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?
Ok then. The founding fathers thought that we would run around with simple single action rifles our entire existance as a nation. You don't think they would of though technology would of advanced and came up with more coplex means of war? and that homosecxual thing don't really work on me. I don't care as long as they don't try and bother me. and you aren't understanding me. If you try to limit one freedom you are actually opening it up to limit another freedom. And how is it that you are saying one right is limited by time but the other isn't limited by that timezone.
The founding fathers thought that we would run around with simple single action rifles our entire existance as a nation. You don't think they would of though technology would of advanced and came up with more coplex means of war?
In all honesty, they probably weren't thinking -that- far ahead at the time. Not only was a lot of stuff going on, it's hard to imagine exactly what future technology will bring about. I highly doubt they imagined guns that could shoot over 10 rounds a second with far more accuracy, range and destructive power and can be reloaded in less than 2-3 seconds easily and are cheap enough for the average person to afford them.
The founding fathers weren't omnipotent. They were people too. Also worth noting is that the constitution has written in it that it can be amended.
If you try to limit one freedom you are actually opening it up to limit another freedom.
Let's drop the paranoid domino schema. It's not really applicable to all that much even if it sounds threatening.
And how is it that you are saying one right is limited by time but the other isn't limited by that timezone.
Because guns and words aren't the same thing. They aren't used the same way. Language hasn't fundamentally changed, it's just different from what it used to be. Modern guns are an entirely different beast than a musket.
and that homosecxual thing don't really work on me. I don't care as long as they don't try and bother me. and you aren't understanding me. If you try to limit one freedom you are actually opening it up to limit another freedom. And how is it that you are saying one right is limited by time but the other isn't limited by that timezone.
It is relevant. I'm stating that if racial equality is upheld, by your logic, all kinds of equality should. But that is clearly not the case.
Let's drop the paranoid domino schema. It's not really applicable to all that much even if it sounds threatening.
No it isn't. In the UK gun control is all the rage. But no one can accuse the UK of gross human rights abuses.
It was based on the technology of the time, where muskets were in use
But the wording does not state muskets..the way the amendment was written (Right to bear arms) gives an implication that one has the right to bear arms..no matter the evolution of these arms
Well...I seem to have left a hole that could easily be attacked now haven't I? **** RPG's...
But like I said..I do agree with the viewpoint of that the amendment was created solely based on how America was as a country at the time..my issue was how he was saying that because the guns have gotten more advanced, the law has become outdated..rather than because we are in a different America now, the law has become outdated
The evolution of language does not pertain to the evolution of fire arms.
This is my fault...I don't know why he is continuing trying to push it though. I was focusing on the 2 evolving throughout the time span that I completely overlooked their differences. What I was trying to get at was that the law isn't outdated because of the guns we have now, but because of America's situational differences now
pang isn't too good with finding analogous comparisons
Unless it is in poetry haha
I'll get better at it guys..I promise D=
On the plus side...I'm not too shabby at psychological and strategical arguments.. =p
But the wording does not state muskets..the way the amendment was written (Right to bear arms) gives an implication that one has the right to bear arms..no matter the evolution of these arms
Guns at that time meant muskets. Or those prototype pistols.
But like I said..I do agree with the viewpoint of that the amendment was created solely based on how America was as a country at the time..my issue was how he was saying that because the guns have gotten more advanced, the law has become outdated..rather than because we are in a different America now, the law has become outdated
Guns have changed, and America has changed. Having a 30 round assault rifle is change when compared to a slow loading musket.
But the wording does not state muskets..the way the amendment was written (Right to bear arms) gives an implication that one has the right to bear arms..no matter the evolution of these arms
Situations change. Also, for the who knows how many times, the rational people are advocating increased regulation and restriction, not complete illegalization.
.I don't know why he is continuing trying to push it though.
Because it sounds good, essentially. It's a logical fallacy called a red herring, where you try to use something else as an example when it's not relevant to the point you're trying to make.
What I was trying to get at was that the law isn't outdated because of the guns we have now, but because of America's situational differences now
It's outdated for both of those reasons actually. What guns are now is as big a difference as a sling to a trebuchet. Both function on the same basic principles but their scope is so far apart that the former is harmless in contrast.
i think that we should have guns in the USA but I think that we should have a very good background check on the person before the person sells the gun.
There will always be criminals, and there will always be those who break the laws. Gun control will only really hurt people seeing as how most crimes commited are with illegal guns and not legal guns. Look at newtown, I hate to bring it up, but that kid STOLE the guns from his mom, he had tried to purchase a gun but he failed because they did a background check and it didn't come up well. The current laws they have for guns right now is fine, basic background check to see if they qualify. But they shouldn't make us jump through 50 hoops to get a gun for something as simple as self defence. Assault rifles, dangerous but if for any reason a mob of crazy rioters or robbers tries to get into your house that is the best option. I'm not sayin shoot them all, just a simple bullet in the ground will scare most mobs off. Look at hurricane sandy, you know that there was looting and a gun would be a major deterant for looters.
Look at newtown, I hate to bring it up, but that kid STOLE the guns from his mom, he had tried to purchase a gun but he failed because they did a background check and it didn't come up well.
And his mom was obviously an irresponsible gun owner to leave the gun in a place her son could get to it.
The current laws they have for guns right now is fine, basic background check to see if they qualify.
More than a basic background check should be necessary when purchasing something that can potentially be used as a weapon of murder.
Assault rifles, dangerous but if for any reason a mob of crazy rioters or robbers tries to get into your house that is the best option.
Are you really that paranoid? If so, I suggest counseling.
just a simple bullet in the ground will scare most mobs off.
1) Then a non automatic weapon would be fine, right? 2) Why is there a mob at your door?
Also I said Criminals don't follow the law so this won't affect them. They'll find a way to get Guns.
Excellent point. Criminals already get guns illegally, what's going to stop them after the guns are banned? Nothing. They have no fear of the law now, they still wont have a fear of the law later.
Blaming guns for the abuse of the 2nd amendment right is wrong. Guns are not the cause of the trouble, it's people.
Maybe requiring character references when an individual goes to purchase a gun would be a good place to start. Check too see if the guy is responsible, if he is reliable, and if he has respect for weapons.
Look at newtown, I hate to bring it up, but that kid STOLE the guns from his mom, he had tried to purchase a gun but he failed because they did a background check and it didn't come up well.
The problem here is still the guns, too many of them.
There will always be criminals, and there will always be those who break the laws. Gun control will only really hurt people seeing as how most crimes commited are with illegal guns and not legal guns.
Actually no, if you saw the statistical report I posted a few pages back. In states where gun laws are strict, they just hop over to the next state to get them. National gun control is only as strong as the weakest link.
I hate to bring it up, but that kid STOLE the guns from his mom, he had tried to purchase a gun but he failed because they did a background check and it didn't come up well.
This highlights still the problem of lax gun control. You can make sure the person buying the gun is mentally stable, but you're not checking whether those close to him are. A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 39.6% obtained it through family or friends.
But they shouldn't make us jump through 50 hoops to get a gun for something as simple as self defence.
They should, for all reasons. Gun control has proven to work so many times.
Blaming guns for the abuse of the 2nd amendment right is wrong. Guns are not the cause of the trouble, it's people.
Guns make it exponentially easier to kill someone. The law is outdated.
Excellent point. Criminals already get guns illegally, what's going to stop them after the guns are banned? Nothing. They have no fear of the law now, they still wont have a fear of the law later.
I wonder why then, the number of guns obtained illegally in the rest of the First World is a pittance compared to the US?
guns make is easier to kill people, along with many other things. Bombs, Cars, Gasses, Anything is a potential weapon. Would you like to make stricter laws against owning cars? Maybe make it illegal to buy bats because you can kill somebody with that. Items that were never meant to kil people can easily be turned into a weapon. Maybe owning knives will become a crime. That sharp kitchen knife in your drawer can easily be turned into a murder weapon. Would you like me to continue with every regular household weapon can be turned into a weapon? Maybe somebody will fashion up a pen that can shoot a small blade from it's tip, wait, that has already been made. See how anything is a potential weapon? It isn't just guns, it can also be that very keyboard your typing on. The only difference is that guns is the prefered option.
Are you really that paranoid? If so, I suggest counseling.
Robbers rarely work alone. Sometimes they're heavily armed. example. Now, I don't live in a 'big city' (it's about 75K), but there are still gangs and occasionally there are gang robberies. If I lived near the poor side of a city of millions where many people are desperate and some are willing to do just about anything for even a small amount of money, I'd be much more worried.
1) Then a non automatic weapon would be fine, right?
Most, not all.
2) Why is there a mob at your door?
During riots, some people do crazy things, including attacking civilian homes seemingly at random. example
