ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 151166
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
906 posts
2,175

Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.)
I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons.
Supporting evidence: the following skit:
What's your reason?
Setting: A gun shop, modern day.
A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please."
The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?"
The Customer says "I need one for personal protection."
The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell."
The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!"
The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left.
Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun."
Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks.
The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting."
The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy.
The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states.
The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff.
Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says.
The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot!
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet.
The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!"
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves.
Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says.
The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other".
"Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly.
The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer.
"Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows.
"Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"

Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? 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. 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!

The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?

  • 1,127 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

I was talking about where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are derived from. It's relevant because of the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights.

it doesn't matter.
the constitution should be able to change when time changes. going back in time and look around what people said/thought 250 year ago aint going to help.
a constitution is not holy scripture like a bible.

Which is the part of the point I was trying to make.

looked more like you wanted to point out to opposite.
"keep them legal as they are because people still have those hobby's." adding the example of some hunter that hunts all his meat.
sorry i'm not seeing how you were trying to make this point.

the Bible's ideals are found in the Constitution

thats the 1st problem whit the usa constitution.
these ideals should be filtered out of the constitution.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

it doesn't matter.
the constitution should be able to change when time changes. going back in time and look around what people said/thought 250 year ago aint going to help.
a constitution is not holy scripture like a bible.


But everything in the Constitution is related to these men's ideas. If you change what it's based on, you'd have to change the entire Constitution, thus changing essentially everything in the US related to it, which is a lot of stuff.

looked more like you wanted to point out to opposite.
"keep them legal as they are because people still have those hobby's." adding the example of some hunter that hunts all his meat.
sorry i'm not seeing how you were trying to make this point.


Guns designed for these hobbies and hunting are good. We should be guaranteed use of those weapons. Weapons back then weren't automatic, therefore we were never granted use of automatic weapons.

thats the 1st problem whit the usa constitution.
these ideals should be filtered out of the constitution.


But how can you filter out everything, when the things in the Constitution are only influenced by them? You mean tweak everything slightly so that they aren't influenced by the Bible? That sounds next to impossible, considering there is no "Christians can do this and can't do this" in the Constitution. Nothing is black and white. It wouldn't work.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

But everything in the Constitution is related to these men's ideas. If you change what it's based on, you'd have to change the entire Constitution, thus changing essentially everything in the US related to it, which is a lot of stuff.

so? you rather stay where you are? the world is evolving the usa is not.

Guns designed for these hobbies and hunting are good.

guns are never good. only sometimes they are usefull.
as far as i care you put a ban on those hobbies.

You mean tweak everything slightly so that they aren't influenced by the Bible? That sounds next to impossible,

if you do not even want to try then it's impossible.
why not make a new constitution? it would no longer be outdated and all the religious parts can be left out.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

What does that change if the ideas still influenced the way the USA works? Are you saying they're bunk because they're influenced by the Bible?

I don't think you're saying that because the Bible's ideals are found in the Constitution, the Constitution needs to be changed. That seems a bit outlandish.


Course not. But he derives most of his moral authority from a divine source, which is a flippant reasoning to.
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,479 posts
5,495

You know, the more you guys try to argue the more I love it here in the (almost) boondocks of gun-slinging Texas. Lots of guns, little crime, they even sell guns at Walmart.

If the government turned tyrannical and started invading the parts of the U.S. that wouldn't yield then they'd get stuck at Texas. We have the biggest military base in the country and many smaller ones not to mention that they'd be getting shot right and left by civies if there was a ground invasion.

A Japanese (or Chinese, I don't remember) general (not sure if past or present) said something to the effect of "You can't invade the U.S. there'd be a gun behind every bush". And you know what, they wouldn't have to deal with that if there were no guns.

If all guns got banned, then you'd only take away the gun of every law-abiding non-Texan.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,617 posts
20,745

If the government turned tyrannical and started invading the parts of the U.S. that wouldn't yield then they'd get stuck at Texas.

Always a good laugh. Then again I pity your paranoic mind.
By the way, you haven't replied to a single point. You apparently judged it better to laugh in your corner, as if it rendered all opposing viewpoints void.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,462 posts
1,955

Mexico. The gun laws there are quite strict and look at them, he drug dealers are wearing the nice suits while the police are wearing ski masks. It has been said that Mexico doesn't apply because they are practically at war with themselves, no question about that. However it could have been prevented if more people had the guns to stop this from getting as far as it has.


Please research Japan, England, Switzerland, Germany for gun laws. Germany especially states that self defense does not meet the standards of neccessity.

If the government turned tyrannical and started invading the parts of the U.S. that wouldn't yield then they'd get stuck at Texas. We have the biggest military base in the country and many smaller ones not to mention that they'd be getting shot right and left by civies if there was a ground invasion
.

If you're that paranoid about your government I have serious concerns about America's social health.

If all guns got banned, then you'd only take away the gun of every law-abiding non-Texan.


As the Daaleks say to The Doctor: EXPLAIN!?
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,479 posts
5,495

Please research Japan, England, Switzerland, Germany for gun laws. Germany especially states that self defense does not meet the standards of neccessity.

Right, because if another Hitler came out of Germany then they'd still have no way of taking them down themselves!

As the Daaleks say to The Doctor: EXPLAIN!?

You just don't take away a gun from a Texan.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

Quoting is hard on my iPod. Forgive please.

Anyway, changing the entire Constitution seems very inefficient. I mean, if you dig deep enough, everything in the US is connected to it. You'd essentially be starting an entirely new country by changing it that much. Besides, it works. If the 2nd amendment really needs to be removed that desperately, then why not vote on it?

TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,479 posts
5,495

then why not vote on it?

Exactly! And of course, the answer is Texas, you don't believe me come here sometime and ask around about it.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

Right, because if another Hitler came out of Germany then they'd still have no way of taking them down themselves!


If another Hitler came out, do you think a mob with pistols can take him out? This idea that a lightly armed mob taking down the government in the name of freedom is outlandish.

Anyway, changing the entire Constitution seems very inefficient.


No one said that.
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,479 posts
5,495

If another Hitler came out, do you think a mob with pistols can take him out? This idea that a lightly armed mob taking down the government in the name of freedom is outlandish.

I might just be speaking from personal experience but in Texas anyway there'd be few people with them, more likely there'd be snipers. In fact the owner of a gun range near where I live can hit a man sized target from 900 meters away with a pistol. Don't underestimate Texas' love of guns and freedom.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

I might just be speaking from personal experience but in Texas anyway there'd be few people with them, more likely there'd be snipers. In fact the owner of a gun range near where I live can hit a man sized target from 900 meters away with a pistol. Don't underestimate Texas' love of guns and freedom.


Good luck with a fleet of planes. Or a battalion of tanks. America wiped out Iraq's army in such a small space of time, and that was against a fully fledged force.

No amount of passion for liberty will save anyone from military grade personnel and equipment, whilst armed with a tiny rifle.
daleks
offline
daleks
3,791 posts
14,770

The only argument you should have for having a gun is for defense. Only allow people to have pistols and limit the amount of ammo they can have.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

if you dig deep enough, everything in the US is connected to it.

that is a constitution alright.

anyway your dragging my point to a whole new level that i havn't seen befor.
but can we bring it back plz?

limit the amount of ammo they can have.

the ammo doesn't really matter. there go's just so much in a handgun. 200 bullets wont fit anyway.
more something like a ban on extra magazines.
Showing 181-195 of 1127