Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 1:15am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,012 posts

Knight

200 years, know your history, the united states itself is only 236 years old, the civil war was in the 1860's, not the 1810's. Also, I fail to see how the second amendment is limited to non-functional antiques. (although my family owns several that are quite functional, a civil war enfield rifle replica, purchased for use in reenactments)

The Forefathers could not possibly see how advanced gun technology would get. It would be irresponsible to immediately assume they would have written in the Amendment if they knew what was coming.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 1:30am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

Take the being robbed situation. Just give the guy what he wants, then call the proper authorities. Do your part as a citizen; take note of what he looks like, maybe get his vehicle licence plate...do your part, and in a few hours the police will kindly return your stuff to you. No matter the life, it's still precious, more precious than, say, a few hundred bucks.

What of the situation I mentioned earlier?
'I really want you dead so I can take what you have, including your kids'
You can't record a plate and call the police when you're dead.

said "If someone is ever desperate enough to hold a knife to you and ask for your wallet, give him your wallet. Then when his back is turned, tackle him, disarm him, and take your wallet back."

Some are desperate enough to stab/slash first and then take what they want. example

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 2:22am

SSTG

SSTG

11,001 posts

Knight

Uhh. I've never heard of a homeless dude going on a shooting spree with a gun before. They might riot with some broken bear bottles taped to chunks of wood, but not guns.

That's not what I said. I said that North America doesn't care about people with mental issues and I used the homeless to further my point.
In other words, people suffering from mental illness are everywhere.
Add up the drug addicts to it and the easy access to gun and you get a dangerous mix. Again I didn't say the homeless use guns to kill people in case you misread me again.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 3:23am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,569 posts

And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun

Target shooting

Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells?

1) Riot shields are ****ing big

2) So..you want me to just stand there? As a guy blasts shells at me? Eventually..he is either going to start running in circles..and I, with this big *** shield, won't be able to keep up..causing him to eventually gain a vantage point to my back..or the **** thing will finally break

Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow.

What about people like me..who are merely completionists?

Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!

Where in the 2nd amendment does it list the guns in use for it? The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms and the right to a public militia (if necessary..this being to the militia)

The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun.

To protect my family against a burglar with a gun of his own.

And don't use the argument of taking all the guns away..because that simply won't happen. There are more guns in the U.S. than people..and many of these guns are owned by criminals. Now, pray tell, how many criminals do you think will just kindly hand over their guns? Those are, in their eyes, their tools of their trade.

Take the being robbed situation. Just give the guy what he wants,

Hi...I am a robber who has gone past my psychological breaking point..and I want to kill a few of you before fleeing the scene or possibly killing myself

Again, take a few self-defence classes. Taekwondo, karate, jujitsu, whatever. I know a way to get out of every hold. My late teacher (who died of whooping cough) said "If someone is ever desperate enough to hold a knife to you and ask for your wallet, give him your wallet. Then when his back is turned, tackle him, disarm him, and take your wallet back."

Now..what the **** are you going to do with those self-defense moves if a gunman holds you at gunpoint at approximately 10 feet away (where he not only is safe from you..but still has a perfect aiming distance)..demands your money..and as he runs off he occasionally glances back to make sure you are not trailing him in an attempt to disarm him while he runs?

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 3:30am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,012 posts

Knight

Where in the 2nd amendment does it list the guns in use for it? The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms and the right to a public militia (if necessary..this being to the militia)

It is a valid question. Laws exist, but they should be changed when they are outdated. What's the point of having archaic laws? The Second Amendment was put in place primarily for the purpose of having a ready armed militia, at a time when America was a fledgling nation. Well, America isn't that place now, and the forefathers certainly would not have known the gun types we possess today, which are no doubt far more destructive.

And don't use the argument of taking all the guns away..because that simply won't happen. There are more guns in the U.S. than people..and many of these guns are owned by criminals. Now, pray tell, how many criminals do you think will just kindly hand over their guns? Those are, in their eyes, their tools of their trade.

Which is why it is high time they step up on cracking down on criminals, and turn off the spigots of gun manufacturers to a trickle, whilst introducing stricter requirements to own arms. This will then eventually create the conditions needed to finally reign in the number of guns floating about. It took more than half a century to work in Britain, it's not a one hit panacea.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 3:50am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,569 posts

It is a valid question. Laws exist, but they should be changed when they are outdated. What's the point of having archaic laws?

But the question he is presenting is that the law should change because the guns have changed...not because America has changed

Which is why it is high time they step up on cracking down on criminals, and turn off the spigots of gun manufacturers to a trickle, whilst introducing stricter requirements to own arms. This will then eventually create the conditions needed to finally reign in the number of guns floating about. It took more than half a century to work in Britain, it's not a one hit panacea.

Don't get me wrong...I agree with this. I just don't agree when people start shouting out how they need to take away guns...but then the way they propose to do so are immediate actions that would have an effect completely opposite of what they believe it would have.

People always use arguments of "well make them illegal!"..because, y'know, that worked so well with alcohol and is working swimmingly with drugs

"just offer money compensation for the guns!" - yeah, because criminals would love to hand over their evidence to the police

"Offer them money..but no questions asked! They take the guns, then immediately destroy them" - is your brain goofed? Not only did you just give a criminal a way to get rid of his evidence for a crime he committed..but you just made a whole new market for criminals (steal people's guns to sell to the government)

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 4:54am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,012 posts

Knight

But the question he is presenting is that the law should change because the guns have changed...not because America has changed

How is that wrong?

Don't get me wrong...I agree with this. I just don't agree when people start shouting out how they need to take away guns...but then the way they propose to do so are immediate actions that would have an effect completely opposite of what they believe it would have.

People always use arguments of "well make them illegal!"..because, y'know, that worked so well with alcohol and is working swimmingly with drugs

"just offer money compensation for the guns!" - yeah, because criminals would love to hand over their evidence to the police

"Offer them money..but no questions asked! They take the guns, then immediately destroy them" - is your brain goofed? Not only did you just give a criminal a way to get rid of his evidence for a crime he committed..but you just made a whole new market for criminals (steal people's guns to sell to the government)

I don't think anyone has proposed that.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 9:25am

404011xz

404011xz

218 posts

I can't believe you people. You want to try and take our rights away. UNALIENABLE RIGHT THAT ALL PEOPLE POSSES. Are you guys saying you don't care about our rights and make it so we can't pursue our goal of LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUET OF HAPPINES?! And why would I let the police try and catch him hours later when I can stop him now? I would rather keep my grandmom's broach or whatever he stole and not lose it to the blackmarket. And I don't quite trust the government to protect me, look at the fast and the furious scandle. They were CAUGHT giving the guns to drug cartells. You mean they don't want to sell citizens guns but they are willing to give them to mexican drug cartels?

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 9:32am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,012 posts

Knight

You want to try and take our rights away. UNALIENABLE RIGHT THAT ALL PEOPLE POSSES. Are you guys saying you don't care about our rights and make it so we can't pursue our goal of LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUET OF HAPPINES?!

Rights are not inviolable. They are not unalienable in any way, with the exceptions of fundamental rights. They are privileges that have to be taken into serious consideration when they are outdated, or cause more harm than good. In any case, no one is talking about banning guns, but making it harder to own one.

I would rather keep my grandmom's broach or whatever he stole and not lose it to the blackmarket. And I don't quite trust the government to protect me, look at the fast and the furious scandle. They were CAUGHT giving the guns to drug cartells.

Who do you think foils all the terrorist attacks mentioned in the news? Who do you think fields the army that protects you from vengeful terrorists?

Also, I'm not sure if you're a plain muppet or not, but ATF was implemented to track the cartels (albeit it failed). It was not done with the intention of arming cartels.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 9:40am

404011xz

404011xz

218 posts

You are to trusting in the government, that was their cover story. Do you know who the world's largest supplier of guns is? If I remember what my dad said it was the FBI. supplying guns to friends and foe alike for their money. You really are to trusting. Almost everything they do has a reason behind it, ussualy bad. I so you don't care about the ideals of my fourfathers to protect the people from the government incase it ever grew to powerful, these are rights that every citizen posses and shouldn't be taken away by any means. This country was founded on freedom, but your proposal is to take away some freedoms and not allow us to bear arms. How do you sleep at night?

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!