Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ...
8
16
17
18
  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by Kryos View Post
    So ignore all context the law was written? With that logic everybody (no background checks, they are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment) should be allowed to have a fully armed M65 Atomic Cannon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon ) in your backyard if you can afford it, right? It's arms... fuck the context.
    Way to warp what I said =] What context am I ignoring exactly?


    I was only using his logic to apply to a different amendment. He said it should only apply to the current counter part of the time the amendment was written. For the first regarding free speech, with his logic this would exclude laws covering the internet and many other things.
    When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.

  2. #342
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    However you want to look at it is fine. However, I do not want to hear anyone saying "No one is talking about banning guns" anymore because - yes - there ARE a lot of people talking about banning guns. As I've said before - for now (for now!) it is just a bunch of blowhards like Modine. These are celebrities, pundits like Piers Morgan, and so forth. However, there ARE politicians in places of power that are also not only advocating gun bans but they are moving on ENACTING them. In some cases they already have.

    The point is that it is sophistry to say that "no one" is talking about banning guns when in fact there are a LOT of people that are both talking about it and DOING it. Dismissing the anti-gun-contol argument with a breezy, "Oh - you're just being paranoid... No one is REALLY talking about banning guns..." is total bullcrap.



    Congratulations, you win the award for the most stupid and hyperbolic images posted on mmo-champ
    No game will ever kill wow. Though Blizard themselves are making a pretty damm good attempt lately.

    THE FIRST RULE OF BRAWLERS GUILD IS YOU DO NOT GET INVITED TO BRAWLERS GUILD.

  3. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Way to warp what I said =] What context am I ignoring exactly?


    I was only using his logic to apply to a different amendment. He said it should only apply to the current counter part of the time the amendment was written. For the first regarding free speech, with his logic this would exclude laws covering the internet and many other things.
    Free speech is the same free speech you had back then. It's opinions and you can tell them. And yes they are regulated. Every private forum like this one can censor whatever they like.

    The guns (arms) back then and the guns today are worlds appart. It's a day and night difference. So you logic is flawed.

    They could not shoot more than twice at that time had a horrible bad aiming system and then had to reload (and that took long). So with a weapon that is only a little bit more dangerous than a knife or a knife on a long stick it's easy to allow that. But guns that can kill people from a distance, hitting them before they even hear the shot or guns that can kill 10+ people in a few seconds are just not the same and should not be in the hands of civilians. If you don't see the context and the difference you just don't WANT to see it.
    Last edited by Kryos; 2013-01-17 at 10:25 PM.




  4. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Kryos View Post
    Free speech is the same free speech you had back then. It's opinions and you can tell them. And yes they are regulated. Every private forum like this one can censor whatever they like.

    The guns (arms) back then and the guns today are worlds appart. It's a day and night difference. So you logic is flawed.

    They could not shoot more than twice at that time had a horrible bad aiming system and then had to reload (and that took long). So with a weapon that is only a little bit more dangerous than a knife or a knife on a long stick it's easy to allow that. But guns that can kill people from a distance, hitting them before they even hear the shot or guns that can kill 10+ people in a few seconds are just not the same and should not be in the hands of civilians. If you don't see the context and the difference you just don't WANT to see it.
    Mediums to spread speech are worlds apart as well. They did not have something as advanced as the internet at all. Private "forums" back then were also regulated, so that point is moot.

    Where in the 2nd amendment does it state guns should be (or can be) regulated by killing power, reload speed or anything like that at all?

    You are just shooting off opinions here. If you don't see that, you don't WANT to see it.

    don't take away my freedoms or liberties because you are afraid or think they are stupid. Don't disarm me because bad guys do bad things. Disarming me will not stop that, or even hinder it. Thats already been shown.
    When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.

  5. #345
    Regardless if you care to admit it or not, we live in a violent culture. We are a country that loves our guns (5 million NRA supporters can't be wrong). It is incredibly naive to think those whom which these proposed bans are pertaining to will actually comply with them. I don't see the "assault rifles" missing from the urban areas if Chicago, and they have some of the most stringent laws in the country. The only thing a proposed ban would do is infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens... Which is something true Patriots will not stand for.
    I have read most of the threads in this post, and I have learned this: liberals will be liberals, conservatives will be conservatives. Just as the case with topics such as pro-life/pro-choice and religion, neither side will ever see the side of the other, and both think the other is either misinformed or ignorant.
    All I can speak for is myself. Having served in the US Army and being issued an M4,it is the weapon I am most comfortable with. I can maintain it, fix it and shoot it accurately. Though owning a military-issue M4 isn't an option, those that feel the same as I do have the option of owning the (single shot) civilization variant. If you feel that owning a (Imo mislabeled) "assault rifle"... Don't buy one. If you don't support firearms in general... Don't buy those, either. Ultimately, it is your decision on how you chose to defend yourself and your family (if you would even do so), so the choice is yours. That is freedom.
    What happened in Sandy Hook was both unforgettable and unforgivable. God only knows I couldn't live knowing I lost a child. But at the same time, is it best to honor the lives of the little ones by stripping the rights (and tools of defense) that hundreds of thousands of soldiers died to defend??? I'd like to think not...
    In the end, all that matters is that you stand up for what you believe in. Whether you're anti-gun, or an active 2nd amendment supporter, we have fought for that right to chose our side, which is why our country is so great. We have the right to decide. Just remember to stick to your guns (metaphorically)... Always stand for what you believe in, even if you're standing alone.

  6. #346
    Keyboard Turner
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6
    Obama says he will consider invoking executive order to pass some of these measures into law. In the wake of that news, gun sales have increased. In the meantime, the White House is meeting great resistance form the Countrywide Rifle Association gun lobby. The NRA could be a mouthpiece for the country's $12 billion-a-year weapons market. Pay for your gun with a cash advance

  7. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by Lockon Stratos View Post
    A question nobody seemed to ask, is how a scrawny nerd like Adam Lanza is able to carry 4 pistols, an AR-15 and enough ammo that he was able to shoot his victims repeatedly. That's just one of many inconsistencies...
    You would have to be pretty weak to not be able to carry a 6lb rifle, 2 2lb handguns and 5lbs of ammo(a lot of ammo). He also had a vest for holding the ammo and probably either used holsters for the pistols or had them in pockets/waistband. Child soldiers carry AK rifles and ammo(which weigh more) so Im pretty sure he could handle it.

    The final report is that he used the AR, thats all that matters, not the screwed up reporting that went out so they could get the scoop.

  8. #348
    Mechagnome Fitzgerald77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    749
    People still watch Piers Morgan and actually care about what that fucknut thinks? He's quite possibly the worst interviewer on TV right now. If you don't agree with him 100% on any little thing he whines and complains because you think differently. I miss Larry King The guy that he was interviewing was wasting his breath because you can't talk any sense to that assclown.
    So good to be an ant who crawls atop a spinning rock
    Currently playing: Bioshock 2,Far Cry 3

  9. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by kleinlax21 View Post
    Either will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. You can't purchase full-auto AR's in your local gun shop.

    Also, your finger tires after about 20-30 trigger pulls done as quickly as possible.

    In the hands of law-abiding citizens, it's the most poignant weapon for self-defense purposes, far surpassing the inaccuracy of handguns and shotguns, and much more effective than bolt-action long guns.
    I consider shotguns much more reliable than semi auto carbines for self defense. First of all shotguns freak people out when they see them because they are big. Second you are much more likely to hit someone with a shotgun since it has an area of effect pattern instead of a single bullet(dont use slugs). And last, they are pretty easy to aim down the barrel or shoot from the hip and still hit something without a lot of practice.

  10. #350
    The Insane Bakis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    15,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Deatheryn View Post
    You do realize that a Hand gun can be turned into a fully automatic weapon right. So what happens if they ban assault rifles and then ppl start murdering masses w/ full auto hand guns? Ban hand guns next?

    Also the problem w/ adding regulation on mental illness is, wheres the line drawn on what is and isn't mental illness. Did you know that ADD and ADHD is classified as a mental illness?Addiction to nicotine is a mental illness? Stupid I know but that means the government gets to basically take a gun from anyone they want and claim they have a mental illness.
    A gun isn't made to be full auto and will hence cock up, at least the assault weapons based on military grade are made to offer full auto.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •