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?
Look at what is happening to those countries that haven given up their right to bear arms. Most of them have started allowing the government to take over their lives as well.
I think people are forgetting that "way back when", If people needed to shoot faster they just carried more guns. I recall the pirate Black Beard had a bunch of pistols tied together that he hung around his neck. Another historical figure, Bill Quantrill and the Confederate guerrillas he led (including Frank and Jesse James) carried as many 1851 Colt Navy Revolvers (as well as other types but the Colt Navy was the most popular at the time) as they could on their person. Colt Navy revolvers had 6 rounds per revolver and I've read that some of them carried up to 6 revolvers that's 36 rounds. Potentially 36 dead people. Saying that the founding fathers when they wrote the bill of rights could never have imagined weapons with such a high fire rate is irrelevant and insulting to our founding fathers.
Saying that the founding fathers when they wrote the bill of rights could never have imagined weapons with such a high fire rate is irrelevant and insulting to our founding fathers.
You're really going to argue that walking around with 6 revolvers tied to your body is the same thing as an assault rifle? The refire rate, range, power, and accuracy are all far superior than some 1850's revolver.
Also, the founding fathers weren't even alive at the time of your example of someone carrying those revolvers.
I'm not saying they didn't consider guns getting more advanced, but honestly, I would eat a shoe if they predicted modern weapons. Their idea of an advanced gun was probably just a more accurate round and not shoving a rod down the neck of the gun every time they wanted to shoot again.
Yes, it's a very ridiculous (funny) video but it gets my point across.
Your point is ridiculous. 6 (or 12) pistols are not the same as an machine gun.
You're really going to argue that walking around with 6 revolvers tied to your body is the same thing as an assault rifle? The refire rate, range, power, and accuracy are all far superior than some 1850's revolver.
Your point is ridiculous. 6 (or 12) pistols are not the same as an machine gun.
Apologies. It might have looked like I was saying that but I wasn't. Cap and ball revolvers and Assault rifles or machine guns are vastly different. I just meant that muzzle loading fire arms are not safer or better.
Also, the founding fathers weren't even alive at the time of your example of someone carrying those revolvers.
Black Beard was early 18th late 17th century and William Quantrill was mid 19th century. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of people in between those two that carried multiple revolvers/pistols/rifles.
I'm not saying they didn't consider guns getting more advanced, but honestly, I would eat a shoe if they predicted modern weapons. Their idea of an advanced gun was probably just a more accurate round and not shoving a rod down the neck of the gun every time they wanted to shoot again.
The history of repeating firearms is really quite interesting and goes back a long way. A lot longer than you'd think. Even during the time of the founding fathers there were repeating firearms. They were normally European exhibition pieces to show off the skill of a gunsmith. They cost a lot and were unreliable but they existed.
The main reason for Guns in USA is because England was against it in there Independence war. England said No to hunt massively? Free hunting for everyone! England was against Carring guns? Guns to everyone!
Most {if not all} of the US Constitution is based on populist Yellings and sheogorath promisess.
PS Three women were murdered by a person with mental illness in Switzerland. As someone metntioned a time ago in this thread, In Switzerland there are alot of guns per citizen, as the army is based on a militia, in which the citizens train and have there own guns. So now the subject is on question there too.
Most {if not all} of the US Constitution is based on populist Yellings and sheogorath promisess.
Stupid promises. Sheogorath the great Madgod does not have to be used negatively.
PS Three women were murdered by a person with mental illness in Switzerland. As someone metntioned a time ago in this thread, In Switzerland there are alot of guns per citizen, as the army is based on a militia, in which the citizens train and have there own guns. So now the subject is on question there too.
Switzerland is a pretty small country, if it kept its army and civilian base separate there would be no army, just a handful of well-armed security guards. The man who did the shooting is an obvious example of the kinda person to restrict gun usage (come on, what idiot gives an obviously insane person a gun?)
PS Three women were murdered by a person with mental illness in Switzerland. As someone metntioned a time ago in this thread, In Switzerland there are alot of guns per citizen, as the army is based on a militia, in which the citizens train and have there own guns. So now the subject is on question there too.
Switzerland is a pretty small country, if it kept its army and civilian base separate there would be no army, just a handful of well-armed security guards. The man who did the shooting is an obvious example of the kinda person to restrict gun usage (come on, what idiot gives an obviously insane person a gun?)
He shouldn't have had guns, as his previous guns were confiscated when he was hospitalized in a psychiatric establishment some years ago. Obviously though there are some weapons (like the hunting rifle and old military musket he had acquired somehow) that aren't subject to authorization, and this is IMO where we should start. But the gun lobby isn't weak in Switzerland either..
Where I see a difference to the US is that here, almost all murders involving guns or other weapons are family dramas while in the US public mass shootings are the ones talked about. Granted, the US is bigger and has more people.
Wrap your minds around this. Hitler and and Stalin had to star by taking away the guns, now the whitehouse is threatening an executive order on gun bans.
This guy carries 12 guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ⦠skfFKiuh3Y Yes, it's a very ridiculous (funny) video but it gets my point across.
Uzi and rifle was funny, but most of those guns wouldn't be quickly accessible, we are not are Rick O'Connor.
Wrap your minds around this. Hitler and and Stalin had to star by taking away the guns, now the whitehouse is threatening an executive order on gun bans
.......
I'm going to say this once, and only once, because I am sick of people defaulting to Hitler. Obama is NOT Adolf Hitler.
The way many Americans talk about the economic and political left, you would assume that it is the greatest evil known to mankind. Minor socialist policies do not create a socialist economic state. However, for those of you less knowledgable about history please take note that Hitler's political, social, and economic leanings were.to the extreme right.
HOWEVER
To compare Obama to Hitler is not only an attrociously inaccurate comparison in the ideological scheme of things, it also discredits the Third Reich's monstrosities as a whole. Every time someone uses Hitler poorly and inaccurately to support whatever they feel needs supporting, and because Hitler is considered the epitome of evil, that person detracts from the historical impact that Aldolf Hitler and the Third Reich had upon the world. By comparing Hitler to Obama you are saying that Obama is:
1 A radical and racially charged conservative 2 A dictator 3 The potential murderer of millions of innocent lives through internment and death camps. 4 A catalyst to the most devestating human conflict in history
So, do everyone a favour, the next time you decide to make grossly inaccurate claims or comparisons; do your research.
Wrap your minds around this. Hitler and and Stalin had to star by taking away the guns, now the whitehouse is threatening an executive order on gun bans.
That is a truly idiotic argument, and makes me wonder if I should just give up on owning a pistol and revoking my stance on gun rights to keep you people away from guns. Do you think the military will follow like dogs in what your preciously 'Stalin/Hitler like' White House? I seriously doubt it. I don't support guns so idiots can have their reassurances that the government isn't Communist/Third Reich, I support them simply because I think a man with the right inclinations (I.E. NOT INSANE) should be able to own a gun.
That's true Master, everyone in the military pretty much hates him (Obama) as is so I suppose we'll always have at least a big chunk of it anyway
Lolreally? You dislike stereotypes, yet seem to have no problem embracing one when it suits you. Whilst Obama trails 2-1, or is evenly matched, depending on polls, not pretty much everyone in the military hates him.
