Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

i maybe just don´t get it, if the us military wont ever go against its people, why do the people need weapons to overthrow their government if they choose to? the military would be on the peoples side... no? so they´d have trained forces instead of average joes armed with whatever weapon they own

[PizzaSHARK]

It seems the gun nuts have grasped at so many straws that they're building armies of straw-men. I must say this thread could feed an army of dead horses.

At least they have a second amendment right to shoot 30 round clips at straw men, because who knows what else they might use those clips for. I hear some deer require 30 rounds to hunt, though.

So what's an arbitrarily safe number? 5? 10? 15?

Do you even realize how stupid and flimsy your position is?

[Darksoldierr]

Idiot, no, disagree with those that have no clue about the sacrifices made to ensure each of you have the rights that you blythly attempt to give away from yourself and steal from others.

Since you are intent on insulting, I have no other option other than to completely dismiss anything you say after this point.

You miss understood him, he strictly talks about the 2nd amendment, and why it is outdated, in which case, he is right. The world was lot different then than now

[PizzaSHARK]

You miss understood him, he strictly talks about the 2nd amendment, and why it is outdated, in which case, he is right. The world was lot different then than now

Hasn't stopped religions from following books that were written two thousand years ago.

[obdigore]

Hasn't stopped religions from following books that were written two thousand years ago.

Your comparison of religion and a lot of American's thoughts on the second amendment and founding fathers is rather apt, in my eyes.

[Goldfingaz]

So what's an arbitrarily safe number? 5? 10? 15?

Do you even realize how stupid and flimsy your position is?

5-10 is a great number. Forces you to carry less instead of 30 in one go. "The magazines will be smaller so you could carry more" they're bulky regardless and take up space" Yes you Could carry 2 30 round magazines, and conceal them fairly well, but 12 5 round magazines may show, same with 10, and plus the reload time, while removing a magazine and putting one in isn't hard, going through your pockets to get one more often slows you down.

[Seranthor]

You miss understood him, he strictly talks about the 2nd amendment, and why it is outdated, in which case, he is right. The world was lot different then than now

I did not misunderstand him one bit, he's saying that because he doesn't agree with it and its meaning that its outdated. I on the other hand disagree. I contend that if one is outdated, then they ALL are outdated. period.

[obdigore]

And I contend that if one is outdated, then they ALL are outdated. period.

Your contention is illogical, since the reasons the second amendment was created literally does not exist.

[Darksoldierr]

I did not misunderstand him one bit, I contend that if one is outdated, then they ALL are outdated. period.

Well, i don't think all of them are, i'm no prof of this topic, i cannot really go into a good debate, but if you think so, then it should be changed indeed, either all of them or the ones which are outdated

[Goldfingaz]

Hasn't stopped religions from following books that were written two thousand years ago.

Actually, Christianity has been change quite a bit. Unwed Mothers are welcome in church for example. Religion has changed an adapted over time, however in the end it really is apples vs oranges.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So what's an arbitrarily safe number? 5? 10? 15?

Do you even realize how stupid and flimsy your position is?

How many bullets in a clip is enough to defend yourself? At what point does a clip become effective for self defense, and at what point does it become more about being able to shoot a bunch of people without reloading?

The bill states 10, and it seems like a good maximum to me.

But go ahead and keep using personal attacks to defend your position, it makes it seem very strong when your ability to back it up is name calling.

[Mayhem]

I did not misunderstand him one bit, he's saying that because he doesn't agree with it and its meaning that its outdated. I on the other hand disagree. I contend that if one is outdated, then they ALL are outdated. period.

and you fail to see why this is just a stupid argument... if one green fruit is an apple, every green fruit therefore must be apples!

how you are able to compare freedom of speech with not only machinery that developed through the years but also a country that developed is beyond my understanding, i fear i´m missing something

[Seranthor]

Your contention is illogical, since the reasons the second amendment was created literally does not exist.

Thank you for your commentary, now, question, are you willing to give up your right of free speech to take my right to bear arms?

---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 03:38 AM ----------

and you fail to see why this is just a stupid argument... if one green fruit is an apple, every green fruit therefore must be apples!

how you are able to compare freedom of speech with not only machinery that developed through the years but also a country that developed is beyond my understanding, i fear i´m missing something

You are missing something, and until you find it then you are on your own....

[Adamas102]

Thank you for your commentary, now, question, are you willing to give up your right of free speech to take my right to bear arms?

What an utterly ridiculous question...

[Mayhem]

Hasn't stopped religions from following books that were written two thousand years ago.

sooooo the constitution is a religion, something you have to believe in to make it real? sweet

i declare my propperty mayhemstate, install my own money, and shoot at whoever the fuck crosses the borders, because i don´t believe in the constitution

comparing bananas with icecreamtrucks is fun

[obdigore]

Thank you for your commentary, now, question, are you willing to give up your right of free speech to take my right to bear arms?

What right to bear arms? The only right assured in the second amendment is that the federal government will not prevent the states from raising, training, and arming a militia should it be necessary.

[Goldfingaz]

Thank you for your commentary, now, question, are you willing to give up your right of free speech to take my right to bear arms?

See, this is one of the biggest forms of proof that you do not understand what I'm speaking of. I don't want to take your right to bear arms away form you, I want you to bear arms that are suitable for Hunting. Hunting Rifles/Shotguns are more than you need. You do not need Handguns or Automatic weapons and in my opinion you do not even need semi-auto weapons.

This is the biggest issue with the Pro Gun group, you automatically assume anyone against the second amendment is purely against guns as a whole, that isn't true and we aren't trying to take anything away from you, just portions of it. Just like some speech is not part fo your freedom of speech like hates peech.

[Seranthor]

See, this is one of the biggest forms of proof that you do not understand what I'm speaking of. I don't want to take your right to bear arms away form you, I want you to bear arms that are suitable for Hunting. Hunting Rifles/Shotguns are more than you need. You do not need Handguns or Automatic weapons and in my opinion you do not even need semi-auto weapons.

This is the biggest issue with the Pro Gun group, you automatically assume anyone against the second amendment is purely against guns as a whole, that isn't true and we aren't trying to take anything away from you, just portions of it. Just like some speech is not part fo your freedom of speech like hates peech.

Actually, I understand you quite well. You just dont realize it.

Question, sir, 'I want you to', is you trying to enforce your will on me. Correct? 'we aren't trying to take anything away from you just portions of it'? Really? If you are trying to take away part of it then in fact, you ARE trying to take something, Yes?

Let's try a simple exercise, you dont NEED a cell phone, because too many folks are using them while driving and they end up killing folks. So the solution is banning cars or cell phones, right? But you say, 'you cant ban my cell phone I NEED it.' So I'll say, 'I want you to use a phone that doesn't allow you to cause the deaths of innocent people, thats all I'm saying'.

Or, lets go with banning cars because drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do in any given year, or at the very least mandatory breathalyzers. So lets put breathalyzers in ALL cars, because you never know when a drunk is gonna get behind the wheel of YOUR car... and you have to have a breathylzer installed to prevent them from taking your car and injuring or killing someone.

Starting to see the slippery slope you are trying to create?

And before you accuse me of being silly, stupid, uninformed or anything else insulting or offensive, I'll just point out that your logic about gun rights seems as flawed to me as you'll accuse me of being.

and while you are at it, you dont have a 'right' to drive, its a privledge, you dont have a 'right' to a cell phone.

[Eisaderfrau]

See, this is one of the biggest forms of proof that you do not understand what I'm speaking of. I don't want to take your right to bear arms away form you, I want you to bear arms that are suitable for Hunting. Hunting Rifles/Shotguns are more than you need. You do not need Handguns or Automatic weapons and in my opinion you do not even need semi-auto weapons.

This is the biggest issue with the Pro Gun group, you automatically assume anyone against the second amendment is purely against guns as a whole, that isn't true and we aren't trying to take anything away from you, just portions of it. Just like some speech is not part fo your freedom of speech like hates peech.

Who are you to tell me that I should only have guns for hunting? You have no right to tell me that I should have X acceptable weapon for hunting but not Y. Automatic weapons are already illegal for the average person. But a handgun? I sleep with one next to my bed for security, along with a shotgun in my closet. This is a perfectly acceptable use for a handgun. And my shotgun is a hunting shotgun and semi automatic so your comment about not needing semi-auto is also just foolish.

The big issue is that our society now insists on blaming guns rather than people. Any ban that comes out of this is our kneejerk reaction to "DO SOMETHING!!!" when there are people in the world that are either evil or just snap. No amount of regulation will stop them. Take away the guns and watch them start bombing schools. Now if more people were armed, including school officials, and the media outlets didn't give a pathetic person a full week + of fame for his cowardly crime, a lot of this crap wouldn't end with 26 people dead.

The day a gun jumps off the table on it's own and starts methodically killing people, I'll be fine with more gun control. But as long as a gun needs a human to pull the trigger, I'm not going to blame the gun for the actions of a human.

[Mayhem]

Actually, I understand you quite well. You just dont realize it.

Question, sir, 'I want you to', is you trying to enforce your will on me. Correct? 'we aren't trying to take anything away from you just portions of it'? Really? If you are trying to take away part of it then in fact, you ARE trying to take something, Yes?

Let's try a simple exercise, you dont NEED a cell phone, because too many folks are using them while driving and they end up killing folks. So the solution is banning cars or cell phones, right? But you say, 'you cant ban my cell phone I NEED it.' So I'll say, 'I want you to use a phone that doesn't allow you to cause the deaths of innocent people, thats all I'm saying'.

Or, lets go with banning cars because drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do in any given year, or at the very least mandatory breathalyzers. So lets put breathalyzers in ALL cars, because you never know when a drunk is gonna get behind the wheel of YOUR car... and you have to have a breathylzer installed to prevent them from taking your car and injuring or killing someone.

Starting to see the slippery slope you are trying to create?

And before you accuse me of being silly, stupid, uninformed or anything else insulting or offensive, I'll just point out that your logic about gun rights seems as flawed to me as you'll accuse me of being.

and while you are at it, you dont have a 'right' to drive, its a privledge, you dont have a 'right' to a cell phone.

there is no slippery slope, you believe the freedom to be able to drive drunk or text while driving is needed, it aint

take away my cellphone while driving, i don´t care, make cars automatically change cellphones/smartphones to freespeach (is that correct?) and breathalyzers in every car, what have you lost? the freedom to harm people or make risks? yaay you have lost the freedom to act stupid, damn it, what a hell of a comparison you have here, so taking away some of the guns would take away the freedom of acting stupid? that´s ok with me