This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="WushuFighter"]Guns shouldn't be banned. Just strictly regulated like fireworks. You should have to renew your gun liscense and you should be required to have a gun liscense to even touch one.effthat
It's only the big fireworks that you need a license for.
I didn't mean liscenses about fireworks. I just meant how they're regulated.
if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.ElectronicMagicTell that to Vladimir Lenin, George Washington, Che Guevera, or the Iraqi insurgents. >_>
[QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I do think it is about time we revise the bill of rights to apply to people that live in the 21st century though.
ElectronicMagic
No.
Doing that means you take its' sanctity, which is upheld so no one can make up any old rule and make everyone follow it.
I respectfully disagree with you. I don't see how revising it to apply to people that live in the 21st century could be a bad thing if done right. I think good healthcare and education should be in there, instead of the right for people to have guns. Which was put in their to fight off a oppresive government, fight of a British invasion and for hunting. Since the industrial revolution, there is no reason for people to hunt(which I personally think is immoral like I said before), and we have a military to protect us from any invasion, if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.
So we should change our government so that it's the governments job to make sure that nobody dies and everyone knows everything?
Furthermore, hunters supply cheap meat for their families and the poor. It's very much a part of the diet of many people and it is much more humane for the animals and better overall than the chemically altered meats in todays factory farms.
Since the industrial revolution we've become increasingly dependant on importing goods. Hunting is a viable alternative.
We should change a law that causes the deaths of 11,000 people each year. Hunting is outdated and cruel. Eating meat in general is cruel in my opinion. I don't see how shooting an animal for sport is more humane than leaving it alone and letting it live in the wild.
You shoot an animal. Bam, it's dead.Or, a mountain lion hunts it, and rips its throat out while still alive.
>_>
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I do think it is about time we revise the bill of rights to apply to people that live in the 21st century though.
PannicAtack
No.
Doing that means you take its' sanctity, which is upheld so no one can make up any old rule and make everyone follow it.
I respectfully disagree with you. I don't see how revising it to apply to people that live in the 21st century could be a bad thing if done right. I think good healthcare and education should be in there, instead of the right for people to have guns. Which was put in their to fight off a oppresive government, fight of a British invasion and for hunting. Since the industrial revolution, there is no reason for people to hunt(which I personally think is immoral like I said before), and we have a military to protect us from any invasion, if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.
So we should change our government so that it's the governments job to make sure that nobody dies and everyone knows everything?
Furthermore, hunters supply cheap meat for their families and the poor. It's very much a part of the diet of many people and it is much more humane for the animals and better overall than the chemically altered meats in todays factory farms.
Since the industrial revolution we've become increasingly dependant on importing goods. Hunting is a viable alternative.
We should change a law that causes the deaths of 11,000 people each year. Hunting is outdated and cruel. Eating meat in general is cruel in my opinion. I don't see how shooting an animal for sport is more humane than leaving it alone and letting it live in the wild.
You shoot an animal. Bam, it's dead.Or, a mountain lion hunts it, and rips its throat out while still alive.
>_>
Is there a need to be so blunt :P?
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.PannicAtackTell that to Vladimir Lenin, George Washington, Che Guevera, or the Iraqi insurgents. >_>
Most of which had factors thrown in to sway the giant militaries they were fighting, if you look at them individually you see that guns wasn't what swayed them either way, but the economic and political climate of that time. The Iraqi insurgents aren't going to win because they have guns, they are going to win because Americans are tired of fighting a pointless war any longer. I think if you got an oppresive American government, fighting American insurgents, the U.S. military would be enough to stop it.
I find it funny though, that the same people that give the reason that fighting off an oppressive American government with their double barrel shotguns are always the same people that support the U.S. military, but when it comes down to who would win in a fight, the military or American civilians, they pick themselves, that's how much they love their guns.
[QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I do think it is about time we revise the bill of rights to apply to people that live in the 21st century though.
ElectronicMagic
No.
Doing that means you take its' sanctity, which is upheld so no one can make up any old rule and make everyone follow it.
I respectfully disagree with you. I don't see how revising it to apply to people that live in the 21st century could be a bad thing if done right. I think good healthcare and education should be in there, instead of the right for people to have guns. Which was put in their to fight off a oppresive government, fight of a British invasion and for hunting. Since the industrial revolution, there is no reason for people to hunt(which I personally think is immoral like I said before), and we have a military to protect us from any invasion, if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.
So we should change our government so that it's the governments job to make sure that nobody dies and everyone knows everything?
Furthermore, hunters supply cheap meat for their families and the poor. It's very much a part of the diet of many people and it is much more humane for the animals and better overall than the chemically altered meats in todays factory farms.
Since the industrial revolution we've become increasingly dependant on importing goods. Hunting is a viable alternative.
We should change a law that causes the deaths of 11,000 people each year. Hunting is outdated and cruel. Eating meat in general is cruel in my opinion. I don't see how shooting an animal for sport is more humane than leaving it alone and letting it live in the wild.
The legality of guns is irrelevant to the 11,000 deaths. In order to even remotely correlate the numbers you'd have to remove all but the instances where the shooter was the licensed owner of the gun. Even then, there is further cuts to that number based on the make up of the number.
And hunting is much more humane than the domesticated pharming of animals in many cases. Eating meat my be cruel in your opinion, but that has jack to do with the legality of it.
You're now trying to press your personal diet on an entire country. It won't happen and shouldn't if there was even the most remote chance.
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I do think it is about time we revise the bill of rights to apply to people that live in the 21st century though.
PannicAtack
No.
Doing that means you take its' sanctity, which is upheld so no one can make up any old rule and make everyone follow it.
I respectfully disagree with you. I don't see how revising it to apply to people that live in the 21st century could be a bad thing if done right. I think good healthcare and education should be in there, instead of the right for people to have guns. Which was put in their to fight off a oppresive government, fight of a British invasion and for hunting. Since the industrial revolution, there is no reason for people to hunt(which I personally think is immoral like I said before), and we have a military to protect us from any invasion, if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.
So we should change our government so that it's the governments job to make sure that nobody dies and everyone knows everything?
Furthermore, hunters supply cheap meat for their families and the poor. It's very much a part of the diet of many people and it is much more humane for the animals and better overall than the chemically altered meats in todays factory farms.
Since the industrial revolution we've become increasingly dependant on importing goods. Hunting is a viable alternative.
We should change a law that causes the deaths of 11,000 people each year. Hunting is outdated and cruel. Eating meat in general is cruel in my opinion. I don't see how shooting an animal for sport is more humane than leaving it alone and letting it live in the wild.
You shoot an animal. Bam, it's dead.Or, a mountain lion hunts it, and rips its throat out while still alive.
>_>
Ahh, I completely understand now. I must have missed the segment in the news about the mountain lion industrial revolution. :roll:
Tell that to Vladimir Lenin, George Washington, Che Guevera, or the Iraqi insurgents. >_>[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.ElectronicMagic
Most of which had factors thrown in to sway the giant militaries they were fighting, if you look at them individually you see that guns wasn't what swayed them either way, but the economic and political climate of that time. The Iraqi insurgents aren't going to win because they have guns, they are going to win because Americans are tired of fighting a pointless war any longer. I think if you got an oppresive American government, fighting American insurgents, the U.S. military would be enough to stop it.
So, we're screwed anyway, why let us have any chance?That's some pretty screwed-up logic. >_>
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I do think it is about time we revise the bill of rights to apply to people that live in the 21st century though.
Oriental_Jams
No.
Doing that means you take its' sanctity, which is upheld so no one can make up any old rule and make everyone follow it.
I respectfully disagree with you. I don't see how revising it to apply to people that live in the 21st century could be a bad thing if done right. I think good healthcare and education should be in there, instead of the right for people to have guns. Which was put in their to fight off a oppresive government, fight of a British invasion and for hunting. Since the industrial revolution, there is no reason for people to hunt(which I personally think is immoral like I said before), and we have a military to protect us from any invasion, if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.
So we should change our government so that it's the governments job to make sure that nobody dies and everyone knows everything?
Furthermore, hunters supply cheap meat for their families and the poor. It's very much a part of the diet of many people and it is much more humane for the animals and better overall than the chemically altered meats in todays factory farms.
Since the industrial revolution we've become increasingly dependant on importing goods. Hunting is a viable alternative.
We should change a law that causes the deaths of 11,000 people each year. Hunting is outdated and cruel. Eating meat in general is cruel in my opinion. I don't see how shooting an animal for sport is more humane than leaving it alone and letting it live in the wild.
You shoot an animal. Bam, it's dead.Or, a mountain lion hunts it, and rips its throat out while still alive.
>_>
Is there a need to be so blunt :P?
Yes. What about overpopulation? When deers overpopulate, they tend to spread out, meaning that they have to travel over more busy highways. that means more people hit deers, the deers die somewhat slowly from blunt force trauma and potential hurt mutliple people.
So letting them, "live in the wild" isn't possible. Sooner or later they'll expand into human populated areas. When they do they cause a big risk to themselves and the humans.
The legality of guns is irrelevant to the 11,000 deaths. In order to even remotely correlate the numbers you'd have to remove all but the instances where the shooter was the licensed owner of the gun. Even then, there is further cuts to that number based on the make up of the number.And hunting is much more humane than the domesticated pharming of animals in many cases. Eating meat my be cruel in your opinion, but that has jack to do with the legality of it.
You're now trying to press your personal diet on an entire country. It won't happen and shouldn't if there was even the most remote chance.
effthat
If they wanted to get rid of guns, they could. The fact is that the majority doesn't want to. Which is why I said I know that banning firearms will never happen here. It's my opinion that it should. I'm not for domesticated farming of animals, it shouldn't happen. It's animal cruelty that people here are apathetic towards. Eating meat is one of our country's biggest problems(eating all the corn Americans do too is, but that isn't relevant to the meat/hunting/firearms discussion).
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]Tell that to Vladimir Lenin, George Washington, Che Guevera, or the Iraqi insurgents. >_>[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.PannicAtack
Most of which had factors thrown in to sway the giant militaries they were fighting, if you look at them individually you see that guns wasn't what swayed them either way, but the economic and political climate of that time. The Iraqi insurgents aren't going to win because they have guns, they are going to win because Americans are tired of fighting a pointless war any longer. I think if you got an oppresive American government, fighting American insurgents, the U.S. military would be enough to stop it.
So, we're screwed anyway, why let us have any chance?That's some pretty screwed-up logic. >_>
Heck man, truth hurts.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I do think it is about time we revise the bill of rights to apply to people that live in the 21st century though.
ElectronicMagic
No.
Doing that means you take its' sanctity, which is upheld so no one can make up any old rule and make everyone follow it.
I respectfully disagree with you. I don't see how revising it to apply to people that live in the 21st century could be a bad thing if done right. I think good healthcare and education should be in there, instead of the right for people to have guns. Which was put in their to fight off a oppresive government, fight of a British invasion and for hunting. Since the industrial revolution, there is no reason for people to hunt(which I personally think is immoral like I said before), and we have a military to protect us from any invasion, if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.
So we should change our government so that it's the governments job to make sure that nobody dies and everyone knows everything?
Furthermore, hunters supply cheap meat for their families and the poor. It's very much a part of the diet of many people and it is much more humane for the animals and better overall than the chemically altered meats in todays factory farms.
Since the industrial revolution we've become increasingly dependant on importing goods. Hunting is a viable alternative.
We should change a law that causes the deaths of 11,000 people each year. Hunting is outdated and cruel. Eating meat in general is cruel in my opinion. I don't see how shooting an animal for sport is more humane than leaving it alone and letting it live in the wild.
You shoot an animal. Bam, it's dead.Or, a mountain lion hunts it, and rips its throat out while still alive.
>_>
Ahh, I completely understand now. I must have missed the segment in the news about the mountain lion industrial revolution. :roll:
1. Congratulations on completely dancing around the point. You implied that hunting was somehow inhumane, and I provided a counter-example of how life in nature isn't quite so pleasant. Red Herring.2. The notion that we shouldn't be hunting because of our 'industrial revolution' is like saying we shouldn't be seeing stage plays becaue we have movies
>_>
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]Tell that to Vladimir Lenin, George Washington, Che Guevera, or the Iraqi insurgents. >_>[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]if our government turned oppresive, the guns that we have wouldn't be enough to stop the military.ElectronicMagic
Most of which had factors thrown in to sway the giant militaries they were fighting, if you look at them individually you see that guns wasn't what swayed them either way, but the economic and political climate of that time. The Iraqi insurgents aren't going to win because they have guns, they are going to win because Americans are tired of fighting a pointless war any longer. I think if you got an oppresive American government, fighting American insurgents, the U.S. military would be enough to stop it.
So, we're screwed anyway, why let us have any chance?That's some pretty screwed-up logic. >_>
Heck man, truth hurts.
**** that. If a fascist government is gonna come, I am never going to just lay down in front of it. I'd rather die fighting. >_>Besides, the idea that we couldn't fight is absurd. All over the world and throughout history, there have been insurgent groups, revolutions, and many of them have been successful. What, we couldn't match their arms? There's things like guerilla warfare, for example, a thing that many organized military forces aren't good at. >_>
[QUOTE="effthat"]The legality of guns is irrelevant to the 11,000 deaths. In order to even remotely correlate the numbers you'd have to remove all but the instances where the shooter was the licensed owner of the gun. Even then, there is further cuts to that number based on the make up of the number.And hunting is much more humane than the domesticated pharming of animals in many cases. Eating meat my be cruel in your opinion, but that has jack to do with the legality of it.
You're now trying to press your personal diet on an entire country. It won't happen and shouldn't if there was even the most remote chance.
ElectronicMagic
If they wanted to get rid of guns, they could. The fact is that the majority doesn't want to. Which is why I said I know that banning firearms will never happen here. It's my opinion that it should. I'm not for domesticated farming of animals, it shouldn't happen. It's animal cruelty that people here are apathetic towards. Eating meat is one of our country's biggest problems(eating all the corn Americans do too is, but that isn't relevant to the meat/hunting/firearms discussion).
actually, the corn is very relevant to meat production. As a society becomes more affluent, they increase the amount of meat in their diet. Meat production in todays time takes about 6 times more food energy in grain than it provides in meat because the animals use most of it for bones and fat and energy and very little adds significant edible meat.
Of the corn grown, only about 90% is used for human consumption. The rest goes to grain and ethynol (which again, you can stop making, but then gas goes up and effects the price of food).
I find you extremely idealistic. Don't let a cyncial old man like me ruin that. Just know that I'm right...
1. Congratulations on completely dancing around the point. You implied that hunting was somehow inhumane, and I provided a counter-example of how life in nature isn't quite so pleasant. Red Herring.2. The notion that we shouldn't be hunting because of our 'industrial revolution' is like saying we shouldn't be seeing stage plays becaue we have movies
>_>
PannicAtack
I wasn't dancing around the point. I know what you are trying to say. It simply is irrelevant because humans and mountain lions are not the same. We shouldn't be hunting because we(humanity) have the ability to see that hurting other living beings is wrong. Animals on the other hand, such as the mountain lion do so because that is the only way they can get their food.
So you believe that animal life is viable enough that killing animals is wrong, and yet this somehow doesn't apply to the animals themselves when they kill?I wasn't dancing around the point. I know what you are trying to say. It simply is irrelevant because humans and mountain lions are not the same. We shouldn't be hunting because we(humanity) have the ability to see that hurting other living beings is wrong. Animals on the other hand, such as the mountain lion do so because that is the only way they can get their food.
ElectronicMagic
Double Standard. >_>
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="effthat"]The legality of guns is irrelevant to the 11,000 deaths. In order to even remotely correlate the numbers you'd have to remove all but the instances where the shooter was the licensed owner of the gun. Even then, there is further cuts to that number based on the make up of the number.And hunting is much more humane than the domesticated pharming of animals in many cases. Eating meat my be cruel in your opinion, but that has jack to do with the legality of it.
You're now trying to press your personal diet on an entire country. It won't happen and shouldn't if there was even the most remote chance.
effthat
If they wanted to get rid of guns, they could. The fact is that the majority doesn't want to. Which is why I said I know that banning firearms will never happen here. It's my opinion that it should. I'm not for domesticated farming of animals, it shouldn't happen. It's animal cruelty that people here are apathetic towards. Eating meat is one of our country's biggest problems(eating all the corn Americans do too is, but that isn't relevant to the meat/hunting/firearms discussion).
actually, the corn is very relevant to meat production. As a society becomes more affluent, they increase the amount of meat in their diet. Meat production in todays time takes about 6 times more food energy in grain than it provides in meat because the animals use most of it for bones and fat and energy and very little adds significant edible meat.
Of the corn grown, only about 90% is used for human consumption. The rest goes to grain and ethynol (which again, you can stop making, but then gas goes up and effects the price of food).
I find you extremely idealistic. Don't let a cyncial old man like me ruin that. Just know that I'm right...
Corn is another food item that Americans should not eat so much of. You pretty much made that case right there. Nearly everything I can think of has corn in it, at the very least it has that most disgusting item "Fructose corn syrup" in it. I like my ideals, you can think you are right in the way you believe and I can do the same for myself.
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]So you believe that animal life is viable enough that killing animals is wrong, and yet this somehow doesn't apply to the animals themselves when they kill?I wasn't dancing around the point. I know what you are trying to say. It simply is irrelevant because humans and mountain lions are not the same. We shouldn't be hunting because we(humanity) have the ability to see that hurting other living beings is wrong. Animals on the other hand, such as the mountain lion do so because that is the only way they can get their food.
PannicAtack
Double Standard. >_>
If the other animals were like us in the fact that they could choose to follow reason instead of instinct, then it would be different. I think humans shouldn't do it, I can't speak for mountain lions, hence I'm not one. How many times are you going to do this " >_> " ? Nearly every bloody post it has that in it and it makes no sense.
I am a gun owner. I will be the first to admit that. I own somewhere around 11 (I think... I lost count), and I am quite keen on keeping them in my posession. I shoot for sport, and I shoot for fun, and it is a great source of enjoyment.
However, there are those that believe that guns are inherently evil and should be taken away from all who posess them. I have often wondered why this is. A gun never killed anyone of its own free will. They are simply conglomerations of metal, springs, and levers that do what the operator tells them to do. They are the definition of tools.
How would taking them away from those who own them benefit the country, if at all? Especially since there are still people who hunt for food.
tsb247
AMEN
Banning guns would not solve anything, I don't even own one but I know alot of friends and family members who own firearms and they are the most responsible people I've met. Seriously that's like me suggesting to ban alcohol because of drunk drivers or knives because they hurt people. The government should not be responsible to ban guns because there are other uses to guns such as Target shooting, collecting them as a hobby or hunting.greenprinceI don't know anyone with a gun but I agree, the gov needs to not get involved.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]So you believe that animal life is viable enough that killing animals is wrong, and yet this somehow doesn't apply to the animals themselves when they kill?I wasn't dancing around the point. I know what you are trying to say. It simply is irrelevant because humans and mountain lions are not the same. We shouldn't be hunting because we(humanity) have the ability to see that hurting other living beings is wrong. Animals on the other hand, such as the mountain lion do so because that is the only way they can get their food.
ElectronicMagic
Double Standard. >_>
If the other animals were like us in the fact that they could choose to follow reason instead of instinct, then it would be different. I think humans shouldn't do it, I can't speak for mountain lions, hence I'm not one. How many times are you going to do this " >_> " ? Nearly every bloody post it has that in it and it makes no sense.
The emoticon is largely arbitrary to my posts, with occasional implications of sarcasm or disdain. >_>Either way, the idea that it's wrong for a human to kill an animal and not for an animal to kill another animal is a double standard.
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]So you believe that animal life is viable enough that killing animals is wrong, and yet this somehow doesn't apply to the animals themselves when they kill?I wasn't dancing around the point. I know what you are trying to say. It simply is irrelevant because humans and mountain lions are not the same. We shouldn't be hunting because we(humanity) have the ability to see that hurting other living beings is wrong. Animals on the other hand, such as the mountain lion do so because that is the only way they can get their food.
PannicAtack
Double Standard. >_>
If the other animals were like us in the fact that they could choose to follow reason instead of instinct, then it would be different. I think humans shouldn't do it, I can't speak for mountain lions, hence I'm not one. How many times are you going to do this " >_> " ? Nearly every bloody post it has that in it and it makes no sense.
The emoticon is largely arbitrary to my posts, with occasional implications of sarcasm or disdain. >_>Either way, the idea that it's wrong for a human to kill an animal and not for an animal to kill another animal is a double standard.
We live in a world were there are pretty much two if not more of everything, chances are that they're going to be double standards. It's unavoidable. In this case I think it's a for the better. A mountain lion doesn't have reason, it relizes on instinct to survive, that's nature. Humans have come along way, we can choose to rely on instinct or reason. That is what makes us different from the other animals.
The problem with guns and school shootings, and all that, is that the parents are irresponsible and leave their guns unlocked and out where their child can grab it. There needs to be programs that are required for first-time gun owners talking about the safety of locking their guns up... Also, children need to be told that guns are bad, and most irresponsible parents don't mention a gun, and then the kid sees it on TV and thinks it's cool, and takes it to school. Obviously this isn't the case for teenage rampages like Columbine, but it is the case for many of the younger kids.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]So you believe that animal life is viable enough that killing animals is wrong, and yet this somehow doesn't apply to the animals themselves when they kill?I wasn't dancing around the point. I know what you are trying to say. It simply is irrelevant because humans and mountain lions are not the same. We shouldn't be hunting because we(humanity) have the ability to see that hurting other living beings is wrong. Animals on the other hand, such as the mountain lion do so because that is the only way they can get their food.
ElectronicMagic
Double Standard. >_>
If the other animals were like us in the fact that they could choose to follow reason instead of instinct, then it would be different. I think humans shouldn't do it, I can't speak for mountain lions, hence I'm not one. How many times are you going to do this " >_> " ? Nearly every bloody post it has that in it and it makes no sense.
The emoticon is largely arbitrary to my posts, with occasional implications of sarcasm or disdain. >_>Either way, the idea that it's wrong for a human to kill an animal and not for an animal to kill another animal is a double standard.
We live in a world were there are pretty much two if not more of everything, chances are that they're going to be double standards. It's unavoidable. In this case I think it's a for the better. A mountain lion doesn't have reason, it relizes on instinct to survive, that's nature. Humans have come along way, we can choose to rely on instinct or reason. That is what makes us different from the other animals.
This is essentially turning to a "yes-it-is-no-it-isn't" argument, and it is veering away from the main point of the thread. >_>I don't think guns should be banned in the states, but the laws definitely need some tweaking:
DEKALB, Illinois (Reuters) - A man who killed five students and himself during a shooting spree at an Illinois college had stopped taking medication and become erratic in the last two weeks, buying two guns used in the bloodbath just six days ago, officials said on Friday.Reuters
Link
When there is no background check that determines you're on meds to keep you from becoming "erratic" when you purchase a gun, something is seriously wrong.
The 2nd Ammendment IMO is one of the most important parts of our Bill of Rights. The government has no just cause to keep it's law abiding citizens from owning a firearm. Anti-gun nutjobs like the Brady Campaign repeatedly skew the facts to try and make it seem like MORE gun control equals LESS crime, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at the stats. Washington D.C. , New York and California have arguably the most strict gun control in the nation. And year after year, these 3 parts of the country consistently have higher violent crime cases and higher murder rates. Anti-gun activists are no different then those who would try to censor your Freedom of Speach.
The 2nd Ammendment IMO is one of the most important parts of our Bill of Rights. The government has no just cause to keep it's law abiding citizens from owning a firearm. Anti-gun nutjobs like the Brady Campaign repeatedly skew the facts to try and make it seem like MORE gun control equals LESS crime, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at the stats. Washington D.C. , New York and California have arguably the most strict gun control in the nation. And year after year, these 3 parts of the country consistently have higher violent crime cases and higher murder rates. Anti-gun activists are no different then those who would try to censor your Freedom of Speach.
MarineJcksn
Sorry, but freedom of speech and freedom of owning crazy ass guns does not = the same.
[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]The 2nd Ammendment IMO is one of the most important parts of our Bill of Rights. The government has no just cause to keep it's law abiding citizens from owning a firearm. Anti-gun nutjobs like the Brady Campaign repeatedly skew the facts to try and make it seem like MORE gun control equals LESS crime, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at the stats. Washington D.C. , New York and California have arguably the most strict gun control in the nation. And year after year, these 3 parts of the country consistently have higher violent crime cases and higher murder rates. Anti-gun activists are no different then those who would try to censor your Freedom of Speach.
jointed
Sorry, but freedom of speech and freedom of owning crazy ass guns does not = the same.
They are both civil liberties, and in terms of legal precendent, they are linked. >_>[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]The 2nd Ammendment IMO is one of the most important parts of our Bill of Rights. The government has no just cause to keep it's law abiding citizens from owning a firearm. Anti-gun nutjobs like the Brady Campaign repeatedly skew the facts to try and make it seem like MORE gun control equals LESS crime, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at the stats. Washington D.C. , New York and California have arguably the most strict gun control in the nation. And year after year, these 3 parts of the country consistently have higher violent crime cases and higher murder rates. Anti-gun activists are no different then those who would try to censor your Freedom of Speach.
PannicAtack
Sorry, but freedom of speech and freedom of owning crazy ass guns does not = the same.
They are both civil liberties, and in terms of legal precendent, they are linked. >_>You can't compare them. One is philosophic and the other is materialistic.
[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]I personally think guns should be banned outside of the military. They say they have them to protect their families but hardly anyone here in the UK has a gun and we can protect our families just fine. Dunno I just don't see the point in them and you here about all these kids picking up their dad's gun and doing some stupid things. Plus there's all those high school shootings. I don't think you'd get as many if you couldn't buy guns at the local store...ElectronicMagic
yes but getting rid of them in the US now is a bad idea, hardley anyone in the UK has them so it's not a problem, but in the US the criminals and really dangerous people have managed to get their hands on them for years. If they were taken away then all the guns would be in the possesion of the criminals.
That's when you take our rather large military and bring them home and have them retrieve them from said criminals. But like I said before, it will never happen here. America loves their guns.
thats so illegal that its not even funny
the military is NOT ALLOWED to go after us civilians in any way shape or form.
The 2nd Ammendment IMO is one of the most important parts of our Bill of Rights. The government has no just cause to keep it's law abiding citizens from owning a firearm. Anti-gun nutjobs like the Brady Campaign repeatedly skew the facts to try and make it seem like MORE gun control equals LESS crime, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at the stats. Washington D.C. , New York and California have arguably the most strict gun control in the nation. And year after year, these 3 parts of the country consistently have higher violent crime cases and higher murder rates. Anti-gun activists are no different then those who would try to censor your Freedom of Speach.
MarineJcksn
New York is the safest big city in the country, fyi.
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]I personally think guns should be banned outside of the military. They say they have them to protect their families but hardly anyone here in the UK has a gun and we can protect our families just fine. Dunno I just don't see the point in them and you here about all these kids picking up their dad's gun and doing some stupid things. Plus there's all those high school shootings. I don't think you'd get as many if you couldn't buy guns at the local store...H8sMikeMoore
yes but getting rid of them in the US now is a bad idea, hardley anyone in the UK has them so it's not a problem, but in the US the criminals and really dangerous people have managed to get their hands on them for years. If they were taken away then all the guns would be in the possesion of the criminals.
That's when you take our rather large military and bring them home and have them retrieve them from said criminals. But like I said before, it will never happen here. America loves their guns.
thats so illegal that its not even funny
the military is NOT ALLOWED to go after us civilians in any way shape or form.
What about criminals?
[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]I personally think guns should be banned outside of the military. They say they have them to protect their families but hardly anyone here in the UK has a gun and we can protect our families just fine. Dunno I just don't see the point in them and you here about all these kids picking up their dad's gun and doing some stupid things. Plus there's all those high school shootings. I don't think you'd get as many if you couldn't buy guns at the local store...jointed
yes but getting rid of them in the US now is a bad idea, hardley anyone in the UK has them so it's not a problem, but in the US the criminals and really dangerous people have managed to get their hands on them for years. If they were taken away then all the guns would be in the possesion of the criminals.
That's when you take our rather large military and bring them home and have them retrieve them from said criminals. But like I said before, it will never happen here. America loves their guns.
thats so illegal that its not even funny
the military is NOT ALLOWED to go after us civilians in any way shape or form.
What about criminals?
we have cops for that, he said military. I wouldnt wish that on anyone, from any country. Military police definitely leads to a police state in my opinion
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]I personally think guns should be banned outside of the military. They say they have them to protect their families but hardly anyone here in the UK has a gun and we can protect our families just fine. Dunno I just don't see the point in them and you here about all these kids picking up their dad's gun and doing some stupid things. Plus there's all those high school shootings. I don't think you'd get as many if you couldn't buy guns at the local store...H8sMikeMoore
yes but getting rid of them in the US now is a bad idea, hardley anyone in the UK has them so it's not a problem, but in the US the criminals and really dangerous people have managed to get their hands on them for years. If they were taken away then all the guns would be in the possesion of the criminals.
That's when you take our rather large military and bring them home and have them retrieve them from said criminals. But like I said before, it will never happen here. America loves their guns.
thats so illegal that its not even funny
the military is NOT ALLOWED to go after us civilians in any way shape or form.
What about criminals?
we have cops for that, he said military. I wouldnt wish that on anyone, from any country. Military police definitely leads to a police state in my opinion
So what about the 1992 LA riots or Hurricane Katrina? I'm sure there must be some kind of exceptions to such a rule.
[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]I personally think guns should be banned outside of the military. They say they have them to protect their families but hardly anyone here in the UK has a gun and we can protect our families just fine. Dunno I just don't see the point in them and you here about all these kids picking up their dad's gun and doing some stupid things. Plus there's all those high school shootings. I don't think you'd get as many if you couldn't buy guns at the local store...jointed
yes but getting rid of them in the US now is a bad idea, hardley anyone in the UK has them so it's not a problem, but in the US the criminals and really dangerous people have managed to get their hands on them for years. If they were taken away then all the guns would be in the possesion of the criminals.
That's when you take our rather large military and bring them home and have them retrieve them from said criminals. But like I said before, it will never happen here. America loves their guns.
thats so illegal that its not even funny
the military is NOT ALLOWED to go after us civilians in any way shape or form.
What about criminals?
we have cops for that, he said military. I wouldnt wish that on anyone, from any country. Military police definitely leads to a police state in my opinion
So what about the 1992 LA riots or Hurricane Katrina? I'm sure there must be some kind of exceptions to such a rule.
well they went in during katrina as aid (what ones were actually available that is). I dont know what happened with the riots as far as the military is concerned. we have really specialized police forces too though.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.cool_ballerpeople with guns are far more efficient at it though.
These guys make a great point about gun control. ;)the_foreign_guy
they got a lot of guts saying that about the government. I respect them a lot
Wouldn't solve anything, no, because there are already hundreds of millions of guns in the country.
What an epiphany, by the way! This is the first time in my seven years of posting BS on the Internet that I've ever replied to a thread (1) with a single sentence and (2) without even reading the first post, solely basing my lazy-ass reply on the topic title, like the majority of you teenage Gamespot morons. FYI it took five shots of Jägermeister and two beers to sink to this level.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]jointed
Sorry, but freedom of speech and freedom of owning crazy *** guns does not = the same.
They are both civil liberties, and in terms of legal precendent, they are linked. >_>You can't compare them. One is philosophic and the other is materialistic.
You're thinking about it too close minded IMO. They're both declarations of the inherant rights each American citizen has.
The issue of the 2nd Ammendment is a topic of such hypocrisy among those who so strongly advocate the 1st Ammendment but then dismiss all of us 2 Ammendment advocates as just "Gun Nuts".
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment