|
Author
|
Topic: Gun Control
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(2)
| |
| |
| |
I am amazed that so many people don't see the difference between keeping a small handgun hidden somewhere safely in your bedroom and having a garage stuffed with M16's and whatnot. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? I realize its hyperbole, but the anti-gun crowd never seems to take the cost into account when they're all: "ZOMG, you could buy a grenade launcher, and a mini gun, and 100's of rifles n'stuff!".
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 24 of 310 (668980)
07-26-2012 10:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Briterican
07-26-2012 10:08 AM
|
|
Re: Us poor scared people
So... I can't recall your stance on Intelligent Design, but if you oppose it, can I assume that's because you fear it? No, because we could explain very clearly and specifically why ID is rejected. Its the people that waffle and hyperbolize and just can't seem to put their finger on why they oppose guns so much that we can conclude are rejecting them out of fear.
Like it or not, the vast majority of the civilised world looks at US attitudes towards guns and shakes it's head in disgust, And they can kiss our red-white-n-blue asses! 'Murica!!!!  But seriously, I don't think our rights need to be adjusted for keeping citizens of other countries happy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 10:08 AM | | Briterican has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 10:40 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 29 of 310 (668985)
07-26-2012 10:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Briterican
07-26-2012 10:31 AM
|
|
Re: Cost?
Like that makes any difference. The cost? Of course it does. Cost is the only thing prohibiting me from acquire the guns I'd love to have.
I have a friend in Texas that has thousands of dollars worth of Lord of the Rings collectables. I have an uncle with tens of thousands of dollars worth of firearms, including fully automatic ones and ones with grenade launchers. And they're all legal - you've got to be in the right state and have the right permits (the only ammo for the grenade launcher he can get is flares) . And he's never shot anything that was alive. Doesn't hunt at all. All we've ever shot was paper, bowling pins, wood, fruit, and dirt.
It's sick to know, however, that you would wholeheartedly support his right to do so. I'm willing to listen to your explanation for why he shouldn't?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 10:31 AM | | Briterican has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 31 of 310 (668987)
07-26-2012 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by Briterican
07-26-2012 10:45 AM
|
|
Re: Inclusive
I agree. I can't argue with that. The Constitution does however have a history of modification. It's almost inevitable, assuming we end up with technology that would allow for handheld laser guns with the power to vaporise a person in one shot (that would be "arms" would it not? and thus you would have the right to own one, or twelve), that at SOME point, this particular part of the Constitution gets re-evaluated. You wouldn't have to necessarily modify the Bill of Rights. Destructive Devices are already regulated along side the 2nd amendment, you just just tack on "and lasers", or whatever, to something like that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 10:45 AM | | Briterican has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 43 of 310 (669000)
07-26-2012 11:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Briterican
07-26-2012 11:07 AM
|
|
Re: Inclusive
I have posted a link to a map of mass shootings in America... far more than you'll find in any other country. THAT is my evidence that there is something wrong with regard to guns and America. But can you explain what and why is wrong?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 11:07 AM | | Briterican has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 47 of 310 (669004)
07-26-2012 11:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by onifre
07-26-2012 11:15 AM
|
|
Then it doesn't make much sense to have a law that says you can arm a militia to fight the government, when you can't even afford to buy a mini gun or lots of rifles n' stuff. Who do you think you're going up against with a couple of handguns and a Winchester 30-30, an army of Hare Krishna's? Maybe I should be getting government assistance towards increasing my arsenal! But "arming a militia to fight the government" is just part of the justification, its not exclusively the sole purpose of owning guns. Personally, I just like to go to the outdoor range and shoot fruit or paper.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 11:15 AM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 11:42 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 48 of 310 (669005)
07-26-2012 11:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by onifre
07-26-2012 11:18 AM
|
|
Re: Inclusive
Briterican writes: I have posted a link to a map of mass shootings in America... far more than you'll find in any other country. THAT is my evidence that there is something wrong with regard to guns and America.
CS writes: But can you explain what and why is wrong?
Jesus Christ (Slave's voice) Huh? What, and why, is wrong with regards to guns in America that causes far more mass shootings in America?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 11:18 AM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 11:36 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 55 of 310 (669012)
07-26-2012 11:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by onifre
07-26-2012 11:42 AM
|
|
Me thinks it may have something to do with the guns in America. What is it about guns in America that the prevalence of mass shootings is evidence that there is something wrong there and why is that?
In every country there are lunatics willing to kill a massive amount of people. But, in most countries they don't have guns to carry it out. So? Do you think removing guns would help against mass murder?
But "arming a militia to fight the government" is just part of the justification, its not exclusively the sole purpose of owning guns.
It's the sole purpose of the Second Amendment. But it doesn't limit gun use to that.
So use pellet guns. There are plenty out there for target shooting. No thanks, firearms are more fun.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 11:42 AM | | onifre has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 124 of 310 (669158)
07-27-2012 3:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by Briterican
07-26-2012 12:01 PM
|
|
Re: Inclusive
Briterican writes: I have posted a link to a map of mass shootings in America... far more than you'll find in any other country. THAT is my evidence that there is something wrong with regard to guns and America.
CS writes: But can you explain what and why is wrong?
As we know it's a hugely complicated matter. I'm not an expert but I'll pretend I am for a minute...
- Owning arms is enshrined in the Constitution.
- It's relatively easy to purchase guns in America.
- Gun manufacture and distribution is big business.
- As a result of the above, proliferation is huge.
- In American culture, guns seem to be widely accepted, and in the extreme cases, glamourised and glorified.
- We've all agreed that there are always going to be crazy people, and you can't always pre-empt them, or identify the threat before it is too late. Despite that, we put them smack in the middle of the above described environment and expect things to just go okay (or in the extreme case seem resigned to these killing sprees as acceptable collateral damage in exchange for the recreational use of guns).
Do you think the prevalence of guns is part of the cause of mass killings?
I hope if you read any part of this post, it will be this part, where I apologise for accusations of a "pro-violence" attitude towards any of you. It's a passionate topic, but that was out of line. Clearly none of you approves of what happened in Colorado. Thanks. Its cool.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 12:01 PM | | Briterican has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 125 of 310 (669159)
07-27-2012 3:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by onifre
07-26-2012 4:53 PM
|
|
Re: Inclusive
There simply is no need for an armed civilian population. Rights aren't determined by need. Its the restriction of rights that's determined by need. And there's no need for an unarmed cililian population.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 4:53 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 6:01 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied | | | Message 151 by onifre, posted 07-28-2012 6:07 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 291 of 310 (669703)
08-01-2012 6:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 278 by Straggler
08-01-2012 12:46 PM
|
|
Re: Democracy 101
I find this entire argument that a citzenry should be armed to the point that it can remotely hope to match the firwepower of it's own government bewildering, bizzarre and (more to the point) unrealistic to the point of nonsensical. I don't think that's what the 2nd Amendment means. Its not that the People will bear enough arms to win in a battle against the military; its that the federal goverment is dissuaded from oppressing the People when they're armed. If the citizens don't have guns, you can pretty much push them around into anything, but if they are armed then that limits a lot of what you can do without it ending up in killing them (like forcing them out of their homes or something). And the government has a vested interest in its civilians being alive. The Founders thought that the security of the free state depended on the People being armed. That goes for foreign invasion too. Or a large disaster, or something. Its not just about the government.
Why not (for example) bazookas? They're too dangerous. There's reasonable limitations to what arms should be allowed. Destructive Devices (think explosions) are on the no-no list. Here's the wiki link on DD's: Destructive device - Wikipedia
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 278 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2012 12:46 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 297 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2012 9:17 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 293 of 310 (669721)
08-01-2012 11:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 292 by Jon
08-01-2012 6:59 PM
|
|
Re: Democracy 101
Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?
A better question is: Should there even be a 'military'?
No, that question is way stupider.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 292 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 6:59 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2