How do you feel about guns?

It is hard to reply in either a pro or con comment on gun control without sounding jaded. However, selectively restricting guns because some have used them to kill leads us to ward restricting the sale of and ownership of fire, electricity, water, cars, alchol,kitchen knives, baseball bats, airplanes, all weapons and vehicals of the military, all balconies and windows on two story or higher buildings, etc. etc.. Because all of the above have been used by mankind to kill someone else. In a free country people shoud be held responcible for their actions, and not take away the freedoms of others because of a few "out of control people". Restricting our freedoms because of the fear of a few is not a successful deterrent of murder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

blabla.

Now welcome back to the real world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OMG that is TFF. I just about split my side I was laughing so hard. Though i suppose you think it's true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

dam right cowboy!
YEEHAW!

 

Wow, you really lack comprehension skills. Unorganized doesn't mean they're not organized in general, it just means they're not integrated as well into the regular official branch of command in the professional military.

Not only that, but the term "unorganized" militia only came about when the miltia laws were written after the creation of the National Guard to show a difference between federal militia and regular militia. When the 2nd ammendment was written, there were no such thing as a federal national guard, only militiamen made up of everyone, so there was no such thing as an unorganized militia which means you're really grasping at straws trying to connect "unorganized militia" with "well-regulated militia". Face it, the 2nd ammendment refers to ALL citizens over the age of 17, which means you and I.

You're just upset because almost every definition of the word "regulate" but one points towards arms being for the citizen's militia in the 2nd ammendment.

Uh, they're not. The UK and Australia have a higher rate of violent crimes per capita than the U.S. Sure, the U.S. has more crimes overall, but that's due to having a population the size of all of Europe. Where guns are banned, crime is much higher. This is why UK sucks, Australia sucks, and all the large U.S. liberal metropolitan cities that have guns banned. All those places have ungodly high violent crime rates!

Yes, booze used to be taken away, and you know what? They didn't stop people from drinking it! The same way gun control laws won't stop guns being available to criminals. People loaded up months supplies of booze even though it was illegal. People made it in their bathtubs. Banning something doesn't get rid of it. Look at banned books, banned movies, banned behavior, banned drugs, banned items, or anything else banned and they public still has easy access to all of that stuff. If people want it, good luck gettin rid of it.

And no, other than prescription drugs, none of the above are under strict control. Porno? Everyone has access to it, especially with the internet. Legal matters, you only need to be 16-21 depending on where you live. Strip joints? 18-21 depending on where you live. Knives? You can own swords, there's just a limit on the length of the blade if you wish to carry it on your person in public. Drugs? Everyone can get em, even prescription. Booze? Only need to be 16-21 depending on where you live. Sexy clothing? Heck, most teen girls these days wear Victoria Secret clothing in public. Almost all of the above have little control, or if you would prefer, "regulation".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wow, my comparison earlier between religious nuts forcing their views on others and liberals forcing their peaceful dreamworld on others are nearly identical. Taken from http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2455343

"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."

Heh, whackos. Such much for liberal freedom and c'est le vie, eh? Amusing how the ones that always claim to have the truth and know everything tend to be the most hypocritical and restrict the rights of others.

Yes, welcome to the real world where there are more acts of crime prevention using a gun than there are committing a crime with them. Welcome to the real world where violent crime rates are higher in places that have strict laws against guns. Welcome to the real world where the majority of gun owners are responsible ones. Welcome to the real world where American's are allowed access to guns and the 2nd ammendment also allows em. Too bad you live in fantasy land wishing otherwise.

Anyways, it's nice to see there isn't much you can respond to of mine other than giving your own opinion with nothing to back it up against my numerous studies and even government law behind me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Where?

 

Have you ever been bullied in school? Ever got into a fight? Ever witnessed a fight? How the hell can anyone say aggressive people aren't everywhere when we are almost always involved in some sorta war, and police are always busy investigating crimes. The more police you hire, the more criminals you find. The more investigators you hire, the more crime you find. It's always be just like that.

I think you are just pretending that aggression does not exist, with that statement I cannot take anything else you say seriously. If you think most humans arent aggressive, I rest my case. Good luck surviving in the world, seriously, you seem like a decent person just too naive.

 

Haha you gave the drugs to the criminals who sold them in even greater amounts. Don't tell me that drugs were taken away when there is more crack, meth, and other drugs in our country than ever. When marjuana was legal back when, and when cocaine was legal, it seemed people did less drugs, people weren't drugged out.

I don't get it.

 

See, you don't make any sense. You HATE all Americans, thats your point of view, you only support gun control because you hate America. You know, I try not to believe that "they hate us for our freedoms" stuff, but you are really making it seem that way. Do you hate our freedom?

 

What the hell? You aren't peaceful? so if you are an aggressive violent person you are saying we should give you our gun? Why? So you can shoot us and call us a dirty American?

Can you understand how your words only make us fear you? I don't think all Americans are aggressive, I don't think most are, I'm not, I don't think Baron is, but you make some of the sorta posts that are some of the most aggressive words I've read. So you want gun control? You want to then in the next sentence talk bad about Americans, but then say that there is no aggressive people? If all Americans gave up their guns, will you personally defend us?

 

The closest thing I could find was
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

 

Well from the news I've read awhile back, which is probably more recent than those stats, it said those two countries recently barely passed the U.S. in violent crime stats per capita, although all were pretty much similar.

Anyways, using those stats, keeping in mind that guns are practically banned in those countries and not here in the U.S. except in the big cities where most of our crime occurs, here's the stats according to that site:

Edit: It's also interesting to read the little tidbit facts shown in these lists that gives more detail to various things.

- N

 

That does not surprise me: it's been quite apparent from the outset you don't understand my argument. But, just for shits and giggles, could you answer me one question?

One the one hand, if that's as complex as you get, it's no wonder you're having a hard time following the discussion. But more to the point, how would owning a gun change the general disregard for people's health inherent in McDonald's or a tobacco company?

Okay, two more issues:

It's kind of inherent in the security argument that comes with gun advocacy. What, are you just going to threaten people with a gun? Hell, if you're not going to shoot, what does it matter if you have a gun or not?

Actually, I'm generally smart enough to know when a scam artist is lying to me. Like you, for instance. I can't actually, truly believe that you're as stupid as your argument makes you out to be. What gives? Would a gun help me at all in handling whatever con game you're playing? I sincerely doubt it.

 

Neildo

I borrowed this quote from your citation. Note the boldface above: “trained to arms”.

What’s that? Mandatory education? Certification of that education? Sounds like … gasp! … “gun control”.

I have no problem with licensing gun owners as a statement that they have completed a properly accredited course in firearms use and safety.

Again, I'm quoting your citation. While I admit that is rare that Spuriousmonkey and I agree on much, in this I can only applaud his response: you ignored “well-regulated”. What you’ve provided a definition for is the basis of “militia”, and not the basis of a “well-regulated militia”.

So let’s start with a body of the People trained to arms: what should that regular arms education look like? I mean, would you want me deciding what should be in the militia training?

To use an exaggeration: what does a bunch of armed yahoos with much will and few clues do for the “security” of a free state?

Not much, says I. So let’s move past that image: what does a well-regulated, armed body with much will and deep senses of function and responsibility do for the security of a free state?

We might consider Spuriousmonkey's information regarding Switzerland, for instance. Would the NRA, for instance, accept those rules? Or would that be too much "gun control"? (And no, you don't need to speak for the NRA; your opinion is at least as valid; I would say even more so.)

 

I'm sure that you know the answer to that, why did you bother to ask it if not to just stir up the shit?

Baron Max

 

Legal regulations and training to carry a concealed gun in public is a WHOLE lot different than what "gun control" in this nation actually means! By gun control, the liberals want to keep us from being able to buy or own guns, not just to carry them concealed. You didn't know that? ...and yet you're arguing on this topic???

Then if you're talking about concealed weapons, you don't agree with Spurious, you agree with me and most of the gun advocates in the USA!! I know of no one, gun owners or carriers of concealed weapons, who doesn't abide by that ideal of training and licensing. Somehow, Tiassa, you've gotten your wires crossed on these issues ...and I don't see how you can argue without the proper info.

See? Now you're back to wanting to take my guns, whether they're carry-guns or not!? What the fuck are you arguing????

As to the question above; the "security" of the free state is NOT the issue so much with me, and most people that I know, as is the right to simply own guns, enjoy them, shoot them at ranges, and hunting ...which has been a right in this nation since it was born in the early 1700s.

Tiassa, I think you need to understand the issues a bit better.

One issue is the right to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense ...in case some crazed bastard tries to do you or your family harm.

The other issue is gun ownership in general, meaning all guns, shotguns, rifles, sporting rifles, target rifles, pistols, and any other type of gun that we want to buy and use and enjoy.

I hope you educate yourself a little bit more about the two distinct issues ...because they ARE different issues ...and not the same as what is commonly termed "gun control" in the USA.

Baron Max

 

Uh, what? How do you get mandatory education and all that from the phrase "trained to arms"? Ever hear of shooting ranges? Ever hear of ranches? People train all the time with em. They're part of daily life in many areas. That's not gun control, that's simple knowledge. The government has no regulation over the required training of "constitutional militias" -- they do all that stuff on their own free will, not because they have to. The first paragraph you quoted is someone's opinion, not law. Gun owners train and regulate themselves. It's no different than knowing how to drive a car, ride a bike, or use a knife in the kitchen. Knowledge is required for every tool known to man.

But yes, just to show how little you gun-fearing liberals know about how things are in reality, people ARE required to be licensed and trained, go to classes and all, for handguns at least. In some states it's required for all guns, even long guns, but for most states it's mandatory for handguns. And the only times you have to regularly test your skill again like renewing a driver's license is for concealed carry permits to show you're still qualified for use. You're preachin to the choir, bro.

And yeah, I have no problem with simple tests to show someone has the knowledge to use em as that's common sense, but most of you here are calling for the outright ban of guns saying they're nothing but pure evil and well, that's just a bit too extreme like a fanatic religious nut. Gotta love what high-horse morality does to people. I thought I was livin' in the good ol' U.S. of A in the so-called "land of freedom" where ya outta be able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm another against their will. Too bad life ain't that simple as it should be. Too much bullshit politics in the way.

Agreed!

Endless circle..

- N

 

If your sense of context was stronger, you would have your answer already.

Likewise, this:

As long as you keep tilting political windmills, it will be difficult to find any substantial common ground. The basic contrast is the notion, variously expressed, that "any gun control violates the Constitution" vs. the question of what is meant by the phrase "well-regulated militia".

How so?

And if you ever actually wonder why I find gun owners and advocates creepy, perhaps you might look at your own paranoia. Yes, it worries me that such reactionary, oversensitive, frightened people want to pack lethal force. Protecting against threats is one thing, but being scared of everything under the sun is another. Paranoia, not liberalism, will destroy ya.

Sigh. This is what happens when we let the paranoid set the discussion? Stuff the attitude problem, please, and try something a little more dignified. When you demonstrate better comprehension of the issues, you won't need such a vile, self-superior attitude; when you understand humanity a little better, you won't be so frightened of every little thing it does, thinks, or wants.

An honor system, then? Okay, consider this piece of rhetoric about gun control: "You can't punish responsible gun owners."

Anyone care to define what is a "responsible gun owner"?

Do responsible gun owners rally up a posse when an accountant breaks out of a minimum-security prison, only to have the local tavern waitresses call their wives some hours later so the drunk posse can be picked up and taken home instead of wandering around in the street with their weapons strapped to their backs? How about the responsible gun owner who gets drunk and goes shooting in the backyard with nothing to stop rounds that miss their targets? Ooh, how about the responsible gun owner who gets drunk so as not to shoot her partner? After all, both the partner and the child exist for the pleasure and benefit of the responsible gun owner. Hmm, maybe the responsible gun owner who leaves a loaded rifle under the bed, leaves the children home alone, with the result that the five year-old shoots the three year-old in the face for disobeying an arbitrary command?

No, these folks don't necessarily represent the whole of gun owners, but they do remind us of the reality that a phrase like "trained to arms" has as many definitions as there are people who consider it.

When you drive to work on your gun, or julienne carrots in the kitchen with your gun, you might have a point. It is important to regulate drivers of cars because cars can cause injury and death; guns, on the other hand, are not designed for transportation. Guns are designed for killing. Cars are not.

"...but most of you here are calling for ...."

How about this: I call for you to get real.

Just like Baron Max, you're tilting windmills instead of dealing with the points I'm putting forward. Though won't kill you, Neildo; that's another difference between guns and other things. Thoughts aren't fundamentally designed to destroy life.

Maybe if gun owners and advocates didn't feed a vicious cycle of "every man for himself, think only of myself", they wouldn't sound so damnably creepy. Seriously: the neighbors have a party, get the gun? After all, they might just be celebrating a black mass shortly before they attempt to sacrifice you to Yog-Sothoth.

It's one thing to lament the decline of trust between humans, it's another to accelerate that decline. And yet another to be selfish and unreasonable in pursuit of abstract gratification through lethal power all because it's simply easier to take part in the mad rush to the Abyss. Stop thinking about yourselves so much and think about your communities. The Universe doesn't care whether any of us live or die. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't either, but if you spend your life worrying about dying, you're not really living. I would rather you be happy than frightened. If that's such a horrible outlook for you to countenance, well, that's your problem. Your lethal need, however, makes your problem our problem, as in the rest of humanity and not just political liberals. If you don't want to deal honestly with yourself, why should you oblige other people to try?

 

Agreed ..protection against threats is important. But what does that have to do with paranoia or being scared?

Every day, in every large city in the USA (and other nations, too), there are people murdered or killed right on the sidewalks of the city. So if one carries a gun for protection against that threat, he's armed virtually all the time that he's out. It's not paranoia, it's not knowing where the threat will be or come from.

And more importantly, I think, why do you not want people to protect themselves from that possible threat?

Baron Max