why are people against the second amendment?

If you wanted to kill someone what would you use. and if someone was threatening your life with a gun would you hold onto your ideals about the second ammendment then?

if guns were allowed on campuses he could have been stopped.

megahaloman64

If you wanted to kill someone what would you use. and if someone was threatening your life with a gun would you hold onto your ideals about the second ammendment then?

Wolls

A gun, and it is the job of the Law to make it as difficult as humanly possible for me to acquire a gun and kill whomever it is I want to kill.

Yes, because the person threatening me with a gun only serves to confirm my ideals about the second amendment. I'd owe the guy something of a favor.

If you wanted to kill someone what would you use. and if someone was threatening your life with a gun would you hold onto your ideals about the second ammendment then?

Wolls

i'd shoot him

[QUOTE="Wolls"]If you wanted to kill someone what would you use. and if someone was threatening your life with a gun would you hold onto your ideals about the second ammendment then?megahaloman64

i'd shoot him

I'm going to copy/paste this and delete the other one, since I didn't spend all that time on the thing just so it could appear at the very bottom of the page.

Because it's an outdated and worthless right, developed by people who were (justly) afraid of foreign countries literally stomping into their living rooms in the middle of the night. The world, and politics, and people, have all changed dramatically from 230 years ago and it's high time this thing caught up with the times. Britain is not going to march into your house, the United States is not going to declare war on its own citizens (and even if it would, how would you stop it? Do you think yourself some Rambo-type badass that can kill half an army and immobilise the other half simply because you own a gun? Even a trained United States Marine could do nothing in such an event even with a house of AK-47s, let alone an untrained pistol collector), and these talking-points do not exist for our generation for the simple reason that the word "government" is no longer synonymous with "all-powerful ruler."

Guns do not protect, they only kill. For every story you hear on the news or anecdotal example (that may or may not be made up or exaggerated) about a person protecting himself or his family from an armed would-be robber, there are ten that have children getting into their parents' gun stashes and shooting them (the Halo brat, for instance), people taking guns into public places because it's the "gangsta" thing to do (and often shooting themselves or others in the process--see Plaxico Burress), or people just plain shooting up the place (Virginia Tech, Columbine, The Holocaust Museum, God-only-knows how many banks and federal buildings and old jobs and nut houses and homes). A person who is under immense pressure during a robbery or break-in is in no shape whatsoever to hold a gun anyway; they could just as easily shoot a family member as the criminal in question. What you are supposed to do is make sure your family is safe and secure, get to a phone and call 911.

Guns as a hunting tool are rentable and no excuse for owning a gun full-time.

Giving guns to any layman that wants one is among the stupidest things that could be done. Police and militia are trained to operate a gun; they know how it works, how it fires, how it aims, and every little detail about every little gun they come to posses; some random hick does not, and is far more likely to be irresponsible with the gun as a result.

People who say criminals will get guns anyway need to apply that logic to any other crime they could possibly think of. Murder, rape, suicide, theft -- all of these are crimes and none of them simply "stop occurring" because they are crimes; however, they are significantly reduced by being illegal and shunned throughout society, and there is not a sane man alive that would apply the "gun logic" to them ("Let's make them legal since bad stuff happens anyway!"). It is the job of society to encourage responsibility, safety and security to its citizens; making guns accessible to any Tom, Dick and Harry that wants one does none of these. If guns are so easily accessed through the Black Market then there need to be more crackdowns on the Black Market, not less, and weaning America out of its silly "gun culture" mentality is probably the biggest step we could take in doing this.

Gun-doters are left with only one recourse: "I want one, therefore I'm entitled to one, so there." Selfish, lazy, inconsistent, backwards, irresponsible, circular, Randian individualism that does nothing but hold society back in every conceivable way and result in the deaths of millions of people annually in a gun culture gone insane, where gun crime is literally solved with more guns.

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

if guns were allowed on campuses he could have been stopped.

spazzx625

The vt guy got them legally, but he could have got them illegally either way if he was denied. On most college campusus, guns are not allowed, so if a teacher or someone had a consealed weapon, they could have stopped him.

I'm going to copy/paste this and delete the other one, since I didn't spend all that time on the thing just so it could appear at the very bottom of the page.-_Rain_-

Owning a gun is not committing murder so of course people wouldn't make the argument that rape should be legal since it happens anyways. Your other points are just insults and derogatory saying it's a stupid idea to give people guns, which is a very intelligent argument in itself by the way. There are people that hunt all season and that would be a huge problem to be forced to rent. Guns do not protect or kill, the person using the gun does. If someone breaks into my house and I don't have my gun handy, I'll just grab whatever is nearby, criminals would do the same.

Incidentally, why does it seem more often in OT that it's Europeans making the argument that the US should have gun control? That may be incorrect, but it's been the case more than not when I've checked.

[QUOTE="-_Rain_-"]

I'm going to copy/paste this and delete the other one, since I didn't spend all that time on the thing just so it could appear at the very bottom of the page.guynamedbilly

Owning a gun is not committing murder so of course people wouldn't make the argument that rape should be legal since it happens anyways. Your other points are just insults and derogatory saying it's a stupid idea to give people guns, which is a very intelligent argument in itself by the way. There are people that hunt all season and that would be a huge problem to be forced to rent. Guns do not protect or kill, the person using the gun does. If someone breaks into my house and I don't have my gun handy, I'll just grab whatever is nearby, criminals would do the same.

Incidentally, why does it seem more often in OT that it's Europeans making the argument that the US should have gun control? That may be incorrect, but it's been the case more than not when I've checked.

I never said owning a gun is committing murder, nor did I use that as a point against the "gun logic," I explicitly said that guns should not be kept legal on the basis that criminals will commit crimes anyway because that logic is inapplicable to any other crime.

Of course it's derogatory; I'm taking a position on a point. Anything I say will be derogatory; complaining about perceived insults is a worthless cop-out. Being forced to rent a gun should be no problem whatsoever.

See, the thing is, you're supposed to be on a level above the criminal.

Europe has higher living standards, better education--and stricter gun laws. Plus European countries tend not to have obsessive gun cultures.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

if guns were allowed on campuses he could have been stopped.

megahaloman64

The vt guy got them legally, but he could have got them illegally either way if he was denied. On most college campusus, guns are not allowed, so if a teacher or someone had a consealed weapon, they could have stopped him.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on these forums. I would LOVE to hear an explanation of what you mean. :|spazzx625

The vt guy got them legally, but he could have got them illegally either way if he was denied. On most college campusus, guns are not allowed, so if a teacher or someone had a consealed weapon, they could have stopped him.

I never said owning a gun is committing murder, nor did I use that as a point against the "gun logic," I explicitly said that guns should not be kept legal on the basis that criminals will commit crimes anyway because that logic is inapplicable to any other crime.

Of course it's derogatory; I'm taking a position on a point. Anything I say will be derogatory; complaining about perceived insults is a worthless cop-out. Being forced to rent a gun should be no problem whatsoever.

See, the thing is, you're supposed to be on a level above the criminal.

Europe has higher living standards, better education--and stricter gun laws. Plus European countries tend not to have obsessive gun cultures.-_Rain_-

Calling something stupid isn't exactly making a good argument on your behalf. Laws are based on fact, not perception. Ignoring that you have no argument since it is based only on insult and perception is a worthless cop-out.

As far as living standards, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

As far as education http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm

For education population wide, I have a feeling Europe might have a larger percentage, but couldn't find it.

There is no such thing as being above the level of a criminal, unless you mean obeying the law rather than not obeying the law, which I am.

Please post facts if you are trying to make a realistic argument.

Because it's an outdated and worthless right, developed by people who were (justly) afraid of foreign countries literally stomping into their living rooms in the middle of the night. -_Rain_-

[QUOTE="-_Rain_-"]

Because it's an outdated and worthless right, developed by people who were (justly) afraid of foreign countries literally stomping into their living rooms in the middle of the night. -Sun_Tzu-

And both are addressed in my post and are easily accomplished without the use of guns.

[QUOTE="-_Rain_-"]I never said owning a gun is committing murder, nor did I use that as a point against the "gun logic," I explicitly said that guns should not be kept legal on the basis that criminals will commit crimes anyway because that logic is inapplicable to any other crime.

Of course it's derogatory; I'm taking a position on a point. Anything I say will be derogatory; complaining about perceived insults is a worthless cop-out. Being forced to rent a gun should be no problem whatsoever.

See, the thing is, you're supposed to be on a level above the criminal.

Europe has higher living standards, better education--and stricter gun laws. Plus European countries tend not to have obsessive gun cultures.guynamedbilly

Calling something stupid isn't exactly making a good argument on your behalf. Laws are based on fact, not perception. Ignoring that you have no argument since it is based only on insult and perception is a worthless cop-out.

As far as living standards, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

As far as education http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm

For education population wide, I have a feeling Europe might have a larger percentage, but couldn't find it.

There is no such thing as being above the level of a criminal, unless you mean obeying the law rather than not obeying the law, which I am.

Please post facts if you are trying to make a realistic argument.

I didn't call it stupid--at least, not without justification. I have an argument, you do not: you are merely chalking anything that contradicts your view up to "insults" and ignoring two-thirds of what is said in favor of what you think you can respond to.

Living standards: http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=596

Education: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080717162246809

As for there being no such thing as being above the level of a criminal. . .please. Simply saying "The criminal would do the same" proves that there is, and that you're willing to sink to their standards.

Please post facts--and not "opinionjournal.com"--if you are trying to make a realistic argument.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="-_Rain_-"]

Because it's an outdated and worthless right, developed by people who were (justly) afraid of foreign countries literally stomping into their living rooms in the middle of the night. -_Rain_-

And both are addressed in my post and are easily accomplished without the use of guns.

As Thomas Jefferson once said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

I'd rather deal with the bigoted ignoramus who posts racist slurs on youtube videos than deal with me not being able to comment youtube videos at all. I'd rather deal with the police need to take their time and acquire a warrant in order to search a seizure the property of a serial killer who had severed heads in his bedroom closet than having to deal with the police having the ability to search and seize my property without a warrant, and I'd rather be in the situation where a robber can break into my home with a fire arm than deal with not having the right to own a fire arm at all.