompetence someone harms another, blame them. Assigning any responsibility to the tool isn't going to get anything done (that box can't be shut), just goes to partially absolve who is really responsible.

The same idea applies to many other situations.

I'm sure at least some of you think alcohol is responsible for drunk driving, fire for arson, tsunamis for the deaths of people who flock to watch them come in, or scanty clothing for rape. Well, you're idiots.

I'm incline to agree with this. When it comes down to it, it's the responsibility of the person who used said-object. I'm sure there are valid arguments against this, but out of sheer laziness (I'm at work right now), I don't want to think of them.

Guns are illegal and it doesn't stop people from carrying them anyways.

Usually I'm quite liberal, but firearms are one area where I'm pretty damn conservative :/. Give us fucking guns.

People have guns. They just conceal them. Maybe you should too then if you want one so bad.

we will all regret it when nazi pirates attack.

I am usually distrusting of anyone who owns a gun. Though that's not very many

Guns make it easy to kill and hurt people, click and your likely dead.
I'm not going to spend time turning my feelings into words for people who think guns are good, because they don't get it and won't untill they get killed by an angry 15 year old kid, or a drive by, or a random flying bullet, and it goes on and on.

I've an idea, why not give everyone here admin powers, and see what happens.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thsa5kdBMgw&feature=channel

Also watch the "Have We Reached the Tipping Point on Gun Violence?" vid.

I've an idea, why not give everyone here admin powers, and see what happens.

This.

I don't like the idea of people owning guns, because people are stupid.

Unfortunately, some of the stupidest people are in the government, military or police, and we give them high powered weaponry.

I don't like the idea of being outgunned by those in power.

Guns make it easy to kill and hurt people, click and your likely dead.
I'm not going to spend time turning my feelings into words for people who think guns are good, because they don't get it and won't untill they get killed by an angry 15 year old kid, or a drive by, or a random flying bullet, and it goes on and on.

I've an idea, why not give everyone here admin powers, and see what happens.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thsa5kdBMgw&feature=channel

Also watch the "Have We Reached the Tipping Point on Gun Violence?" vid.

Good video. America can shoot eachother up, I dont care. As long as guns stay illegal in Australia, I'm happy.

You're happy because the government controlled conservative media tells you to be happy.

Yay for 7 and ten being owned by newscorp.

no one watches channel ten

Guns make it easy to kill and hurt people, click and your likely dead.

So do sticks, stones, knives, cars, fire, rope, gravity, food, beer, etc.

Also, a single gunshot wound is fatal about one time in twenty.


I'm not going to spend time turning my feelings into words for people who think guns are good, because they don't get it and won't untill they get killed by an angry 15 year old kid, or a drive by, or a random flying bullet, and it goes on and on.

~30,000 people in the US are killed by firearms per year. About 17,000 of these are suicides. Only about 11,000 are (unjustifiable) homicides, out of 2.5 million total deaths per year (in the US).

Can you say drop in the bucket?

Tobacco use is responsible for ~440,000 deaths per year in the US.

People eating too much kills anywhere between 100,000 and 400,000 americans per year, depending on how you argue the facts.

Alcohol related deaths number ~85,000

Poisoning (mostly accidental) results in ~55,000 deaths.

Motor vehicles: ~43,000 deaths a year.

Sex: ~20,000, almost as many people in the US as firearms, and many more than non-suicide firearm deaths.

Hell, doctors accidentally kill 120,000 people per year in the US, though statisically most of these deaths fall under other causes.

For the vast majority of people fear of being shot to death in the US (one of the highest rates of firearm related deaths among first world countries) is about as irrational of a fear as you can get.

Unless they decide to kill themselves, there is about a 1 in 250 chance of someone dying as a result of a shooting. I've lived in areas with fairly high rates of violent crime, and I have never met anyone who was later killed by a gun shot that was not self-inflicted. I have admitedly met a few people who were shot and who survived.

The only shooting I can recall for the area I'm in now was perpetrated by a police officer who shot his girlfriend and five or six or her friends.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thsa5kdBMgw&feature=channel

Also watch the "Have We Reached the Tipping Point on Gun Violence?" vid.

A load of asinine reasoning, fear mongering, and an extremely biased presentation of facts.


I don't like the idea of people owning guns, because people are stupid.

Unfortunately, some of the stupidest people are in the government, military or police, and we give them high powered weaponry.

I don't like the idea of being outgunned by those in power.

And that is precisely why the second amendment exists. The people have the right to defy or remove a government that no long serves their best interests.

(load of statistics)

[Citation Needed]

I don't like the idea of people owning guns, because people are stupid.

Unfortunately, some of the stupidest people are in the government, military or police, and we give them high powered weaponry.

I don't like the idea of being outgunned by those in power.

I hope you're not suggesting that the legality of owning guns means you won't be outgunned by those in power X_X

lee's a one man army

[Citation Needed]

Anyone who can google can find all the sources I used and ten more that say the same thing.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK9_2005.pdf
http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf
...and so on.


I hope you're not suggesting that the legality of owning guns means you won't be outgunned by those in power X_X

A well armed populace will make it very difficult for a blatantly oppressive government, even if the military the government controls is far better armed.

While not precisely the same situation, the effectiveness of the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq prove that you don't need to outgun someone to cause them serious problems.

You should only have a gun if you live in a dangerous neighborhood. Nobody should really own a gun though.

You should only have a gun if you live in a dangerous neighborhood.

How does that logic work? Also gun crime and gun laws tend to be more severe in urban areas, especially those with high crime rates.


Nobody should really own a gun though.

A large portion of guns are used for hunting, and most hunting is done outside of dangerous neighborhoods.

Unless they decide to kill themselves, there is about a 1 in 250 chance of someone dying as a result of a shooting.

That seems rather common to me, then

That seems rather common to me, then

Since 250 out of 250 people die, I'm still going to argue that it's an uncommon form of death.

more common than it needs to be was the point

"Everyone dies anyway" is never a good argument for anything.

The fact that, even among completely avoidable causes of death, firearm fatalities are quite low on the list, yet recieve a disproportionate level of outrage, is my point.

I never used the "everyone dies anyway" argument, except to show that relationship. And in this case, I think it's a perfectly viable argument.

Plus... when people hold guns they look shit cool and get a hard on. Throw a mullet into the equation and how could you not like guns.

I mean seriously.

"The fact that, even among completely avoidable causes of death, firearm fatalities are quite low on the list, yet recieve a disproportionate level of outrage, is my point."

That because when you die from a gun it's because of some weak loser that has no respect for life, or like I said a random shot from some weak loser that has no respect for life, or maybe your a kid and your dad that is some weak loser that has no respect for life, left it loaded. Or what ever. You can only die from a gun if some weak loser that has no respect for life uses them.

I'm done with copynpaste for now.

I don't think you've really thought any of this stuff through.


You can only die from a gun if some weak loser that has no respect for life uses them.

So everyone who has ever killed (with a firearm) to protect their lives, the lives of their family, or their property, is a "weak looser" and has no "respect for life"?.

Every police officer, or soldier, who has ever opened fire on, and killed, some one to protect themselves, or those they were sworn to defend, is a "weak looser"?

Everyone who has made an honest mistake while hunting and fataly shot another hunter had "no respect for life" and is automatically a "weak looser"?

How are these situations, or any other killings, really any different from countless ones that occur without firearms?


or maybe your a kid and your dad that is some weak loser that has no respect for life, left it loaded

Should people be locking eachother in padded rooms to prevent them from having any means of killing themselves, accidentally or intentionally?

Yes to all that, they are killing. There is no situation where killing is justified. (For humans) By that I mean humans should never kill Anything intentionally.

And to the second, they are different (if you have not read when I said it before) because it's so easy.

And the third, if people want to kill themselves then fine. Go ahead just don't kill anyone else.


And just so you know when it comes to death, the needs of one are equal to the needs of many, it does not matter if one person dies or if one million die, you can't justify saving many over one. nor can you justify saving one over many, it's all equal.

Yes to all that, they are killing. There is no situation where killing is justified.

So, you'd just let someone kill you, or your spouse, or your children, or your best friend, rather than kill them?


(For humans) By that I mean humans should never kill Anything intentionally.

Do you live on a purely mineral diet?


And to the second, they are different (if you have not read when I said it before) because it's so easy.

Humans are fragile. Guns may make it a bit easier to kill from a distance, but they are hardly the only easy way for someone to die, or be killed.

You could turn the wheel of your car 10 degrees and takeout everyone in the vehicle coming at you from the other lane, or several people on a crowded sidewalk. If you want to kill someone who is close to you, or isn't suspecting it, it should be about as easy to use a knife.

There are often as many or more murders not commited with firearms as otherwise, even where firearms are readily available. The non-firearm murder rate in the US exceeds the total murder rate of many european countries. That's another reason why I think you are associating guns with human deaths too closely.


And just so you know when it comes to death, the needs of one are equal to the needs of many, it does not matter if one person dies or if one million die, you can't justify saving many over one. nor can you justify saving one over many

I have a different opinion.


it's all equal.

Unless you know arithmetic.

And just so you know when it comes to death, the needs of one are equal to the needs of many, it does not matter if one person dies or if one million die, you can't justify saving many over one. nor can you justify saving one over many, it's all equal.

if one person had to die in order for the ENTIRE world to be saved, you still think that it shouldn't happen? that the entire population should be wiped out instead? i kind of disagree with you about this, but i do agree that one person should not be sacrificed for the masses (in like, their rights being violated, etc. for clarification, read "those who walked away from omelas")

if one person had to die in order for the ENTIRE world to be saved, you still think that it shouldn't happen?

You have a good reason why not?

No I don't, life does not increase in value the more of it there is.

And Blameless i'll reply later startreks on.

Stupid people who use guns should be illegal.

+1

Coconut Milk has proven to me repeatedly that he is naive, optimistic, and generally oblivious to the realities of the world.

A FACEPALM TO YOU SIR!

A well armed populace will make it very difficult for a blatantly oppressive government, even if the military the government controls is far better armed.

While not precisely the same situation, the effectiveness of the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq prove that you don't need to outgun someone to cause them serious problems.

I agree an armed populace could cause the government problems if it really did come down to war between the people and the government. And I also have absolute confidence that, should it come down to it, enough people would resist to make it seriously difficult for them.

Unfortunately though, we're talking about one of the hugest, most advanced, and most well-funded militaries in the world (even despite the economic recession) against an admittedly larger number of people with pea shooters. The 2nd amendment was written at a time when muzzle-loaded rifles were the norm.

If it actually came down to the kind of rebellion we're talking about here, the weapons that Americans can legally own would be useless; we'd all just get run over by tanks.

Home-made explosives, seizures of military or even police weapons, and that sort of thing would be the main way of fighting back, and that really isn't much affected by whether you're legally allowed to own a pistol or a hunting rifle.

Unfortunately though, we're talking about one of the hugest, most advanced, and most well-funded militaries in the world (even despite the economic recession) against an admittedly larger number of people with pea shooters. The 2nd amendment was written at a time when muzzle-loaded rifles were the norm.

This same military is repeated delayed, foiled, and harrassed by guerrilla forces one-tenth it's size, with no comparison in funds.


If it actually came down to the kind of rebellion we're talking about here, the weapons that Americans can legally own would be useless; we'd all just get run over by tanks.

The weapons that americans can currently, legally, own won't take out a tank, or shoot down planes. That doesn't mean they won't be an asset.

Also, tanks don't do so well in cities, and even the best of them can be disabled with easily improvised weapons.


Home-made explosives, seizures of military or even police weapons, and that sort of thing would be the main way of fighting back, and that really isn't much affected by whether you're legally allowed to own a pistol or a hunting rifle.

I agree with the first part, disagree with the second.

It's easier to obtain these things when you have only small arms, than it is if you have no firearms at all. Also, many civilan weapons actually compare rather favorably with military hardware. The only difference between many of them is automatic vs. semi auto fire. The 12-gauge slugs I can buy at wal-mart will penetrate body armor better than the 5.56mm NATO round. Also, when it comes to sniper rifiles, civilians have the same quality, and probably greater quantities.

You make some good points, but I firmly believe that the 150 million firearms in private hands will make it much faster and easier to raise effective millitia's and paramilitary forces, for whatever purpose, if such things are needed.

And Blameless i'll reply later startreks on.

lolled hard

Coconut Milk has proven to me repeatedly that he is naive, optimistic, and generally oblivious to the realities of the world.

A FACEPALM TO YOU SIR!

Either that or I'm just a nice guy. I know how bad the human world is. Just because I did not give up on it years ago like you does not mean I'm oblivious and naive Mr I hate garamond for no good reason.

Anyway, Blameless I do eat meat. But only because it's given to me by my mum, I don't buy meat myself. It's something I have to put up with.

This same military is repeated delayed, foiled, and harrassed by guerrilla forces one-tenth it's size, with no comparison in funds.

Delayed/foiled/harassed isn't going to really accomplish that much, though. That is the nature of guerrilla forces, and it works to some extent, but ultimately it's like a dog biting at the heels of an elephant. The US military always still comes out on top in those situations, it can just take a while.



The weapons that americans can currently, legally, own won't take out a tank, or shoot down planes. That doesn't mean they won't be an asset.

Also, tanks don't do so well in cities, and even the best of them can be disabled with easily improvised weapons.

I agree with the first part, disagree with the second.

It's easier to obtain these things when you have only small arms, than it is if you have no firearms at all. Also, many civilan weapons actually compare rather favorably with military hardware. The only difference between many of them is automatic vs. semi auto fire. The 12-gauge slugs I can buy at wal-mart will penetrate body armor better than the 5.56mm NATO round. Also, when it comes to sniper rifiles, civilians have the same quality, and probably greater quantities.

You make some good points, but I firmly believe that the 150 million firearms in private hands will make it much faster and easier to raise effective millitia's and paramilitary forces, for whatever purpose, if such things are needed.

I guess, but what I'm saying is I don't really see this as a very good argument for allowing citizens to own weapons, because it's just not a big enough impact to really make a difference in the event of a war between the government and the populace. You might be able to make some limited progress but really I mean the issue isn't so much tanks themselves, I was just using that as a comparison like the dog and elephant thing. My point is that if such an extreme and unlikely scenario were to come up, people are going to have ways of getting the weapons they need anyway, and without doing that they'd get crushed, so I just don't see how that amendment is really relevant anymore.

Either that or I'm just a nice guy. I know how bad the human world is. Just because I did not give up on it years ago like you does not mean I'm oblivious and naive Mr I hate garamond for no good reason

what does that have anything to do with ANYTHING you're saying? that has no relation to being oblivious OR naive. and ftr, i don't think neg hates garamond. also, coconut milk, maybe there are reasons that happened that you don't know about that would cause neg to "hate" him (which, like i said, i doubt he does). you really shouldn't say nonsense like that until you know about everything that has gone on.

Guns, eh...?

I have no need; sure I could go to a gun range w/ it or smthng

but, realistically, it'd be placed somewhere away from the world

collecting dust to the point of me forgetting

its existence (not liter., but general...). If someone were to try and rob me in my house

I wouldn't instinctively think "Go for the gun...!"

(I doubt that if I were even in the gun's vicinity, I'd be able to access it in

the presence of a watchful robber... esp. if they had a gun...!)

at that point, I am in no position to do anything risky

If possible, I'd do nothing that would motivate a criminal to shoot me

but w/e

I miss my toy guns...

what does that have anything to do with ANYTHING you're saying? that has no relation to being oblivious OR naive. and ftr, i don't think neg hates garamond. also, coconut milk, maybe there are reasons that happened that you don't know about that would cause neg to "hate" him (which, like i said, i doubt he does). you really shouldn't say nonsense like that until you know about everything that has gone on.

It's to do with what neg was saying to me on msn. That I'm naive because I think he should not dislike garamond. I argued that I don't dislike anyone so why should he, and was trying to get neg to come into garachat.

It does not matter what someone does to you, theres no need to hate or dislike them, I've have people do lots of bad stuff to me, but I never fall to the level of not likeing someone for it. I will understand that they have some problem but never hate them. I don't know if neg "hates" garamond, really I don't think he does. But I do think he does not like him.

You're a class act, CM. Learn to debate without bringing up irrelevent information.

I'm all for someone debating the topic of the legality of gun ownership. I'm all for someone believing in gun control. I do, however, think that you are doing a detriment to the side of the debate you fall on, least of all because you decide to bring up personal issues you have with me.

Take note of how TK is debating the issue, and start there if you'd like to participate further. Note that I'm not saying my posts in this thread are of the utmost value. Still, I'm not trying to pass them off as legitimate arguments. My comments about you stand, especially in light of your responses on this third page.

You're a class act, CM. Learn to debate without bringing up irrelevent information.

I'm all for someone debating the topic of the legality of gun ownership. I'm all for someone believing in gun control. I do, however, think that you are doing a detriment to the side of the debate you fall on, least of all because you decide to bring up personal issues you have with me.

Take note of how TK is debating the issue, and start there if you'd like to participate further. Note that I'm not saying my posts in this thread are of the utmost value. Still, I'm not trying to pass them off as legitimate arguments. My comments about you stand, especially in light of your responses on this third page.

It was not irrelevent information, I was replying to you.

I don't have "personal issues" with you.

You said I'm "naive, optimistic, and generally oblivious to the realities of the world" my reply stating to you in a reply to you not replying to the general topic.. That "you hate garamond for no good reason", has everything to do with what you said about me before in the msn chat.

"Coconut Milk has proven to me repeatedly" Does this other occasion not exist anymore? This other off topic occasion?

Your the one who strayed off topic calling me those things. so my reply was off topic.
There is nothing naive, optimistic or oblivious in my posts about guns, or about garamond. Just because you can't seem to love everyone does not mean I'm like that.

Maybe you should learn to accept other opinions rather than saying I'm naive and oblivious.

Delayed/foiled/harassed isn't going to really accomplish that much, though. That is the nature of guerrilla forces, and it works to some extent, but ultimately it's like a dog biting at the heels of an elephant. The US military always still comes out on top in those situations, it can just take a while.

The US military was ultimately driven out of Vietnam, and it's still up in the air as to how the situation in Iraq will turn out. Raw firepower is one thing, but if the government has proven that it lacks the will to do what is needed to come out on top in conflicts like Vietnam, what makes you think it would have the will to decimate a large portion of it's own populace?

In a full blown rebellion, neither the government, nor the military, would remain one cohesive entity for long. Any popular cause is going to have supporters all over, including within the government and the military. It wouldn't be like the Civil War either. There are no longer issues that are so geographically specific to limit rebellion to an easily partitionable area; there would be no defined front. Most of the military's big hardware, designed to wage war against nations and infrastructure, could not be used in a conflict such as this without significant risk to those still loyal to the government, or the the assets of such people. And if you start killing the family and friends of your own soldiers, morale is going to suffer, if they don't turn on you outright.

Anyway, if small arms couldn't make a difference, they would not be assigned to virtually every soldier that has any chance what so ever of encountering hostiles, plus most that don't. Infantry, and the small arms they carry, are still the backbone of much combat (especially urban).


My point is that if such an extreme and unlikely scenario were to come up, people are going to have ways of getting the weapons they need anyway, and without doing that they'd get crushed, so I just don't see how that amendment is really relevant anymore.

I agree that the likelihood of violent revolution is extremely small. As screwed up as the government is, I do think a majority of the checks and balances still work well enough. I also agree that this part of the intent behind the second amendment is less valid now than in the past. We'll have to agree to disagree about just how valid it is.

However, this is certainly not all the second amendment encompasses.

Garamond is completely irrelevent to the topic at hand, you brought him up out of nowhere. I do not discuss private IM conversations on the boards, whilst you seem intent to.

Accepting that someone has an opinion that is different than mine is something I am perfectly capable of doing. That is very different from "loving everyone."

Believing that you love everyone is naive. Q.E.D.

Whatever, I love you.

:takethat:

and it's still up in the air as to how the situation in Iraq will turn out.

Gun control. Got to control the guns. Fuck. That. I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out. I'm not working out. I'm not fuckin' joggin'. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone: 'Man I will blow your fucking head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'

A amusing quote, but since it's extremely easy to make your own bullets, it's got no sense behind it.

Couldn't the same be of all religions?

Garamond is completely irrelevent to the topic at hand, you brought him up out of nowhere. I do not discuss private IM conversations on the boards, whilst you seem intent to.

Accepting that someone has an opinion that is different than mine is something I am perfectly capable of doing. That is very different from "loving everyone."

Believing that you love everyone is naive. Q.E.D.

I heart you, Neg. ;-)




LOL!

i get my opinions from chris rock

thats alot of eyebrow

too much eyebrow, not enough make up

actually, some things make up just can't fix

thats pretty harsh duder

Apparently we're having an ammo shortage here in Central Texas. LOL.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/24/0424ammo.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52

The US military was ultimately driven out of Vietnam, and it's still up in the air as to how the situation in Iraq will turn out. Raw firepower is one thing, but if the government has proven that it lacks the will to do what is needed to come out on top in conflicts like Vietnam, what makes you think it would have the will to decimate a large portion of it's own populace?

Well keep in mind the government was being hounded by people against the war in the first place, and it would only have made things worse if they'd gone to further extremes. Plus, that war was being fought in a totally different sort of terrain by forces that knew the land. And, though outgunned, were certainly better trained and equipped than a bunch of citizens with handguns would be. It's an interesting comparison, but I don't think it's quite close enough.

Anyway, in the unlikely scenario we're talking about, the government is already killing its own citizens so I see no reason why they wouldn't take whatever measures were necessary to secure their power. The politicians would no longer be answering to the voices of protesters.


In a full blown rebellion, neither the government, nor the military, would remain one cohesive entity for long. Any popular cause is going to have supporters all over, including within the government and the military. It wouldn't be like the Civil War either. There are no longer issues that are so geographically specific to limit rebellion to an easily partitionable area; there would be no defined front. Most of the military's big hardware, designed to wage war against nations and infrastructure, could not be used in a conflict such as this without significant risk to those still loyal to the government, or the the assets of such people. And if you start killing the family and friends of your own soldiers, morale is going to suffer, if they don't turn on you outright.

I agree completely with this, but I think that's one of the reasons why the event we're talking about is so unlikely in itself, not necessarily an argument about what it would be like if it did. We're already assuming that, for some reason or another, the government is genuinely at war with the citizens, which would require that it's held together in a cohesive form.


Anyway, if small arms couldn't make a difference, they would not be assigned to virtually every soldier that has any chance what so ever of encountering hostiles, plus most that don't. Infantry, and the small arms they carry, are still the backbone of much combat (especially urban).

Well, for one thing those soldiers are highly trained, and for another thing those weapons are provided as supplements, not the main force. I mean, yes, this is true—but what I'm arguing is that although a backbone is necessary, a backbone without the rest of the body is pretty useless.



However, this is certainly not all the second amendment encompasses.

Yeah, I should have said relevant to the issue of gun ownership, not just "relevant."

So... can we talk about Final Fantasy now?

I only ever played 7 and 8.

Closest thing I've ever played to Final Fantasy was "Kingdom Hearts". :-D

I've read most of this thread and I have to concur with Neg's assessment of CM. Goddamn that is extreme naivety.

Fwiw I'm more or less in agreement with Blameless' points.

As an American, I have a constitutional right to bear arms. Such freedoms should not be taken away from honest hard working Americans who love their country. If history has proved anything it's that regulation eventually leads to banning. They've literally "regulated" fire arms out of entire areas in America as I type this, despite a supreme court ruling against it. When a government passes regulations on fire arms, they just make it harder for honest citizens to own and defend themselves with firearms. Thus the government itself becomes the enemy to every single man/woman who wishes to live an honest life.

just give everyone samurai swords

As an American, I have a constitutional right to bear arms. Such freedoms should not be taken away from honest hard working Americans who love their country. If history has proved anything it's that regulation eventually leads to banning. They've literally "regulated" fire arms out of entire areas in America as I type this, despite a supreme court ruling against it. When a government passes regulations on fire arms, they just make it harder for honest citizens to own and defend themselves with firearms. Thus the government itself becomes the enemy to every single man/woman who wishes to live an honest life.

Oh crap, I need a gun so I can live an honest life!

As an American, I have a constitutional right to bear arms. Such freedoms should not be taken away from honest hard working Americans who love their country. If history has proved anything it's that regulation eventually leads to banning. They've literally "regulated" fire arms out of entire areas in America as I type this, despite a supreme court ruling against it. When a government passes regulations on fire arms, they just make it harder for honest citizens to own and defend themselves with firearms. Thus the government itself becomes the enemy to every single man/woman who wishes to live an honest life.

Arm bears instead, please, T_T !

Quick, somebody get me a gun! I need to live an honest life!

Indeed, armed with a gun makes me feel like a bear: FREEDOM! 8D

A Care Bear, I hope! C'mon, let's all be Bears who Care!

Every American has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall. How could that possibly be misconstrued?

As an American, I have a constitutional right to bear arms.

"It's in the constitution, therefore it's right"

also, what people like to conveniently leave out is that it's the right to bear arms of an organized militia not of joe blow from down the street

Ah, you crazy Americans and your happy-go-nutty gun laws. :3

also, what people like to conveniently leave out is that it's the right to bear arms of an organized militia not of joe blow from down the street

All male citizens (or those who have declared an intent to become citizens) aged 17 to 45 and all females in the National Guards are technically part of the militia of the United States of America.

Regardless, the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to a militia; it's an individual right (District of Columbia v. Heller).


"It's in the constitution, therefore it's right"

Rights are subjective, but the "supreme law of the land", as they say, does allow individuals to keep and bear arms.

Personally, I'd consider it a right even if it was expressly forbidden and highly criminal.

also, what people like to conveniently leave out is that it's the right to bear arms of an organized militia not of joe blow from down the street
I would like to meet this Joe Blow.

Rights are subjective, but the "supreme law of the land", as they say, does allow individuals to keep and bear arms.

Personally, I'd consider it a right even if it was expressly forbidden and highly criminal.

There's no such thing as rights. You don't have a right to breathe, let alone carry a gun.

People in America are indoctrinated with the idea because a bunch of aristocrats a couple centuries ago adopted the terminology as a way of telling a foreign power to fuck off.

I can see what you're saying. You don't want anyone telling you what you can or can't possess. I can understand this and on principle I can't really support it either, and ultimately what I'd really like to see is everyone just not wanting guns in the first place, but I also can't see myself opposing something that stops people from having them, since that would be a better situation than if people do have them.

A right is whatever one can take and hold, for one's self, or for others. I have the right to breath as long as I'm able to. I have the right to bear any arm I can get away with.

Firearms are tools with many uses and there is no consistent or credible evidence that suggests gun control laws prevent other crime. What exactly would change for the better if we didn't have firearms?

The day firearms are banned outright is the day I setup a machine shop and become a gunsmith. Judging from past history (prohibition, the war on drugs), it would pay for itself inside 6 months.

Who the hell want's to ban guns? That's not stopping the robber from black marketing one and offing you and your family in the middle of the night. Just have it so that you can't carry them in public places, and post more guard in the streets.

Who the hell want's to ban guns?

A lot of people.


Just have it so that you can't carry them in public places, and post more guard in the streets.

Unacceptable.

A big advantage to having an armed populace is the common people being able to protect themselves from the government and other groups that would employ such forces, should these groups get too far out of line.

protect themselves from the government

Sounding a little alarmist and conspiracy-theorist there, ain't ya?

I really don't particularly think there's any legitimate dangers going on that we don't know about, and as it happens there's currently a large number of nutballs out there trying to make out that the world as we know it relies on locking ourselves in houses and barricading the doors against the very government itself...it's a little ludicrous.

A right is whatever one can take and hold, for one's self, or for others. I have the right to breath as long as I'm able to. I have the right to bear any arm I can get away with.

Firearms are tools with many uses and there is no consistent or credible evidence that suggests gun control laws prevent other crime. What exactly would change for the better if we didn't have firearms?

Then you're just using "right" as "something I am capable of." By that definition it is the government's right to prevent you from owning firearms if they are able to do so.

I don't think firearms have many uses. They have one use, causing harm or death. Countries that have stricter laws about firearms have lower gun violence rates than the US. This makes a lot of sense. In those countries it is harder to get guns, so less people have them. This may also have to do with the fact that America just has unusually high crime rates in general and Americans are probably excessively exposed to and interested in violence compared to other countries, but I think the point still stands.

Guns aren't like drugs and alcohol. They require a lot of time, precision, special equipment and expertise to make. Blameless's Machine Shop cannot produce guns on the scale that Blameless's Grow-Op would be able to produce marijuana. To make a lot of guns you must manufacture them, and that is very difficult to do without being regulated. Furthermore you would require far, far more startup capital and have to charge far more for your guns than you would for homemade guns or marijuana grown in your basement; most people could probably not easily pay for them. I don't see how it could possibly be any easier, or even just as easy to get ahold of guns if people weren't allowed to carry them legally.

Sounding a little alarmist and conspiracy-theorist there, ain't ya?

The US was formed after a revolution and the basic right to revolution is recognized in the Declaration of Independence. It's not alarmist or a conspiracy-theorist until people start fearing that the government is out to get them and begin plotting in groups to fight them off. Thankfully the same wonderful document lets us know that humans are sluggish fools who are willing to take plenty of shit smiling rather than risk losing what is familiar to us standing up to it, so there's no reason to worry about anything happening right now.



Then you're just using "right" as "something I am capable of." By that definition it is the government's right to prevent you from owning firearms if they are able to do so.

It is though. And they often do just that. The debate over rights ultimately is about managing what people will protect and what they will restrict, and the government matters in so far as the government is a powerful aid in those efforts.

If common man can't have firearms, it makes it easier to invade a country. I guarantee if it happened, we'd have militias raised in some areas. I mean shit, you can legally own a full auto with a license here...

Criminals will always find a way to arm themselves. At least with the sane states that allow open and/or concealed carry - if people would stop being gay and use their right - criminals would be scared shitless since an armed citizen can take them down (as recently happened to an unlucky black gangbanger in Omaha, NE).

And people crying about criminals getting shot? Get real. They had it coming, and it saves the government loads of money. Not to mention makes your streets safer.

Also, the primary reason the US has a right to bear arms in the constitution from the founding fathers, is so that we have a chance to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical. And it's getting there, sadly.
And you wonder why they're hellbent on taking guns away. It's NOT from all you whiny fuckwits crying for them to take them away - everything that happens is always by the agenda of some schmuck politician. But then nobody really cares, hell they're wiretapping pretty much the entire internet with the excuse "to fight terrorism", but it's a load of crap and they're getting away with it.
AT&T is one company getting paid by the gov for this wiretapping - don't ever give them your money. More at EFF.org on that case.


And if guns were made legal the world would become even more fucked up.
You're a fucking idiot, they are legal. I can put on a holster, stick a loaded pistol in it, and walk around town legally. Cops can give me guff about it, but they can't do shit else. Hell I could do the same with an AR15 (someone did this actually, he was asked to leave a restaurant lol), though that actually should be banned since nobody sane's going to carry something so bulky and intimidating around. Of course, this varies by state and city regulations. Fortunately some places are sane enough to allow it.

Open carry should be used more often to get people used to seeing guns and get over this moronic phobia. Some places require no permit, and the ones that do are usually cheaper than a concealed permit.

In the old days, everyone had a gun, and criminals still did their thing just as they do today, but I'm willing to bet the criminals also got shot at more back then, none of this pansy ass "don't fire unless you absolutely have to, and let them steal your shit if you dont feel your life is in danger" back then.


A lot of morons living in fantasy land.
Fixed

edit: LOL just realized kakashi necro'd this thread. such a troll.

There's no such thing as rights.

just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's a useless concept. if you want to argue that rights don't exist you're more than able to, but it's a silly route to take if you want to have some sort of justified version of organized society.

... that being said, i don't believe in a (natural, inalienable) right to bear arms. i sure as fuck believe we have a natural inalienable right to life and liberty though. those are rights that transcend laws.

are you stalking me

Sounding a little alarmist and conspiracy-theorist there, ain't ya?

Not in the slightest, unless you think well documented, near universally acknowledged history, is a conspiracy.

There are countless laws, firearm regulations among them, that are more than enough reason for many to think that they need protection from their government. I personally feel there are many things that I should be able to do, that are in and of themselves of no harm to anyone in any way, that are still quite illegal.

Suggesting that the potential need to protect one's self from one's government is alarmist or needs be at all related to any conspiracy on the part of said government is absurd.

The government seeks to impose limitations on me that I do not agree with. Fact. I would like protection from this treatment. This is a fucking given. Not hard to grasp.


Then you're just using "right" as "something I am capable of." By that definition it is the government's right to prevent you from owning firearms if they are able to do so.

Sure. And there are laws that the government has beholden itself to that prevents it from categorically banning firearms.


I don't think firearms have many uses. They have one use, causing harm or death.

I'd put a serious wager on the vast majority of firearm owners and users having never used a firearm to cause any injury or any death with a firearm, to a human or otherwise. It's a sport for many people, and there are many, many other things that exist for no other purpose than people enjoy them. I don't see any issue with this.

Firearms are also used to hunt, and much of what is hunted is eaten. A decent subset of this is fairly necessary as well. There are people who depend on the meat they hunt to a notable degree.

Yes, some times other humans are harmed or killed by firearms. However, most of the time this is to prevent a crime, or in self defense.

Only a tiny minority of firearm related uses result in the unlawful death or injury of a person.


Countries that have stricter laws about firearms have lower gun violence rates than the US.

A lot of them do, but most certainly not all of them.


This makes a lot of sense. In those countries it is harder to get guns, so less people have them. This may also have to do with the fact that America just has unusually high crime rates in general and Americans are probably excessively exposed to and interested in violence compared to other countries, but I think the point still stands.

Only slightly more than half of murders in the US are committed with firearms. There are dozens of countries whose total murder rate is lower than the non-firearm murder rate in the US.

US is #8 in the world in murders with firearms and #25 in murders overall. This says that people tend to prefer guns, but the statistics overall say that if someone is out to kill you, lack of one isn't that big of a deal.


Guns aren't like drugs and alcohol. They require a lot of time, precision, special equipment and expertise to make. Blameless's Machine Shop cannot produce guns on the scale that Blameless's Grow-Op would be able to produce marijuana.

I am not entirely unfamiliar with CNC machines and CAD (I also have all the time in the world to learn more). All I would need to mill some guns is some easily pirateable software, publicly available specifications, steel, and the milling machines (expensive, but I could afford one, especially if it was used). The only components of a firearm I could not make this way would be very long barrels (not an issue if trying to make concealable weapons) and springs (which are cheap and easily available).


To make a lot of guns you must manufacture them, and that is very difficult to do without being regulated.

Not on a small scale.


Furthermore you would require far, far more startup capital and have to charge far more for your guns than you would for homemade guns or marijuana grown in your basement; most people could probably not easily pay for them.

To grow an significant quantity of weed I would either need a decent bit of land to do it outside, or a big hydroponics setup and lots of extra insulation for my basement. Probably a bit cheaper than a decent milling machine, but not by much, and the footprint would be much larger.

An individual firearm would cost more than a modest quantity of weed, but I wouldn't have to sell very many to bring in the the same kind of profit.


I don't see how it could possibly be any easier, or even just as easy to get ahold of guns if people weren't allowed to carry them legally.

I don't think it would get that much harder. There are huge numbers in circulation, and by the time these were confiscated, smuggling and small-time producers would make up for much of the loss. Law enforcement and military personnel would also still need to be equipped, and increasingly more of these supplies would be "lost" or "stolen" as their values increased.

So no, it would not get easier, but it wouldn't get much harder, just more expensive. It wouldn't stop shit, and would be a huge boon for organized crime, just like prohibition was, and the war on drugs is.

If common man can't have firearms, it makes it easier to invade a country. I guarantee if it happened, we'd have militias raised in some areas. I mean shit, you can legally own a full auto with a license here...

Criminals will always find a way to arm themselves. At least with the sane states that allow open and/or concealed carry - if people would stop being gay and use their right - criminals would be scared shitless since an armed citizen can take them down (as recently happened to an unlucky black gangbanger in Omaha, NE).

And people crying about criminals getting shot? Get real. They had it coming, and it saves the government loads of money. Not to mention makes your streets safer.

Also, the primary reason the US has a right to bear arms in the constitution from the founding fathers, is so that we have a chance to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical. And it's getting there, sadly.
And you wonder why they're hellbent on taking guns away. It's NOT from all you whiny fuckwits crying for them to take them away - everything that happens is always by the agenda of some schmuck politician. But then nobody really cares, hell they're wiretapping pretty much the entire internet with the excuse "to fight terrorism", but it's a load of crap and they're getting away with it.
AT&T is one company getting paid by the gov for this wiretapping - don't ever give them your money. More at EFF.org on that case.


You're a fucking idiot, they are legal. I can put on a holster, stick a loaded pistol in it, and walk around town legally. Cops can give me guff about it, but they can't do shit else. Hell I could do the same with an AR15 (someone did this actually, he was asked to leave a restaurant lol), though that actually should be banned since nobody sane's going to carry something so bulky and intimidating around. Of course, this varies by state and city regulations. Fortunately some places are sane enough to allow it.

Open carry should be used more often to get people used to seeing guns and get over this moronic phobia. Some places require no permit, and the ones that do are usually cheaper than a concealed permit.

In the old days, everyone had a gun, and criminals still did their thing just as they do today, but I'm willing to bet the criminals also got shot at more back then, none of this pansy ass "don't fire unless you absolutely have to, and let them steal your shit if you dont feel your life is in danger" back then.


Fixed

edit: LOL just realized kakashi necro'd this thread. such a troll.


I'd argue that nobody sane is going to be walking around with a pistol. I didn't read the rest of your post.

I'd argue that nobody sane is going to be walking around with a pistol.

There are well over three million concealed carry permit holders in the United States, meaning they almost certainly are walking around with a pistol at some point in their daily lives.

If you think they are all insane, well...

If you can't think of any reason it may be a good idea to have a pistol, you're just naive.

I don't see what the number of people carrying these weapons has to do with anything. I'd draw a parallel argument in religion but it's not really worth upsetting people.

Yes, I'd say they're all pretty insane. Maybe these people have to carry a concealed weapon because there's 2,999,999 other crazies with weapons around too.

Maybe these people have to carry a concealed weapon because there's 2,999,999 other crazies with weapons around too.

Is it not reasonable to want to be at least as well armed as your potential foe?

I want a sub machine gun :(

Is it not reasonable to want to be at least as well armed as your potential foe?
I don't think anybody should be armed. At the very least, I don't think anybody outside of police should be legally allowed to carry concealable weapons.

We own several guns, but we only have them out of necessity. The only way we can keep kangaroos/hares/ducks out of our crops is by shooting them. I guess what I'm saying here is I think it's fine to own guns for hunting and maybe even for protection (I'm sure nothing more than a threat is required - trigger happy people are retarded).

Also, I'm not sure what sort of opposition you'd have to get from the government to want to use a weapon against them (in the US at least), but I can guarantee you it won't help your position at all.

a dingo ate your baby

Guns don't kill people. Guns let you live an honest life.

How are kangaroos and ducks damaging to crops? And I thought kangaroos can be trained like dogs?

For me tho, I keep some sort of strange bat with the words "noCk" on a sticker plastered to it. I call it "The Knock-Stick of Great Justice". I reckon if Ness can deal massive damage with an everyday baseball bat in EarthBound, I should be able to deal even worse with a bat that looks somewhat like a baseball bat but is squarish, heavy, and has sharp ridges on it.

I don't see what the number of people carrying these weapons has to do with anything. I'd draw a parallel argument in religion but it's not really worth upsetting people.

Yes, I'd say they're all pretty insane. Maybe these people have to carry a concealed weapon because there's 2,999,999 other crazies with weapons around too.

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to someone as retarded to you.
But here's a prime example of why (responsible) citizens should all be armed.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100426/NEWS97/100429632

edit: why in the flying fuck is k-p-t-m censored

I don't think anybody should be armed. At the very least, I don't think anybody outside of police should be legally allowed to carry concealable weapons.

If the police have them, I want them (or would at least prefer someone not police have them to balance things out). Police are not infailable, not uncorruptable, and a lot of them aren't even remotely close to what you are likely to consider good people.

Also, if anyone has them, everyone may as well have them. A very significant minority (about 20-25%) of police killed in the line of duty are killed with their own weapons.


We own several guns, but we only have them out of necessity. The only way we can keep kangaroos/hares/ducks out of our crops is by shooting them. I guess what I'm saying here is I think it's fine to own guns for hunting and maybe even for protection

Necessity could be argued for many situations.


(I'm sure nothing more than a threat is required - trigger happy people are retarded).

Being armed, or simply having people who may wish you harm be unsure if you are armed or not, can be a great deterrent and that is another argument for the personal ownership of firearms.

However, the threat of force does not always work. Not everyone who gets shot in self defense is shot by a trigger happy individual. Not everyone will back down simply because you are able to produce a gun; you may gave to use it.

Let's say I'm trying to beat up or rape Cassie and she tries to stop this by threatening me with a pistol. I'm going to be quite outraged at that kind of audacity from her and would immediately attack. Any hesitation on her part and her weapon would become my weapon.

The rate at which well armed, well trained, police, who are usually not alone, are killed by their own or a partner's weapon that had been taken from them, is further evidence that deterrence is not enough.


Also, I'm not sure what sort of opposition you'd have to get from the government to want to use a weapon against them (in the US at least), but I can guarantee you it won't help your position at all.

My only position is day to day survival, protection of what I perceive as mine, and not being told what or what not to, if I can possibly avoid it.

I can't believe that guy is trying to limit guns to just police. That means when a robber breaks into your house with an illegal gun, you might as well empty your bank accounts and give him your wife immediately. Send him off with a nice gift basket and the deed to your house as well. Go back to sleep thinking, well, those gun laws sure where a good idia! The world is a much better place now!

just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's a useless concept. if you want to argue that rights don't exist you're more than able to, but it's a silly route to take if you want to have some sort of justified version of organized society.

... that being said, i don't believe in a (natural, inalienable) right to bear arms. i sure as fuck believe we have a natural inalienable right to life and liberty though. those are rights that transcend laws.

Wait, you really think that the concept of rights are a prerequisite for an organized society? Why? They are a rather recent fabrication, and there's no reason whatsoever that anybody needs to claim you have a right to something in order to make laws protecting it.

For example if we want people to be allowed to own guns, we don't need to claim, with no basis in reality, that they "have a right" to do so. We just need to say "under these circumstances it is legal to own a firearm." If we want to say people have a right not to be unjustly attacked, we can say what we really mean and just make a law that says you can't assault people. This is in effect what we do, but people are still hell bent on clinging to this idea that they have a "right" towards something, and even that they have a "right" towards not something.

Why do we have a natural inalienable right to life and liberty? Where did it come from? Do we have it because God gave it to us? Do we have it because Thomas Jefferson said so? Because John Locke said so? (He said it was because God gave it to us so I guess that would ultimately be the same as #1.) I don't see justification for any of these sources as originators of rights.

It is a poor way of talking about moral responsibilities in my opinion because it suggests two things: 1) That people can reasonably have a sense of entitlement about things and they don't need to explain it, they just "have a right," and 2) that the only reason we need to respect other people is because they have "rights" and we have to avoid those things, so good behavior is avoiding an intangible behavioral fence and then making sure your own fence isn't crossed. I think that's a pretty sad view of ethics, and I also think it's a huge part of the reason that people in America who are middle class and up tend to have a disgusting sense of entitlement. Why, I wonder, do poor people not have a right to eat? It seems like this would be a good one, an even more important one than the right to free speech; it also seems like it would be an essential part of the right to "life." But free speech was what was important to the slave owning aristocrats who conjured this nonsense up in the first place.

Sure. And there are laws that the government has beholden itself to that prevents it from categorically banning firearms.

OK, but by your definition that doesn't really matter. They can change the law, and then decide to ban guns, and your definition of rights means they have the right to do so. I'm not saying I have a problem with this definition exactly, it's just not what most people mean when they say rights. The whole concept exists as a piece of moral jargon precisely as a counter against the idea that whatever a person can do is justified by their ability to do it.


I'd put a serious wager on the vast majority of firearm owners and users having never used a firearm to cause any injury or any death with a firearm, to a human or otherwise. It's a sport for many people, and there are many, many other things that exist for no other purpose than people enjoy them. I don't see any issue with this.

Firearms are also used to hunt, and much of what is hunted is eaten. A decent subset of this is fairly necessary as well. There are people who depend on the meat they hunt to a notable degree.

Yes, some times other humans are harmed or killed by firearms. However, most of the time this is to prevent a crime, or in self defense.

Only a tiny minority of firearm related uses result in the unlawful death or injury of a person.

I'll acknowledge sport, that is a use of guns that doesn't involve hurting or killing. Hunting doesn't count, since you are killing animals. If you are doing so for meat, OK, it's not expressly for the sake of killing the animal, but that is still the purpose of the gun. Hunting can be accomplished without guns though, and I don't see any reason why a person who can do it with a gun couldn't do it with a bow. This is not to say I think there's a moral difference. I don't really care if people have guns just to hunt. But I don't think it's a good argument against gun control. "A few people use them to do obtain food that they could probably obtain with something else" doesn't seem to me like a very compelling reason to ignore violent crime.


Only slightly more than half of murders in the US are committed with firearms. There are dozens of countries whose total murder rate is lower than the non-firearm murder rate in the US.

US is #8 in the world in murders with firearms and #25 in murders overall. This says that people tend to prefer guns, but the statistics overall say that if someone is out to kill you, lack of one isn't that big of a deal.

I agree, if someone is really out to kill you they can probably find a way without a gun. It's a lot easier with a gun, though. I don't think the statistics actually say what you're saying they say. You're not factoring in all the other issues that would affect a country's overall murder rate. The US could be #80 in the world in murders overall, but there still would be a small portion of murders that wouldn't happen without guns and I still see no compelling reason why people need to have them. Throwing around percentages doesn't change this.


I am not entirely unfamiliar with CNC machines and CAD (I also have all the time in the world to learn more). All I would need to mill some guns is some easily pirateable software, publicly available specifications, steel, and the milling machines (expensive, but I could afford one, especially if it was used). The only components of a firearm I could not make this way would be very long barrels (not an issue if trying to make concealable weapons) and springs (which are cheap and easily available).

I'm not doubting that you can do it. I'm suggesting that your basement gun making operation cannot produce guns in large numbers over a short period of time, so your business would not be all that lucrative. "On a small scale" perhaps you could, but arming a nation would take a large scale.


To grow an significant quantity of weed I would either need a decent bit of land to do it outside, or a big hydroponics setup and lots of extra insulation for my basement. Probably a bit cheaper than a decent milling machine, but not by much, and the footprint would be much larger.

An individual firearm would cost more than a modest quantity of weed, but I wouldn't have to sell very many to bring in the the same kind of profit.

I don't think that's true. You can make a lot of money if you have a quality grow op in a sizable basement. BC grow ops can make in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year vicinity. I can't fathom that you'd ever approach the same level of profitability manually producing guns.


I don't think it would get that much harder. There are huge numbers in circulation, and by the time these were confiscated, smuggling and small-time producers would make up for much of the loss. Law enforcement and military personnel would also still need to be equipped, and increasingly more of these supplies would be "lost" or "stolen" as their values increased.

So no, it would not get easier, but it wouldn't get much harder, just more expensive. It wouldn't stop shit, and would be a huge boon for organized crime, just like prohibition was, and the war on drugs is.

For one thing, "more expensive" does make it harder. For another, I don't think it makes any sense to apply the history of alcohol and drug prohibition to the prohibition of absolutely everything. The amount of people who want a gun enough to get it illegally can't really be compared in any way to the amount of people who want alcohol and drugs enough to get them illegally. In order to get these kinds of problems you have be talking about something with a level of demand so high that the majority of people want it, and something that can easily be produced in large quantities by lots and lots of people. I find it really hard to believe guns could ever fit this criteria.

Wait, you really think that the concept of rights are a prerequisite for an organized society? Why?

I said for a justified organized society.


They are a rather recent fabrication, and there's no reason whatsoever that anybody needs to claim you have a right to something in order to make laws protecting it.

again, the difference between what's required for a society to exist versus what's required for the laws a society imposes to be morally justified/justifiable.

i would argue that although "rights" are a rather recent notion (and i certainly agree that this is the case), they've been there implicitly the entire time.

to say that it is wrong to kill is another way of saying that someone else has a right to life.


For example if we want people to be allowed to own guns, we don't need to claim, with no basis in reality, that they "have a right" to do so. We just need to say "under these circumstances it is legal to own a firearm." If we want to say people have a right not to be unjustly attacked, we can say what we really mean and just make a law that says you can't assault people. This is in effect what we do, but people are still hell bent on clinging to this idea that they have a "right" towards something, and even that they have a "right" towards not something.

it unfortunately gets very confusing very fast because there's a difference between "you have a right under these established laws" and "you have a natural, inalienable right that can never be taken from you."

oftentimes when people are saying you have a legal right they also mean you have the natural, "godgiven" (for lack of a better term) equivalent.

for what it's worth, i think it's fairly clear that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is clearly meant in the latter category, not the former, because they are explicitly defined as inalienable rights. i do not think it was intended to be the case for say, the right to bear arms. or the right of free speech or whatever else.


Why do we have a natural inalienable right to life and liberty? Where did it come from? Do we have it because God gave it to us? Do we have it because Thomas Jefferson said so? Because John Locke said so? (He said it was because God gave it to us so I guess that would ultimately be the same as #1.) I don't see justification for any of these sources as originators of rights.

why is it wrong to kill? who made it wrong, where did the wrongness of it come from?

... i always thought locke was more of the opinion that our rights were something that could be conceived of and understood by reason alone, without an appeal to divine law. i could totally be off here.


It is a poor way of talking about moral responsibilities in my opinion because it suggests two things: 1) That people can reasonably have a sense of entitlement about things and they don't need to explain it, they just "have a right," and 2) that the only reason we need to respect other people is because they have "rights" and we have to avoid those things, so good behavior is avoiding an intangible behavioral fence and then making sure your own fence isn't crossed. I think that's a pretty sad view of ethics, and I also think it's a huge part of the reason that people in America who are middle class and up tend to have a disgusting sense of entitlement. Why, I wonder, do poor people not have a right to eat? It seems like this would be a good one, an even more important one than the right to free speech; it also seems like it would be an essential part of the right to "life." But free speech was what was important to the slave owning aristocrats who conjured this nonsense up in the first place.

hopefully my clarification of what i mean by rights (ie, that is implicitly implied by morality in the first place) might clear up some of the issues you're bringing up here.

I said for a justified organized society.

What's the difference? Not trying to be snarky at all, I'm honestly not sure what you mean.


again, the difference between what's required for a society to exist versus what's required for the laws a society imposes to be morally justified/justifiable.

i would argue that although "rights" are a rather recent notion (and i certainly agree that this is the case), they've been there implicitly the entire time.

to say that it is wrong to kill is another way of saying that someone else has a right to life.


it unfortunately gets very confusing very fast because there's a difference between "you have a right under these established laws" and "you have a natural, inalienable right that can never be taken from you."

oftentimes when people are saying you have a legal right they also mean you have the natural, "godgiven" (for lack of a better term) equivalent.

"It's wrong to kill" isn't the same as "everyone has a right to life." In one case, it's wrong because the victim has something, a protective right. In the other, it's wrong because the killer has something, a moral obligation not to kill people. There's a very big difference between the two.

True moral goodness isn't wanting to murder someone but refraining from it. That is a start, and it's one that everybody has to start with, but at the bottom line that is just refraining from doing something because external influences convince you not to. Remove all negative consequences and it will happen. True moral goodness is not wanting to murder that person in the first place. But under the rights theory that is impossible. If the only reason you shouldn't commit murder is because people have an inalienable right to life, you have a huge mass of people who want to murder each other but don't because there's a moral fence out there that they'll be punished if they cross.

Also, one of the basic logistical problems with rights is that they're impossible to justify on any level beyond their being a convenient way to tell people not to do stuff. First off, the "right" obviously isn't very powerflul beyond semantics. People are able to kill each other, so the inalienable right is kind of alienable after all. I think a lot of people would tell me at this point that you can violate a person's right, you just can't take it away, but there is no practical difference between violating or taking away a person's right to life when you kill them.

But if I let that slide and say ok, it's just a violation of someone's right, then what about how plate tectonics violates this right when it kills people with earthquakes. That obviously doesn't make much sense since the earthquake had no intention behind it, so you have to amend your definition to say that rights only apply to the intentions of other beings. Then you have to specify that if someone is killed by an angry animal it's not a violation of rights, because there's no comprehensible way to suggest animals are violating your right if they kill you. (I mean, I guess you could, but it sure doesn't bother the animals! They will violate your rights all day.)

You pretty much end up with something entirely superfluous in this situation. Rights just become pretend moral barriers that implicitly involve an obligation on the part of other people to behave in a certain way. But then they wind up sending the message, "You have to behave this way because otherwise, you violated someone's inalienable right, which was put there by ____________, and we will punish you on ___________'s behalf (if we catch you)." Whereas the message should be, "You should behave this way because that is the proper way to conduct yourself as a human being according to your place as part of a prosperous society."




for what it's worth, i think it's fairly clear that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is clearly meant in the latter category, not the former, because they are explicitly defined as inalienable rights. i do not think it was intended to be the case for say, the right to bear arms. or the right of free speech or whatever else.

How do you differentiate between the two?


why is it wrong to kill? who made it wrong, where did the wrongness of it come from?

Do you want my opinion, or simply lists of possible explanations? It all depends entirely on your worldview, but not a single worldview justifies or necessitates belief in rights for its justification of morality. If you believe in God: God never tells anyone they have to behave a certain way because others have rights, in any religion that I am aware of. God says, "Do this, because it is the right way to behave." If you are an atheist, you could be a Kantian or a utilitarian perhaps, or a virtue theorist (which is the right one to be) and none of these things involve or explain rights. You might also believe morality is purely an instinctive evolutionary development with no justification beyond that, which also doesn't involve or explain rights. If you're a nihilist, well... yeah, you're a nihilist.


... i always thought locke was more of the opinion that our rights were something that could be conceived of and understood by reason alone, without an appeal to divine law. i could totally be off here.

Most, if not all the enlightenment philosophers who came after him believed this (because most of them were much dumber than him, in my opinion) but he made it clear that the ultimate source of morality in his mind was God and God alone. This actually gets glossed over pretty heavily, according to my main philosophy professor when I was in college, because modern philosophy is overwhelmingly atheistic and most of the professors teaching it just ignore the Christianity-oriented parts of his work.

If you are an atheist, you could be a Kantian or a utilitarian perhaps, or a virtue theorist (which is the right one to be) and none of these things involve or explain rights.

Please don't tell people what the "right" thing to think is. You come across sounding like a pompous ass.

But to add on to what you were saying, you could also go straight to Nietzsche and say that we have to get out of the entirely Christian framework that has pervaded modern philosophy (enlightenment thinkers and beyond) and rethink our moral perspective because God is dead (or so he says). His problem with equal rights, as I can best interpret him, is that it makes everybody too equal: the talented and the talentless, the creative and the unimaginative, the idiots and the geniuses. His was convinced that egalitarianism was created by a slaves who desired to be treated equal to their oppressors, even though their disabilities dictated that, naturally, they deserved no such right.


I can't believe that guy is trying to limit guns to just police. That means when a robber breaks into your house with an illegal gun, you might as well empty your bank accounts and give him your wife immediately. Send him off with a nice gift basket and the deed to your house as well. Go back to sleep thinking, well, those gun laws sure where a good idia! The world is a much better place now!

Burglary isn't a capital crime, murder is. Does someone who takes something from you deserve to die?

...you might as well empty your bank accounts and give him your wife immediately.

They basically already have it like that...

more guns yet less crime: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5857



Burglary isn't a capital crime, murder is. Does someone who takes something from you deserve to die?

Murder is killing someone for a petty, illogical reason.

Criminals pretty much never change, so killing one is "taking out the trash", not murder.

Please don't tell people what the "right" thing to think is. You come across sounding like a pompous ass.

You took it more seriously than it was intended to be.

And anyway I think it's OK for me to state what my opinions are without disclaimers saying "this is only my opinion" when it's pretty clear that it's just my opinion anyway. Sarah and I are friends and she knows I am not telling her what to think.

When the government gives us "Normies" superpowers then they can take the guns away.....maybe

But to add on to what you were saying, you could also go straight to Nietzsche and say that we have to get out of the entirely Christian framework that has pervaded modern philosophy (enlightenment thinkers and beyond) and rethink our moral perspective because God is dead (or so he says). His problem with equal rights, as I can best interpret him, is that it makes everybody too equal: the talented and the talentless, the creative and the unimaginative, the idiots and the geniuses. His was convinced that egalitarianism was created by a slaves who desired to be treated equal to their oppressors, even though their disabilities dictated that, naturally, they deserved no such right.

You could say that, but (speaking as a Nietzsche fan) it is a pretty bloody silly perspective.


I do think that rights-based morality is ultimately probably unjustifiable but rights are a pretty useful shorthand for trying to get people to behave so they're pragmatically valuable. I know that's a poor argument for accepting them (in fact it's exactly the same as the awful argument that you should believe in God just to have a moral arbiter) but there you go.

Also:

Murder is killing someone for a petty, illogical reason.

Criminals pretty much never change, so killing one is "taking out the trash", not murder.

Neither of these statements are true. I'd argue the point but I really can't be arsed, just thought I'd let you know.

I'll acknowledge sport, that is a use of guns that doesn't involve hurting or killing. Hunting doesn't count, since you are killing animals. If you are doing so for meat, OK, it's not expressly for the sake of killing the animal, but that is still the purpose of the gun. Hunting can be accomplished without guns though, and I don't see any reason why a person who can do it with a gun couldn't do it with a bow. This is not to say I think there's a moral difference. I don't really care if people have guns just to hunt. But I don't think it's a good argument against gun control. "A few people use them to do obtain food that they could probably obtain with something else" doesn't seem to me like a very compelling reason to ignore violent crime.

The same factors that make it easier to kill a person with a gun make it easier to put food on the table through hunting with a gun.

Hell, at the ranges most game is take vs. the ranges of most firearm homicides, a bow or crossbow would be more effective as a murder weapon than a hunting weapon.

I don't think there needs to be an argument against gun control. In my view, it's the control, not the freedom from it, that must be justified, and there is no logical or conclusive justification for gun control.


I agree, if someone is really out to kill you they can probably find a way without a gun. It's a lot easier with a gun, though. I don't think the statistics actually say what you're saying they say. You're not factoring in all the other issues that would affect a country's overall murder rate. The US could be #80 in the world in murders overall, but there still would be a small portion of murders that wouldn't happen without guns and I still see no compelling reason why people need to have them. Throwing around percentages doesn't change this.

I see no compelling reason why people need to have fast food, or alcohol, or cigarettes, and these things kill thousands of times as many people as firearms.

However, it's not my place to ban or restrict such things. If I'm run over by some drunk, it won't be the alcohol's fault.

Regardless, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that civilian gun ownership is more a preventative and a deterrent to crime, including murder, than otherwise.


"On a small scale" perhaps you could, but arming a nation would take a large scale.

I wouldn't be trying to arm a nation.


I don't think that's true. You can make a lot of money if you have a quality grow op in a sizable basement. BC grow ops can make in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year vicinity. I can't fathom that you'd ever approach the same level of profitability manually producing guns.

Possibly.

The only thing I'd be doing manually is sweeping metal shavings out from under the CNC machine, reloading it, putting the final polish on a few components, then assembling them. The rest would be pretty automatic.


For one thing, "more expensive" does make it harder.

Yes, to a degree. I think the potentially increased cost would be offset by other factors though.


For another, I don't think it makes any sense to apply the history of alcohol and drug prohibition to the prohibition of absolutely everything. The amount of people who want a gun enough to get it illegally can't really be compared in any way to the amount of people who want alcohol and drugs enough to get them illegally. In order to get these kinds of problems you have be talking about something with a level of demand so high that the majority of people want it, and something that can easily be produced in large quantities by lots and lots of people. I find it really hard to believe guns could ever fit this criteria.

There are almost 300 million guns in this country. Half of US households have at least one. The number of gun owners is quite possibly greater than the number of those who regularly consume alcohol, and is almost certainly greater than the number of people who use illicit drugs.

I don't think comparing an absolute ban on gun ownership, to prohibition is out of line. Millions of people own them, have invested considerable sums in them, and do not think they should be limited in how they use them as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Try to confiscate them all, or put overly draconian limitations on them, and people are going to refuse, ignore them, or push back.

Burglary isn't a capital crime, murder is. Does someone who takes something from you deserve to die?

They do for breaking and entering my damned house! They are going to get a heroic ass whooping for trying to steal from me, then several bullets to the stomach for stalking in my domain. I'll then call the police, and tell them to bring an ambulance.

They do for breaking and entering my damned house! They are going to get a heroic ass whooping for trying to steal from me, then several bullets to the stomach for stalking in my domain. I'll then call the police, and tell them to bring an ambulance.

Haha heroic ass whooping how about a villainous trouncing.

Trouncing is a terrific word.

They do for breaking and entering my damned house! They are going to get a heroic ass whooping for trying to steal from me, then several bullets to the stomach for stalking in my domain. I'll then call the police, and tell them to bring an ambulance.

good job macho man, but justice doesn't mean killing anyone who wrongs you.

It does in the state of Texas, YEEEEEHAAAAAW! :P

RIDE EM COWBOY!

Well, you guys let him break in. Offer him a drink why don't ya? Oh? you like my grandfather watch? It's yours friend! I'm just a bitch-ass little liberal! You can have sex with my cat if you wish!
Sheeze, honestly, am I the only American here? You guys has target sighns all overs your heads. Deeze guys be packin' certified bitch stamps.

I'm actually British here, Kiddo - and I'd rather use non-lethal force with a baseball bat...or my Umbrella Inc Umbrella! :D

And I mean Non lethal as in I'd let the guy leave on a stretcher, alive, but definately in worse state than he came in...
I know how to get enough of a drop on somebody where I'm living right now, afterall.

A gun isn't the only way to defend yourself!

I'm actually British here, Kiddo - and I'd rather use non-lethal force with a baseball bat...or my Umbrella Inc Umbrella! :D


Wait.... baseball bat?..... Do you not want to sully your good cricket bat? :p

I don't own a cricket bat. :P

...Well, I don't own a baseball bat either, so I guess that's out. 8D
I guess A Stab in the stomach with that umbrella should show that rascal what's what, Egads!

Do you have an awesome umbrella like the Penguin does? Cuz you know... that would just be awesome to kick someone's ass with a high class umbrella like that :) They'd have to tell the other inmates how they got beat up so bad lols

It's an Umbrella Inc Umbrella...Resident Evil Merchandise of Win! :D

Does it have the T-virus in it?

someone should make an ffshrine weapons thread (but not me because I make too many threads).

I have some knives and sais! No swords anymore except for a little wooden practice one. :(

Sorry, Misu. D: I don't have that kinda research, saaaaadly!

someone should make an ffshrine weapons thread (but not me because I make too many threads).

I have some knives and sais! No swords anymore except for a little wooden practice one. :(

Why not you? :p It seems like your threads get more respect than others :)

Well, you guys let him break in. Offer him a drink why don't ya?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202356.html

^ "I'm sorry," he told the group. "Can I get a hug?"

I'm takin' a ride in mah roflcopter now!

Well, you guys let him break in. Offer him a drink why don't ya? Oh? you like my grandfather watch? It's yours friend! I'm just a bitch-ass little liberal! You can have sex with my cat if you wish!
Sheeze, honestly, am I the only American here? You guys has target sighns all overs your heads. Deeze guys be packin' certified bitch stamps.

you're an idiot.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202356.html

that was super awesome and cute.

^ No you are. You will probably be beaten to a pulp by a villain that broke into your house, because of you terrible ignorance of self protective strategies.
BTW, I own several swords too. Greek swords, Japanese swords, cutlasses, daggers, etc etc. I live in Cali, so maybe it's because when somebody breaks in your house here, they WILL kill you if they make contact.

They'll probably just make off with your sword collection and any other weapons you have around.

~Sigh~ can't we all just get along we are the upright standing species......but guns should stay and be totally legal there I said it!

I think Chris Rock had the right idea when he said guns should be legal, but bullets should be expensive as hell. "I would put a cap in yo' ass...if I could affo'd it!"


They do for breaking and entering my damned house!

Yeah, that'll hold up in court well. "Your honor, he deserved to die, he broke into my house. MY house!" "Oh, well since he broke into your house, obviously he needed to die."


Sheez, honestly, am I the only American here?

It's people like you who convince other nations that "American" is synonymous with having the free license to kill anyone you want. Because of people like you, every other nation believes that "the US is a steaming pile of shit" so THANKS A FUCKING LOT.

Excuse me sensei Olde but I personally couldn't give a Flying Dutchman what people across the pond think of me as an american or their misconceptions of my country and its people,ignorance is contagious I guess?

Well, regardless of whether or not you care, what other countries think of America does matter to Americans, even if indirectly. We don't live in an atomized world. Our actions, customs, ideologies, etc. incites responses in others. It doesn't help if the whole world hates us. And don't bring up "we have the strongest military in the world, so we can kick everyone else's ass" because one country can't take on the whole world.

Furthermore, it's not a "misconception" if Americans really do feel the way that realsilverjunk does, that is, that no one has the right to live if they steal, plus whatever other nonsense that guy believes.

you're an idiot.

The truth hurts. Everytime people hear the truth, they get butthurt, defensive, and often resort to insults.

It's not anywhere near the truth - the previous reply to that post is hyperbolic and ignorant that regular folks ARE NOT fit to render an execution on a trespasser. For a Christian Country, ya'all are sure happy to fire on those who don't deserve it.

I know nobodys brought this up but it's relevent to the overall conversation since it sounds far too hyprocritical and altogether ridiculous to even entertain the idea lethal force as a notion of Defence and then go on to claim that 'God would endorse my actions!', to be honest. Simply saying 'God would say it's okay' does NOT mean anything more than you trying to hide behind an unconfirmable defence - And not even a very good one.

So I have to really ask this now given how religion is also still a part of the overall American Patriot mindset:
Do those commonly proclaimed so-called Christian moral values just disintegrate automatically when you get intruded?

I'm just curious.

God is a creation of man: fiction used to fill in what we can't explain, to provide hope to the weak. Due to this fact, there are more nonbelievers in the USA, because religion is an illness.

Criminals are criminals. They deserve to be shot on sight if they're trying to commit a crime. Period.

So I have to really ask this now given how religion is also still a part of the overall American Patriot mindset:
Do those commonly proclaimed so-called Christian moral values just disintegrate automatically when you get intruded?

I'm just curious.

I'm gonna get srs here for a second....


Actually, America is no longer the Christian nation it used to be. In the last 20-30 years there's been more and more rules and regulations trying to keep things related to God from being mentioned or practiced in public. Every other religion seems to be fine to talk about though (except Muslim obviously). The Christian morals that used to define America have disintegrated years ago.

God is a creation of man: fiction used to fill in what we can't explain, to provide hope to the weak. Due to this fact, there are more nonbelievers in the USA, because religion is an illness.

I'm atheist - my point is that a central justification of this is that there are many people in small town church-going communities who would use God as this validating force behind these actions. However, writing Criminals off as mere animals who deserve to be shot and killed for no reason other than you don't believe anything can be done to change them {Which is entirely false, given that rehabilitation DOES work!} is probably an even worse abuse of intelligence.

Really, I can't even decide which side is the more twisted with their reasoning at this point.

God is God. Some men believe, some don't. That's their choice.
Honestly, there are some real fu**tards around here. Who have obviously never been robbed. I almost did, but I scared the lurker off. My next door neighbor got broken into, while she was taking a bath, ran outside, naked, and was screaming for help at our door. The guy was arrested, lucky for him I was just a wee lad. In AMERICA, it's legal to blast someone that has trespassed IN YOUR HOME. I can't understand your problem with that. Somebody breaks in, and not some unarmed gimp, I mean an armed and dangerous fiend, who will murder you on sight, to keep mouths shut. What do you do? Hide in a closet and hope he doesn't find you? Cry for help? Honestly, things are real different outside of California. I've been all across America, and never met a person who wouldn't defend themselves against an intruder. I guess some of you guys are some odd exception. I hope your plan to just walk up and call him an idiot works. I'm sure he'll feel bad and sit down and smoke some ganj wit' ya'.

Defend, yes - but Kill outright in defence without attempting to incapacitate...No.

In AMERICA, it's legal to blast someone that has trespassed IN YOUR HOME.

Oh really? Does the Constitution say that? Does the Bill of Rights say "In America, it's legal to shoot someone trespassing in your home"? Tell me what amendment states this. Honestly, don't make up shit to justify your crackpot ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States

And I mean a dangerous intruder.

Even I wouldn't have asked that question, Olde - These laws actually exist within the US, and it's understandable why they do...but I would certainly never advocate the use of deadly force, nor ever refer to it lightly as if it were the only option.

you give californians a bad name.

No I don't, we just don't like being robbed. I guess you guys just sit back and drink tea as everything you worked your ass of for is stolen from you. I'm a hard working, tax paying American, and I'm not letting some worthless slacker come into my house, steal my hard earned things, and pawn them so he can shine his stolen boots. Honestly, some of you are sad excuses for living beings.
Answer me this-What will you do when/if someone armed breaks into your house and starts breaking, urinating, and stealing all of your possessions?

ask them if they want some tea

lol, we're sad excuses for living beings because we don't want to kill

You don't have to kill the intruder, you could always disable him. Can't let him be in too good condition, he can still hurt you before the cops come. Anyway, we'll see what you do when a gun is in your face.

Can't let him be in too good condition, he can still hurt you before the cops come.

But I thought he's already been disabled? Whatever that means. Twist-ties around the wrists?


Anyway, we'll see what you do when a gun is in your face.

Without proper training there's really not much you should do with a gun to your face. Even with, you're kind of limited in what kind of things you can do at that point.

OK, ok, guy comes into my house and invades my privacy and I'm bound to be upset, for sure. But you seem to be coming at this from a perspective of a 'revenge fantasy' or something. Which never works out the way you plan it in your head. I think you're got a lot of emotions about the topic and that's fine, it seems like the neighborhood you live in is harsher than most and home invasions happen a lot? But in the actual situation, acting on emotions alone may not be a good thing. In the situation you're giving it is hard to discern between a 'dangerous intruder' and a guy who is really drunk and thinks he's in the right house. It's best to approach this with a clear head, which I understand is difficult with an intruder in your house.

I'm not against protecting yourself/family/things from people who want to do harm, but I think you're working under the assumption that if someone enters your house without permission it is because they are willing to kill you and do weird things to your cat. This is not always the case and I am wondering if you think it is justified to blow the kneecaps off a really drunk guy because he could have been a gang member on meth who is looking for ears to rape.

If you want to act out some primitive urge for vengeance whenever anyone does anything to you, that's fine, but let us carry on with civilisation and the rule of law in peace please, thank you.

If I found someone armed and stealing things in my house I imagine I would do the proper thing and call the police, who would be able to deal with him much better than I could. The only people who would ever kill in the process of robbery are in some way mentally unwell and even then it is fairly rare. But, of course, if you want to believe that every burglar (armed or not) is going to murder you if you so much as blink an eyelid then you are quite welcome to believe that. It's not true, though.

Answer me this-What will you do when/if someone armed breaks into your house and starts breaking, urinating, and stealing all of your possessions?

Depending where in my home I encounter him, I will either kill him or beat the shit out of him. I don't need guns to protect myself or the ones/things I care for. If he has a gun, he'd better hope he kills me before I get to him. I was never one to ask for help anyways so if cops show up, it'll most likely be the neighbors or someone else in the house. But if someone else wants to join in on the fun, I'd be more than willing to let them help whether or not I need it.

...

*facepalm* ...and they say we're a civilised race.

Hah, screw that - people never learn that violent reactions aren't always the best methods.

I can understand the views on both sides but if you're in the situation where someone is breaking into your house I guarantee anyone's mindset will be different. They chose to break the law and enter your home. It's their choice and they need to be prepared for consequences. I do not own a gun but if I did I wouldn't be afraid to atleast have it out if I heard an intruder. I would not run at him guns blazing but you can never be sure what the intruders intentions are or what weapon they may have.

I would not run at him guns blazing but you can never be sure what the intruders intentions are or what weapon they may have.

This thing you did, where you expressed reasonable uncertainty over how an unknown situation may turn out, is quite different than the power fantasies people are having in this thread, where thief = a walking target you are free to kill in any way you wish with no risk to yourself even though they are entering your home apparently armed with the same kind of weapon you're planning to use against them, with the same murderous intent that you have.

realsilverjunk plans to stare down the shaft of a gun dirty Harry style before deftly incapacitating the intruder, carefully injuring them just enough so that they are no longer a threat until the police come but also not putting their life in serious jeopardy.

He should just drop the self defense pretense and devote more time to playing with his weapons while making kung fu noises. IIDX can join him as the no weapons badass.

I will join with my katana that I got on ebay

I will have to put on my ronin outfit before defending my home but that doesn't take long

I love running around my house with weapons and saying cheesy lines ; ; not so much with the kung fu noises but still!

I would never use a weapon on anybody though, not that I'm doing anything. And just for the record, while I haven't had my house broken into (unless you count drunk guy walking in and I don't) I have been held at gunpoint, and I just was really scared and gave the guy the stuff I had on me. I don't think experiencing this kind of stuff would change that many people's opinions, really.

Been held at Knifepoint with my brother...not even kidding.

http://redstatepatriot.com/lester.JPG

I used to live in a bad neighborhood. Druglord and all. I live in an upper middle class area.
Anyway, I'm not a hellbent kind of guy, but I have 10 years martial arts training, and seasoned in arms use. I know what to do in any domestic situation. If you find a drunk in your house, you should definitely arm yourself, and get him to leave. Of course call the police, hurt they take at least 10+ mins to get there, depending on the distance. I personally choose a handgun, and security devices.

I would never use a weapon on anybody though, not that I'm doing anything. And just for the record, while I haven't had my house broken into (unless you count drunk guy walking in and I don't) I have been held at gunpoint, and I just was really scared and gave the guy the stuff I had on me. I don't think experiencing this kind of stuff would change that many people's opinions, really.

Don't let drunk people break in, kick them out, then call the police. Also, don't be a victim. I would have never given anyone anything on me, because if he was going to kill you, he would have already. With training, you can disarm idle threatening and crooks. Basic training. Not using a weapon makes you a prime target, because your home is not secure. At least carry an aluminum bat.
Pacifist tactics are useless. I've seen people try to use them, and they just get mugged, robbed, and become known targets. You don't have to kill anyone by just defending yourself aggressively.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I let random drunk people hang out in my house! He got kicked out.

I don't own anything that I'd be willing to risk my life for. My life risking applies solely to people!



http://redstatepatriot.com/lester.JPG


Ft. Hood?

I didn't mean you let people in your house. Although I'm not aware of what you did with him until the police arrived, since drunks usually don't just listen.
And the things I own I worked for. I'm not going to let somebody just break in and I cut my losses. Their little sad life is not worth me losing the hard of work I put in gaining things, or putting anyone I protect into danger.

I could go on about how firearms have countless legitimate uses, how the number of people harmed by their illegal use is pretty small compared to countless other things, or how draconic gun control can't do any good when so many firearms are already in circulation...but everyone with any sense already realises that.

When it comes right down to it, I'm against most firearm restriction/regulation on the principle that people (I) should not be punished for the actions of others and that everyone should be able to do as they please, as long as they don't bring harm to others (me). The simple fact that one can use a firearm safely and responsibly, is all that is needed to validate their existence and use, in my view.

If through malice or incompetence someone harms another, blame them. Assigning any responsibility to the tool isn't going to get anything done (that box can't be shut), just goes to partially absolve who is really responsible.

The same idea applies to many other situations.

I'm sure at least some of you think alcohol is responsible for drunk driving, fire for arson, tsunamis for the deaths of people who flock to watch them come in, or scanty clothing for rape. Well, you're idiots.

Couldn't have put it better myself!!!

Fuck that! Toy guns without orange tips should be legal!

Fuck that! Toy guns without orange tips should be legal!

Agreed. Those things are a bitch to get off. The only real way to do it without ruining the toy is a dremel tool.

I have 10 years martial arts training, and seasoned in arms use.

martial arts is a lost art. the two should never be combined.

Fuck that! Toy guns without orange tips should be legal!

I smell a MP Megs owner~

martial arts is a lost art. the two should never be combined.

Disagreed. Martial arts can be a necessary follow up when one runs out of bullets. Pistol whipping being the utmost basic.

Disagreed. Martial arts can be a necessary follow up when one runs out of bullets. Pistol whipping being the utmost basic.

Disagreed. The Art of War says you can feed your own army for 10 years if you steal the food off your enemy. Save your own bullets, make everyone kill each other by doing awesome flips and arm twists and use them as human body shields.

When they run out of ammo, use yours.

Disagreed. The Art of War says you can feed your own army for 10 years if you steal the food off your enemy. Save your own bullets, make everyone kill each other by doing awesome flips and arm twists and use them as human body shields.

When they run out of ammo, use yours.

Wait a tick.......... you just said guns and martial arts shouldn't be combined..... to which I disagreed to.... and you disagreed with my disagreement by agreeing with me me :eye: You mixed martial arts and guns in your example..........



What game are you trying to play here mister? :eye:

Agree to disagree~

But you secretly agree~

To each their own~

Own one of each~

Two birds, one stone~

Man, I re-read this and was tempted to like some of rezo's posts even though it's pointless. Boo to necromancy, hooray for awesome old rezo posts.

In America, everyone should have a gun, so they can shoot each other and the world would be such a wonderful place

I smell a MP Megs owner~

Word.

Actually, you can remove the little orange tips on toy guns with a jewelers saw. I also reccomend painting the gun with a black primer or a black matte spray paint.
Thats what I did. Looks real enough to fool the cops as well as the villains.
Also allows you to hold unwanted ex boyfriends until the cops show up.


for something non lethal

paintball gun with marbles instead of paintballs.

The first three should be paintballs. The rest should be marbles.
They got three chances to get out.

This thread is full of terrorists.

"Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn’t close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up?"
-Clint Eastwood

"Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn’t close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up?"
-Clint Eastwood
For a guy who's know to do some pretty good movies, he sure can't do acting very well.

I changed my mind about loving everyone like I said at the start of this topic.
I've built up a massive amount of hate and rage over the years. I now believe there are two types of human, one more evolved than the other.

I hate humans.

Though my opinion on guns still stands. Hope you're enjoying all the shootings you're having over there americans.

martial arts is a lost art. the two should never be combined.

you know some martial arts use weapons, bladed and blunt weapons most notably ? Like Wushu, Penchak Silat or Viet Vo Dao ?

Or bar room brawling too.

hummm bump.

"bump" should be an instant ban.

that's such a 90's thing to post.

:disgust:

Strange seeing as I'm an 80's guy.

So a bunch of kids got killed because an unstable guy had a gun.

Again..

And how many shots were fired on 9/11 and how many die due to drunk drivers each year and...and...and...

And how many shots were fired on 9/11 and how many die due to drunk drivers each year and...and...and...

Just because there are other ways of killing people does not mean you should give up and not try to stop these things happening.
Yes if you want to kill someone there are many things you can use besides a gun. BUT, a gun is the most cost effective, easy, simple, and effective way of doing so. Now you can not take just one of these things and argue against them, because this is overall.

Also with the majority of other ways to kill, you have a fighting chance. You have very little against a gun.


Yes the USA is flooded with guns, a ban is not realistic. But far FAR FARRRRR stricter gun laws are.
You may notice these shooting are not done by criminals. But every day people.

Planes should be illegal.
Rope should be illegal.
Cars should be illegal.
Knives should be illegal.
Sticks and stones should be illegal.

and name calling.

Planes should be illegal.
Rope should be illegal.
Cars should be illegal.
Knives should be illegal.
Sticks and stones should be illegal.

and name calling.

None of these things are meant solely for killing people.
All of these things have important uses bisides killing people.
Gun's do not.

None of these things are meant solely for killing people.
All of these things have important uses bisides killing people.
Gun's do not.

Guns kill animals.
And empty cans.
And bottles.
And paper cut outs.
And flying discs...

Gun control doesn't keep guns away from the bad guys, they get their guns illegally anyway! All gun control does is keep guns away from the good guys, who now can't defend themselves.

Guns kill animals.
And empty cans.
And bottles.
And paper cut outs.
And flying discs...

Well you're clearly trolling.

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------


Gun control doesn't keep guns away from the bad guys, they get their guns illegally anyway! All gun control does is keep guns away from the good guys, who now can't defend themselves.

The people who do these shootings are not "the bad guys" They are normal everyday people, they are not criminals.

And in all these shootings, I've never ONCE heard that the day was saved by someone else with a gun. So much for that argument.


Do you know what happens when you get shot?
You don't dodge the bullet like neo and pull out your gun to "defend" yourself. This is not a movie. These are not western show downs. There is NO defence. If someone pulls out a gun and shoots you it's to late.
Yes you can imagine shooting someone who is shooting other people, but what if you miss? What if you hit someone else, what if someone else thinks you are the shooter and then shoots you? The police show up and see you with a gun, good luck..

Adding guns to a gun problem does not fix anything. This is real life, not a movie, not a video game, you won't respawn and get to shoot the guy that just shot you.


Also, gun control does NOT take guns away from the "good guys" it makes it harder for the wrong people to get them. "Good guys" can still get guns. They simply need to prove they are not insane.
Did you know you can go to gun shows and get guns with ZERO background check.

Well you're clearly trolling.

You're clearly overreacting.

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------


you won't respawn and get to get the guy that just shot you.

No one said it was a game.
You need help. These are real lives.

You're clearly overreacting.

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------



No one said it was a game.
You need help. These are real lives.

How am I over reacting?

No, he implied you can defend yourself from being shot. You can't.

What science says about gun control and violent crime - Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net/2012/12/14/what-science-says-about-gun-co.html)

favorite quote: Want to prevent gun violence and reduce the number of horrific events like what happened today? Great. Go stop being strangers to each other. Everybody wants the same thing here.

she quotes an article a couple times, and the first quote of hers is fantastic.

Well you're clearly trolling.

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------



The people who do these shootings are not "the bad guys" They are normal everyday people, they are not criminals.

And in all these shootings, I've never ONCE heard that the day was saved by someone else with a gun. So much for that argument.


Do you know what happens when you get shot?
You don't dodge the bullet like neo and pull out your gun to "defend" yourself. This is not a movie. These are not western show downs. There is NO defence. If someone pulls out a gun and shoots you it's to late.
Yes you can imagine shooting someone who is shooting other people, but what if you miss? What if you hit someone else, what if someone else thinks you are the shooter and then shoots you? The police show up and see you with a gun, good luck..

Adding guns to a gun problem does not fix anything. This is real life, not a movie, not a video game, you won't respawn and get to shoot the guy that just shot you.


Also, gun control does NOT take guns away from the "good guys" it makes it harder for the wrong people to get them. "Good guys" can still get guns. They simply need to prove they are not insane.
Did you know you can go to gun shows and get guns with ZERO background check.

You're missing the point... I'm not talking specifically about school shootings or whatever. What I'm saying is, people who will do bad things with guns, will get them whether it's legal or not. No matter how hard the government cracks down, they'll always find a way. And as a "good person", having a gun doesn't mean that you won't get shot, but at least -if- you do see it coming you can do something. Plus if the other guy knows that the other person might have a gun as well, maybe he thinks twice about what he's about to do. If we could magically keep guns out of the wrong hands that would be great, but obviously no such thing is possible.

You're missing the point... I'm not talking specifically about school shootings or whatever. What I'm saying is, people who will do bad things with guns, will get them whether it's legal or not. No matter how hard the government cracks down, they'll always find a way. And as a "good person", having a gun doesn't mean that you won't get shot, but at least -if- you do see it coming you can do something. Plus if the other guy knows that the other person might have a gun as well, maybe he thinks twice about what he's about to do. If we could magically keep guns out of the wrong hands that would be great, but obviously no such thing is possible.
Gun control does not take your guns away.

What does gun control do then? Or more to the point, how does it do it? If you have a way of limiting the guns that people who will use them irresponsibly have access to, but not limiting them to people who will only use them for self defense, then I'm all ears.

Psychological examinations and background checks.

Responsible gun owners will not put their guns where others can find them. Or show them off to their children.

Ok. Here's the thing that **should** scare you. Although I do not own a gun, I could easily and legally buy one. I have been a security guard with an extensive background check, fingerprinted etc. I have never been arrested. Never been interviewed by officer. Never had so much as a speeding ticket. I am quite able to buy any gun, any amount, I wish.

Here's the kicker though. I am the **exact** person who should never be allowed within miles of a firearm. I am bi-polar, schitzo affected with borderline personality disorder. I hear and see things that are not there, but are very, very real to me. I also have a majrt impulse and temper problem. I am more or less "normal" thanks to meds. NONE of this will ever show in a background check. Due to patient privacy. But, due to bufget cuts, I have no case manager. It is a given I am all right and taking my meds. By the time anyone figured it out, it would be too late. Just saying. I can buy one, carry one, even carry concealed, and here in good ole Arizona, I can carry it concealed IN A BAR. But, I should NOT be allowed to. :/

Ok. Here's the thing that **should** scare you. Although I do not own a gun, I could easily and legally buy one. I have been a security guard with an extensive background check, fingerprinted etc. I have never been arrested. Never been interviewed by officer. Never had so much as a speeding ticket. I am quite able to buy any gun, any amount, I wish.

Here's the kicker though. I am the **exact** person who should never be allowed within miles of a firearm. I am bi-polar, schitzo affected with borderline personality disorder. I hear and see things that are not there, but are very, very real to me. I also have a majrt impulse and temper problem. I am more or less "normal" thanks to meds. NONE of this will ever show in a background check. Due to patient privacy. But, due to bufget cuts, I have no case manager. It is a given I am all right and taking my meds. By the time anyone figured it out, it would be too late. Just saying. I can buy one, carry one, even carry concealed, and here in good ole Arizona, I can carry it concealed IN A BAR. But, I should NOT be allowed to. :/

Proper gun laws would find that out about you. Medical history should be a requirement of them. These are the type of things that need to change.

But it won't happen. Never been hospitalized for psych issues. And the government will never be allowed unlimited access to citizen's personal medical info. No one will stand for that. As it is now, a check will not show I undergo any sort of care. There s no state or national registry to keep track of that. No bill will ever get passed for that. And I think we all know that.

---------- Post added at 11:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------

Don't get me wrong. I despise guns. But, part of our constitution is the right for people to have them.That is never going to get changed. Any law to clamp down on that would likely require an amendment, and that won't happen. Any law passed will face judicial challenges and take years to implement, if it ever is. Gun ownership is just part of American life.

But it won't happen. Never been hospitalized for psych issues. And the government will never be allowed unlimited access to citizen's personal medical info. No one will stand for that. As it is now, a check will not show I undergo any sort of care. There s no state or national registry to keep track of that. No bill will ever get passed for that. And I think we all know that.

If you want the power to kill someone, you should give up your medical privacy. After all, you have nothing to hide right?

Not directed at you, just a comment.

Well, I agree in theory. And, you should be rquired to learn how to use it. And pass a written and physical test, like a driver's license. And it should have to be renewed just like that too. I don't see why not. But that is theory, and I am afraid the reality is that something like that will never pass here. Despite examples set by other countries, such as England, where shootings are much less common.

The constitution is a living document. To say otherwise is to be no better than a religion and it will be the downfall of america.

Psychological examinations and background checks.

Responsible gun owners will not put their guns where others can find them. Or show them off to their children.

The "responsible gun owners" aren't the problem. The problem is the -irresponsible- ones. Psychological tests are all well and good, but that only stops irresponsible people from owning guns legally. How does that stop someone from owning an -illegal- firearm? In theory it sounds good, but in the end it won't accomplish anything.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------


The constitution is a living document. To say otherwise is to be no better than a religion and it will be the downfall of america.
Okay,
#1. The constitution says that we have GOD given rights... God...aka religion. Not that anyone actually believes in that part of the constitution anymore, but you're contradicting yourself.
#2. Religion is being oppressed in america already (Catholic hospitals being shut down because they won't offer abortion facilities is just 1 example). America is already heading towards destruction thanks to the past few presidents (including the current one) and religion has nothing to do with that.

The "responsible gun owners" aren't the problem. The problem is the -irresponsible- ones. Psychological tests are all well and good, but that only stops irresponsible people from owning guns legally. How does that stop someone from owning an -illegal- firearm? In theory it sounds good, but in the end it won't accomplish anything.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------


Okay,
#1. The constitution says that we have GOD given rights... God...aka religion. Not that anyone actually believes in that part of the constitution anymore, but you're contradicting yourself.
#2. Religion is being oppressed in america already (Catholic hospitals being shut down because they won't offer abortion facilities is just 1 example). America is already heading towards destruction thanks to the past few presidents (including the current one) and religion has nothing to do with that.

It makes it harder for them to get guns. Do I really need to explain that.


The constitution does not say that. That is a miss quote from the declaration of independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

And you are not understanding what I have said. Religion is based on a book that is a dead book, AKA you can't make changes to it. It can not adapt to different times.
The constitution can have amendments made to it, changing with the times, giving new rights etc.

Oops, I was always bad with american history. : ) I mis-quoted, but it means the same thing. God -is- the creator. That's my point. Sorry for the confusion.

You are right that it makes it harder to get guns (for everyone though) but let's say someone takes the test and fails. They'll just go and get a gun illegally. Maybe the person is a good person and doesn't want to break the law so he doesn't go get a gun illegally, but if that's the case, why didn't he pass the test? It won't work. The people who pass the test are the people who will use a gun responsibly, and the people who don't pass are the ones who'll go break the law and get one anyway...

You are right that the constitution can change to meet the needs of the current time. Which is good. This doesn't necessarily mean that creating more gun laws will help though. Good gun laws would help though. How about something like (and this is just 1 example) "if you're shot by a homeowner while breaking into his house you may not sue them." (I could have worded that better, but I think you get the point). Wow, now suddenly homeowners don't need to be afraid of defending themselves. But by regulating guns, it goes the other way, and the homeowner is more likely to either have been shot, or sued, or both. He gets in trouble, and he's not he one who originally broke the law!

And I don't want to make this an argument about religion, but I'll just throw it out there that religion is what it is -because- it doesn't change. It's tradition, and the laws of how to treat life in general, not specifically. The 6th commandment isn't "Though shalt now kill, unless someone else is trying to kill you, or someone else, or (etc...). No, it's just "Though shalt not kill". And it's perfectly obvious that if someone is wrongfully threatening you you have a right to defend yourself.

#1. The constitution says that we have GOD given rights... God...aka religion. Not that anyone actually believes in that part of the constitution anymore, but you're contradicting yourself.
#2. Religion is being oppressed in america already (Catholic hospitals being shut down because they won't offer abortion facilities is just 1 example). America is already heading towards destruction thanks to the past few presidents (including the current one) and religion has nothing to do with that.
1) Bullshit.
Most of the Founding Fathers were DEISTS, not part of organized religion, and the term 'Creator' /=/ 'god' or at least a specific religion in the Enlightenment scene.

2) Bullshit.
'Not always getting your way' and 'being oppressed' are two different things.
Not being allowed to burn witches or mutilate a young girl's vagina is NOT religion oppression.

2a) NAME ONE.
No, please, name ONE hospital that was shut down because they wouldn't allow abortions.

2b) Tinfoil bullshit.
America isn't 'headed for destruction' now anymore then it was back in the last big depression.

2c) Religious Retardation.
Oppression of women's & GBLT rights, attacks on education/science, terrorism, and driving kids into a lake...
THAT'S religion for you.

First a few things here and there:

- the bible is not a dead book. matter of fact, it has been modified so many fucking time that more or less a good 90% of it is not the original text. hell, for all intent, the bible (which essentially the same for Catholics and protestants) was put together around the 6th century, so a good 600 years after the apostle had been dead.

- Religion does change: that's why the catholics have councils to decide on the dogma's evolution and eventual modifications. last one for the catholics was in the 1960s.



You are right that it makes it harder to get guns (for everyone though) but let's say someone takes the test and fails. They'll just go and get a gun illegally. Maybe the person is a good person and doesn't want to break the law so he doesn't go get a gun illegally, but if that's the case, why didn't he pass the test? It won't work. The people who pass the test are the people who will use a gun responsibly, and the people who don't pass are the ones who'll go break the law and get one anyway...

This argument is stupid on so many levels it's hard for me not to laugh.

1) just because you pass a test doesn't mean you won't put the weapon to use in a bad way.
2) in the event of such a test, one can doctor his behaviour to have it match the criteria for passing it.

3) (and I'm going to get flamed for this): The retard who shot 21 children with guns owned by his mother, who was an NRA member, supposedly well educated on their use, etc, etc, had been taught how to handle guns, in other words, he had been taught what NOT to do with a gun and what the guns were supposed to be used for.

also, for "defending" one house, did these idiots really need a semi auto assault rifle, a shotgun, a repeating rifle, a .30 enfield rifle, a .22 marlin rifle, and 2 9mm pistols ??

what are your burglars equiped with in america ? M60s ? M4 with underbarrels grenade launchers ? out of all these, only three were useful as "home defense" equipment: the 2 pistols and the .22 rifle. the rest is at best impractical, at worst the bullet will go right through your wall and kill the neighbour or a passer-by.

when was the last time the bible was changed?

Planes should be illegal.
Rope should be illegal.
Cars should be illegal.
Knives should be illegal.
Sticks and stones should be illegal.

and name calling.

This is by far the most retarded thing I've ever seen you post. You can't be serious.

---------- Post added at 08:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------



2c) Religious Retardation.
Oppression of women's & GBLT rights, attacks on education/science, terrorism, and driving kids into a lake...
THAT'S religion for you.

no it isn't, and way to undermine your entire point by being just as much of a bigot as the people you're claiming to argue against.

Here in the UK we can't defend ourselves, it's only recently that our masters have given us the privilege of not being prosecuted if we injure an intruder. What's happening in America is very worrying, the laws being passed that give the President the sole right to assassinate citizens at will, indefinite detention, 800 FEMA camps, and an ever increasing state take over of the market. In the last 50 years, ever since the Rockefeller Foundation created the board of eduction and got it's dirty paws into America's education, intelligence levels have fallen dramatically. The monopolization of industry protected by state regulatory agencies is forcing people to consume GMO food, pharmaceuticals they don't need, and pay for wars that put every citizen into huge debt.

@tanis

1. What does that have to do with what I just said? I don't see how it's relevant to my point. I never said that their beliefs were good/not good.

2. How can you compare "burning witches" to "killing babies" (aka abortion)? Again, how is this relevant to what I actually said?

2a. Catholic hospitals closing because of Obamacare. Sr. Keehan tries to hide the story | Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say? (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/catholic-hospitals-closing-because-of-obamacare-sr-keehan-tries-to-hide-the-story/)
Coming Soon: No More Catholic Hospitals and Free Abortion-Inducing Drugs | Daily News | NCRegister.com (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/coming-soon-no-more-catholic-hospitals-and-free-abortion-inducing-drugs)
Obama's Healthcare Rules Will Shut Down Catholic Hospitals Nationwide - Conservative Crusader (http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/obama-s-healthcare-rules-will-shut-down-catholic-hospitals-nationwide)
So much for freedom of religion. I can understand that you -can't- justify a crime by saying that your religion requires it, but what harm is there in not aborting babies???

2b. Not headed for destruction? Have you heard of the national debt? � 27 Things That Every American Should Know About The National Debt Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/27-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-national-debt/)

2c. Again, why are you mentioning theses things? How do they relate to the point I'm trying to make? You don't like my point of view, so you proclaim it "bullshit" and throw out a bunch of evil actions and claim that it represents religion as a whole. Sure, some religions required human sacrifice, but how can you throw that at every religion? No one wants to mention that the main reason the Spanish (who were mostly catholics) attacked the Aztecs. It was because the aztecs were sacrificing -hundreds- if not -thousands- of people to their gods. Some of the Spanish got greedy and went after the gold, but again, you can't generalize all people by the actions of a few. Another misconception is the Galileo affair. He was told he could teach his ideas as a theory, but until he had proof he couldn't teach them as "fact". He refused to listen, and so got into a heap of trouble...

You guys are going to ruin Christmas, aren't you?

@docrate1
I'm surprised that you find it "stupid" because you agree with me for the most part.
1. Agreed, yet another reason why the test wouldn't work
2. I agree again
3. I don't really know any of what you're saying for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's true. Another reason why a test can't determine who is mentally able to responsibly use a gun.

Did I say anything about assault weapons? or grenades???? Where is this coming from? I said that we have the right to use a gun to defend ourselves!!!!!! Why are we talking about about GRENADE LAUNCHERS????????

You claim a test won't work when you have zero information on what such a test would include.

no it isn't, and way to undermine your entire point by being just as much of a bigot as the people you're claiming to argue against.
You've never cracked open a history book, have you?
No decent person would EVER join a group with the horrid history that most religions have, if they were anything other than a religion.

The KKK WISHES they could be as horrific as most of the major religions.

when was the last time the bible was changed?

It's not so much the bible that change as the interpretation of it and the dogmas that go within. last big change for catholics was around 1962. and the last change to the bible itself was a correction made to the beatitudes translation, made around 2000.

You claim a test won't work when you have zero information on what such a test would include.

Okay, it is my -opinion- that it wouldn't work. But also, you said that it was a good idea, but didn't give any insight into why, or how. I assumed that it was your -opinion- that it would work (if you had proof I assumed that you would have put that in your original post about the idea). I personally disagree and have a different opinion.
So now, what do you say these tests would include? What are your reasons that it would work? Are you an expert on psychiatry?

@tanis
1. What does that have to do with what I just said? I don't see how it's relevant to my point. I never said that their beliefs were good/not good.
2. How can you compare "burning witches" to "killing babies" (aka abortion)? Again, how is this relevant to what I actually said?
2a. Catholic hospitals closing because of Obamacare. Sr. Keehan tries to hide the story | Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say? (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/catholic-hospitals-closing-because-of-obamacare-sr-keehan-tries-to-hide-the-story/)
Coming Soon: No More Catholic Hospitals and Free Abortion-Inducing Drugs | Daily News | NCRegister.com (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/coming-soon-no-more-catholic-hospitals-and-free-abortion-inducing-drugs)
Obama's Healthcare Rules Will Shut Down Catholic Hospitals Nationwide - Conservative Crusader (http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/obama-s-healthcare-rules-will-shut-down-catholic-hospitals-nationwide)
So much for freedom of religion. I can understand that you -can't- justify a crime by saying that your religion requires it, but what harm is there in not aborting babies???
2b. Not headed for destruction? Have you heard of the national debt? � 27 Things That Every American Should Know About The National Debt Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/27-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-national-debt/)
2c. Again, why are you mentioning theses things? How do they relate to the point I'm trying to make? You don't like my point of view, so you proclaim it "bullshit" and throw out a bunch of evil actions and claim that it represents religion as a whole. Sure, some religions required human sacrifice, but how can you throw that at every religion? No one wants to mention that the main reason the Spanish (who were mostly catholics) attacked the Aztecs. It was because the aztecs were sacrificing -hundreds- if not -thousands- of people to their gods. Some of the Spanish got greedy and went after the gold, but again, you can't generalize all people by the actions of a few. Another misconception is the Galileo affair. He was told he could teach his ideas as a theory, but until he had proof he couldn't teach them as "fact". He refused to listen, and so got into a heap of trouble...
1) Because it erodes most of your post. :D
2) Well, one's a human being and another is a lump of cells till some time after...you're also the one that brought up RELIGION.
2a/b) Um...mind posting some decent sources?
Sites that AREN'T, mostly, run by tin-foil hat wearing nutters?
2c) It has to do with RELIGION doing the TRUE oppression.
The Spanish attacked the Aztecs because they wanted to spread GOD and get GOLD.
-Trying to rewrite history doesn't make it so.

The Spanish Inquisition made the Aztecs killing of people look like a bully tossing rocks at babies.
At least most of the people sacrificed by the Aztecs were killed rather quickly, unlike the SI where they tortured them for days, or weeks, or months, or even years.


O, bullshit...what is with this rewriting of history?
Galileo was fucked over by a bunch of cross dressing assholes who did things like HANG someone for translating the bible outside of Latin and then a decade later, exhume the bodies to burn just to show that they could.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------


It's not so much the bible that change as the interpretation of it and the dogmas that go within. last big change for catholics was around 1962. and the last change to the bible itself was a correction made to the beatitudes translation, made around 2000.
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea)

There's a fun one.

@docrate1
I'm surprised that you find it "stupid" because you agree with me for the most part.
1. Agreed, yet another reason why the test wouldn't work
2. I agree again
3. I don't really know any of what you're saying for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's true. Another reason why a test can't determine who is mentally able to responsibly use a gun.

Did I say anything about assault weapons? or grenades???? Where is this coming from? I said that we have the right to use a gun to defend ourselves!!!!!! Why are we talking about about GRENADE LAUNCHERS????????


The people who pass the test are the people who will use a gun responsibly, and the people who don't pass are the ones who'll go break the law and get one anyway...

In other words, people willing to take a test are good gun users, and the others are bad. do you see how ludicrous this is ?

that's what I should have quoted, instead of the whole paragraph. the idea that, just because someone is able to pass the test will behave responsibly with a gun is silly, at best. Test result can be doctored.
I involved assault weapons for a simple reason: the retard that shot 21 children and 6 adults used his mother's guns. guns that she owned, according to the constitution, to "protect her home". well, excuse me if I'm wrong, but a .223 assault rifle is not a home defense weapon. it's military grade weaponry. And millions of americans own one similar.

So what the hell are burglars equiped with that you need military grade weaponry to scare them ? hence the grenade launcher remark.

hell, I knew a guy whose family owned weapons acquirred before the mass bans of the 80-90s. M60s, full-auto assault rifles, combat shotguns, full auto SMGs. and it was "to protect their places from burglars". and of course his family claimed they were perfectly able to handle a gun. well guess what: the expression "trigger discipline" was unknown to him, and even a guy who doesn't own a gun like me knows what it means.

I'll just stop here, I don't feel like going into a flamewar on the subject of the stupidity of some american laws.

---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 PM ----------



First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea)

There's a fun one.

Funniest period of the Byzantine empire to study if you ask me. more than half a dozen of interpretation of the same texts, at the same time. all mixed with politics, intrigue and a good portion of backstabbing. So yeah. in theory most of the bible was written back then. then it got copied. and that's where the clusterfuck started. it was handcopies, which means parts were changed, varying between copists. the text was mangled from copy to copy, and it became a mess. add the translation from aramaic to greek, then from greek to latin, then from latin to French, english and so on in the 16-17th century and you get another problem. as for the killings committed by the church, no conflict with me. the loss we experienced only in latin america is critical enough for me to be pissed off at the church. problem is, the bible didn't tell them to kill. they were just a bunch of morons with delusions of power and a literal view of the bible. kinda like talibans today.

or republicans.

but the bible and mostly the way the church functionned evolved again. though thanks for correcting the dates. I'm always confusing Nicae and Constantinople 2 (which was a mostly useless council).

Okay, it is my -opinion- that it wouldn't work. But also, you said that it was a good idea, but didn't give any insight into why, or how. I assumed that it was your -opinion- that it would work (if you had proof I assumed that you would have put that in your original post about the idea). I personally disagree and have a different opinion.
So now, what do you say these tests would include? What are your reasons that it would work? Are you an expert on psychiatry?
I'm not the one who would make these tests so it's a waste of time for me to talk about them.

Why do people feel compelled to bring this subject to ever forum in the world? I know I'm still green here and I'm sure my opinion is worth about as much to people here as an ice cube is to a volcano but I still wish to make known that I find it slightly on the asinine side to post political, religious, or otherwise controversial subjects on video game and anime websites..

Since you insist on bringing this up I will pose a few facts, but I will *not* state my stance on the matter;

Fact: Oregon is an open carry state and has had one of the fewest gunshot murders in the world (Chile having the absolute fewest)
Fact: Europe has the least restrictions on alcohol in the world as well as the fewest alcohol related deaths in the world.
Fact: Florida has strict gun restrictions and has had some of the most severe incidents in the country (not the world)
Fact: Elsalvador has the highest amount of gun-related murders in the world in which almost none of the murders were licensed to carry. (weapons obtained illegally).
Fact: East Europe (3.9 million square miles in size) has a 6.9 murder rate which is almost twice as much as North America (9.3 million miles in size) with a rate of 3.9 - most of which taken place in Mexico.
Fact: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Fact: You cannot predict what person is a stupid person by licensure.
Fact: there are fewer murders in countries with fewer gun restriction - but all out civil war in countries with too few gun restriction
Fact: The US has one of the highest alcohol related deaths in the world, and one of the strictest restriction on alcohol.

It's official.

Christmas is ruined.

:disgust:

1) Because it erodes most of your post. :D
2) Well, one's a human being and another is a lump of cells till some time after...you're also the one that brought up RELIGION.
2a/b) Um...mind posting some decent sources?
Sites that AREN'T, mostly, run by tin-foil hat wearing nutters?
2c) It has to do with RELIGION doing the TRUE oppression.
The Spanish attacked the Aztecs because they wanted to spread GOD and get GOLD.
-Trying to rewrite history doesn't make it so.

The Spanish Inquisition made the Aztecs killing of people look like a bully tossing rocks at babies.
At least most of the people sacrificed by the Aztecs were killed rather quickly, unlike the SI where they tortured them for days, or weeks, or months, or even years.


O, bullshit...what is with this rewriting of history?
Galileo was fucked over by a bunch of cross dressing assholes who did things like HANG someone for translating the bible outside of Latin and then a decade later, exhume the bodies to burn just to show that they could.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------


First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea)

There's a fun one.

1. How does it "erode" my post? You keep stating things without explaining yourself. I pointed out that our country was -supposedly- built on the principle that we were created by god. When we try to call religion bad, but the american government good, we are in fact either contradicting ourselves, or pointing out that the founding fathers were a bunch of hypocrites. Either answer if fine by me, because I believe both to be true. : )

2. Who says that the "lump of cells" isn't alive? You? Doctors? Why do -we- get to determine at what point something "is alive"? How do we KNOW that we aren't killing a living thing? Actually we do know that we're killing a living human, because life can't come from nothing. Life is created at the moment of conception. That's why it is conception, because it CREATES LIFE. Are you telling me that the cells that create life are combined, and then just "hang out" for 6 months and THEN create the life form???

2a. No matter what source someone gives, they can't really "prove" that it's true, can they? You either believe it or not. But if you don't believe what I sent, then does that mean that you don't believe that Obama demands abortion facilities? In that case, find your own sources that you trust, and you can confirm it for yourself.

2b. Seriously, are you denying that we owe a giant sum of money to china? Everyone knows we're in debt, not even Obama says otherwise...

2c. Do you deny that the Aztecs did human sacrifice? Because I've never heard of that being denied. You can also claim that that wasn't the reason the Spanish conquered them, but you don't have proof, because you weren't there! I wasn't there either, so I don't have proof, but I'm not the one making accusations. Like I said though, some Spaniards got greedy and did horribly things, but by accusing religion as being the problem, you claim that if they hadn't been religious, they wouldn't have done the bad things.

Oh boy, here we go with the Spanish Inquisition... They didn't torture people for weeks, or even days!!!!!! Nor did they go after other religions. They went after those who claimed to be catholic, and yet didn't behave in a Catholic manner. I know you will refute any information I send via a link, but if you want to read up on it here you go Peeling Away Lies: The True History of the Spanish Inquisition � Conservative Colloquium (http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/peeling-away-lies-the-true-history-of-the-spanish-inquisition/)
To look specifically at torture, go to right beneath the second video.

In my book, what you believe is the re-written history. I can't prove it anymore that you can, but think about it this way... A lot of this "stuff" is written by Catholics, who witnessed these things personally. You don't have to believe what they write, but how can you possibly have proof to that it's false? No one else was there!

Religion aside

Treat the mentally ill. Give them access to the medication and counseling they need.
Get rid of the bullies.
Teach children respect for one another.

Then you have almost no more gun problems.

(note I did say almost)

1) Because this nation was founded on SECULAR IDEALS, not religious ones.
We aren't not one nation 'under god', this was added in during the McCarthy Era of 'us vs ussr' crap.

2) Is every ejaculation a life? Is every egg lost via a period a life?
-A virus is 'alive', should we stop using medication that kills it?
What gives YOU the right to tell a women what she can and can't do with her body?
That she should go through the painful, and potentially deadly, process of having a baby...even if she's been raped?

2a) No, but a trusted source is better then a glorified blog by some random nutter.
Glenn Beck is NOT a reliable source, just saying.

2b) Yeah, I know we are....your point?
That's what happens when you have two+ wars on a credit card.

2c) Nope, where did I post that?
I do have THEIR records and, you know, those crazy things called HISTORY BOOKS.

No, but I do see it as this:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.


O, yes, another BLOG...that's a great source.

Who says that the "lump of cells" isn't alive? You? Doctors? Why do -we- get to determine at what point something "is alive"? How do we KNOW that we aren't killing a living thing? Actually we do know that we're killing a living human, because life can't come from nothing. Life is created at the moment of conception. That's why it is conception, because it CREATES LIFE. Are you telling me that the cells that create life are combined, and then just "hang out" for 6 months and THEN create the life form???
!


Life is simply a biological machine, it is no different from machines we make, just more complex.
A lump of cells is life, but it has no more consciousness than a rock. It reacts and adapts, but does not think or feel pain, fear etc. Our brain is exactly like a computer, what we call consciousness is the experience of our DEVELOPED brain running. Just like how software runs on a computer, but ofcourse a lot more complex.

Life does not start at conception, it's already started long long ago, a sperm is alive, also an egg. But they are simple and only react in the way evolution has indirectly programmed them to. They do not experience what we do, they have no developed brain or nervous system in order to experience being alive.

"Killing" a "lump of cells" in the womb is no different from washing your hands. Literally. All you are doing is stopping the machine or braking the machine. You are not hurting anyone or anything. Life is not magical.

You've never cracked open a history book, have you?
No decent person would EVER join a group with the horrid history that most religions have, if they were anything other than a religion.

The KKK WISHES they could be as horrific as most of the major religions.

I studied religion and philosophy in college. I think I am qualified to comment, thanks.

Your argument makes about as much sense as saying that no decent person would ever call themselves an American because of what the country has done to people in the past (and still does). The thing you are failing to understand is that these groups people belong to mean a lot more than just the title. Any way you can possibly think of to categorize human beings, from race to nationality to sexual orientation and yes to religion, has been at some point used as the banner for horrible violence. That doesn't mean that the people who committed those acts represent everyone in the group, and if that's your argument, you may as well jump in with those who argue things like "Well, I live around a bunch of black people, and they do x a lot, so black people all do x."

The fact remains that the vast majority of religious people have not and would not ever commit the acts you are talking about and find them just as despicable as you. Yes, I know there are vocal douchebags like those westboro baptist people who wind up in the media. You hear about them because they are loud and shocking. You don't hear about all of the very kind and decent Christians, Muslims, Hindus and whatnot in your city/state/country every day because there is nothing sensational about them: they are everywhere and they are the norm. It's when somebody does something really heinous in the name of religion that it's shocking. It's shocking because it's rare.

Maybe YOU have had some bad experiences with religious people before. There are plenty of shitty people out there and a good number of them are religious because, let's face it, most people are. Equating that shittiness with the religion instead of the person is exactly the same logical fallacy that racists use. So maybe you should watch who you go about comparing to the KKK. Or maybe you should read the gospels. Jesus has a lot of very useful advice for people like you. There's a passage you may have heard about trying to get a speck out of your brother's eye when there's a plank in your own. Simple but powerful.

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------


Why do people feel compelled to bring this subject to ever forum in the world?

I'm sorry, I thought that the future of our country was something worth discussing.

By all means, go back to posting in enlightening threads like "what is your favorite FF and why?" or "what is the quick reply for"