|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 4, 2013 16:07:00 GMT -5
The difference between cigarettes and guns is that you can't kill someone else with your cigarette. Untrue. Many develop cancer, emphasima, etc., and DIE because of second hand cigarette inhalation. And somehow everyone is perfectly fine with that? Smoking and letting children inhale the deadly toxic fumes is ok? Never been conclusively proven; I don't think anyone has died of passive smoke.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 16:17:56 GMT -5
What do you guys think of the American Sniper being shot and killed at a gun range? For some reason they were treating the shooter's PTSD at the gun range. I don't know what sense that makes. Guy has PTSD from the war and you think it's a good idea to have him around all these people shooting guns? The guy broke down and shot the two people who were there to help him. He only shot the two people helping him, no one else.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Feb 4, 2013 17:04:57 GMT -5
I don't think incorrectly using the very outdated and time specific 2nd Amendment is grounds in today's society for people to have the type of powerful weapons in question. If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment is also outdated and should not apply to the internet or almost anything else for that matter. As for Chris Kyle, it's very sad, he did a lot within the industry as well as helping a lot with people PTSD. He will be missed, my condolences go out to his family as well as the Marine that he was with (whose name escapes me at this time)
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Feb 4, 2013 18:58:52 GMT -5
Again, my point is that things need to be updated to take into account changing times and updated technology.
There is very little about our society or that an individual has to go through in the course of their daily life that is relevant or topical to what was going on at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
In another 230 years, is anything we are going through now still going to be relevant or topical? Absolutely not. But in your opinion we should still be governed and follow a Constitution that at that time will be almost 500 years old?
Like I said, this like people who cherry pick stuff from the bible to justify doing what they want. Did you know that according to the bible, if your wife is not a virgin you can legally take her out back and execute her?
So yeah, 226 years ago when the weapons in existence were not at all very powerful and there was a threat of losing States to foreign influence and it was necessary for people to be armed so they could go to war at a moments notice,.....yes, the constitution as it was written was VERY relevant.
However, in today's society, we need to update things to take into account the ever changing society and the technologies which impact our lives.
I don't think the founding fathers wanted everyone to have a collection of AR-15's and in 230 years I don't think they'd want everyone to have their own personal nuke or death ray or whatever horrible new forms of destruction are invented between now and then.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 19:09:30 GMT -5
Again, my point is that things need to be updated to take into account changing times and updated technology. There is very little about our society or that an individual has to go through in the course of their daily life that is relevant or topical to what was going on at the time of the writing of the Constitution. In another 230 years, is anything we are going through now still going to be relevant or topical? Absolutely not. But in your opinion we should still be governed and follow a Constitution that at that time will be almost 500 years old? Like I said, this like people who cherry pick stuff from the bible to justify doing what they want. Did you know that according to the bible, if your wife is not a virgin you can legally take her out back and execute her? So yeah, 226 years ago when the weapons in existence were not at all very powerful and there was a threat of losing States to foreign influence and it was necessary for people to be armed so they could go to war at a moments notice,.....yes, the constitution as it was written was VERY relevant. However, in today's society, we need to update things to take into account the ever changing society and the technologies which impact our lives. I don't think the founding fathers wanted everyone to have a collection of AR-15's and in 230 years I don't think they'd want everyone to have their own personal nuke or death ray or whatever horrible new forms of destruction are invented between now and then. You can't compare a gun to a rocket launcher, nuke, death ray or anything else like that. Guns serve a purpose, hunting, protecting and defending. Rocket launchers, nukes and death rays only kill, there are no other purposes for them. Yes, the Constitution is over 200 years old but you don't think anything in it should apply today? We shouldn't be protected from unreasonable search or seizure? We shouldn't have the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment? The stuff in the Constitution still applies today. Yes, they didn't think of the kind of guns we have today nor the kind of media and communication we have today. But I highly doubt if they were alive today that they'd write those amendments differently.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 4, 2013 19:24:04 GMT -5
Again, my point is that things need to be updated to take into account changing times and updated technology. There is very little about our society or that an individual has to go through in the course of their daily life that is relevant or topical to what was going on at the time of the writing of the Constitution. In another 230 years, is anything we are going through now still going to be relevant or topical? Absolutely not. But in your opinion we should still be governed and follow a Constitution that at that time will be almost 500 years old? Like I said, this like people who cherry pick stuff from the bible to justify doing what they want. Did you know that according to the bible, if your wife is not a virgin you can legally take her out back and execute her? So yeah, 226 years ago when the weapons in existence were not at all very powerful and there was a threat of losing States to foreign influence and it was necessary for people to be armed so they could go to war at a moments notice,.....yes, the constitution as it was written was VERY relevant. However, in today's society, we need to update things to take into account the ever changing society and the technologies which impact our lives. I don't think the founding fathers wanted everyone to have a collection of AR-15's and in 230 years I don't think they'd want everyone to have their own personal nuke or death ray or whatever horrible new forms of destruction are invented between now and then. Our founding fathers wanted us to protect ourselves against out own government and tyranny if need be. They wanted us to be on equal terms and have the same arms as the government. So relatively speaking our founding fathers did want us to have AR-15s if the government did. However it's actually not the case because law abiding citizens cannot have selective fire/automatic weapons, so the government has the upper hand contrary to what our founding fathers wanted. And again, the scarey looking AR-15... Most hunting rifles are more powerful.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 4, 2013 19:29:33 GMT -5
and what of the numerous studies that have found that there is a higher chance of someone owning a gun killing themself or their family members than someone attacking their home?
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Feb 4, 2013 19:36:05 GMT -5
What exactly is the government going to do to me that the appropriate response is going to include an AR-15, though?
Start a petition, create a politically active group that gets your message out to the media, propose a bill or law change.....anybody who doesn't like what the government is doing and their first reaction is to get a gun just comes off as a lunatic.
If what you say is true and I must be as equipped as the government so I can meet every action with an equal reaction, I really don't think the government is going to come after me with a gun, so me needing one just in case seems like a counterproductive endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 19:51:47 GMT -5
and what of the numerous studies that have found that there is a higher chance of someone owning a gun killing themself or their family members than someone attacking their home? A suicidal person is going to kill themselves with whatever means necessary. If they didn't have access to a gun, they'd take pills or hang themselves or whatever. Outlawing guns will not stop them from killing themselves. What exactly is the government going to do to me that the appropriate response is going to include an AR-15, though? Start a petition, create a politically active group that gets your message out to the media, propose a bill or law change.....anybody who doesn't like what the government is doing and their first reaction is to get a gun just comes off as a lunatic. If what you say is true and I must be as equipped as the government so I can meet every action with an equal reaction, I really don't think the government is going to come after me with a gun, so me needing one just in case seems like a counterproductive endeavor. Ruby Ridge is one example of what they'll do to you. The Taliban resisted Russia and the US with only guns. They didn't have planes to drop bombs from, hell they didn't have bombs. (Not saying the Taliban are people to look up to or take advice from but it does show that gun power can help you resist those with more power) Look at all the countries where their leaders are attacking them. Guns will do them good because they can resist. If the government is willing to drop a bomb on your house and kill hundreds or thousands of people in the surrounding area then yeah maybe guns won't help in your fight. But wouldn't you want to arm yourself against a force that is willing to do whatever it takes to take you out? Would you want to be unarmed if the situation ever arose? I'd rather have the populace trained and armed to protect themselves from something that may never happen than to have them all unarmed and something happen.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 4, 2013 20:17:04 GMT -5
and what of the numerous studies that have found that there is a higher chance of someone owning a gun killing themself or their family members than someone attacking their home? A suicidal person is going to kill themselves with whatever means necessary. If they didn't have access to a gun, they'd take pills or hang themselves or whatever. Outlawing guns will not stop them from killing themselves. on what basis do you speak for any given suicidal person? that is pure hearsay, you cannot confirm that as true. nevermind that suicides would only be a percentage of the findings.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 20:21:14 GMT -5
A suicidal person is going to kill themselves with whatever means necessary. If they didn't have access to a gun, they'd take pills or hang themselves or whatever. Outlawing guns will not stop them from killing themselves. on what basis do you speak for any given suicidal person? that is pure hearsay, you cannot confirm that as true. nevermind that suicides would only be a percentage of the findings. You think a suicidal person won't kill themselves just because they can't get a gun? There are other options. Could you link to the studies?
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 4, 2013 20:48:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 4, 2013 20:57:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 21:10:48 GMT -5
No crapI can't confirm it because we can't ask them because they are dead. I can't ask the dead person "If you didn't have a gun would you still have killed yourself?" Hanging also has a clear link to suicide. Not only is that study well over a decade old, it was only a study of one state. They don't seem to figure in those that are mentally ill or suicidal. They just seem to assume that a perfectly healthy person will all of a sudden become suicidal if they buy a gun. Plus the way mental health is evaluated has changed since the beginning of the study over 20 years ago. If your claim is a suicidal person will kill themselves after buying a gun then well duh it's going to happen. People with good mental health and no interest in killing themselves will not suddenly become suicidal or have a mental health breakdown just because they own a gun.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 21:12:14 GMT -5
Do you have any current studies? That one took place in the 80s.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Feb 4, 2013 21:25:28 GMT -5
smoking and driving are not rights granted to us by the bill of rights, unlike the ability and freedom to own a gun
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 21:26:33 GMT -5
smoking and driving are not rights granted to us by the bill of rights, unlike the ability and freedom to own a gun They didn't know about cars when the Constitution was written so we might as well ban cars.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Feb 4, 2013 21:28:17 GMT -5
smoking and driving are not rights granted to us by the bill of rights, unlike the ability and freedom to own a gun They didn't know about cars when the Constitution was written so we might as well ban cars. could still be written into it
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Feb 4, 2013 21:30:19 GMT -5
driving and smoking both kill a significant amount of people, either directly or indirectly..
I believe (certain) people have accepted a certain risk vs. reward with those activities, unlike owning and operating firearms
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 21:32:44 GMT -5
Except like I said, cars have risk but for high reward. Guns have very high risk for practically zero reward.
|
|