|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Feb 3, 2013 15:02:02 GMT -5
It's absurd that right wing nuts have no problem regulating marriage, religion and vaginas but god forbid they regulate their precious guns. ![::)](http://www.wrestlingfigs.com/images/rolleyes.gif) I'm not completely against owning a gun or hunting rifle, but there needs to be regulations, background checks and drug tests. I don't see how that is unreasonable. And I don't care what anyone says, no one needs to own an assault rifle.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Feb 3, 2013 15:11:18 GMT -5
I'm not completely against owning a gun or hunting rifle, but there needs to be regulations, background checks and drug tests. I don't see how that is unreasonable. And I don't care what anyone says, no one needs to own an assault rifle. No one needs a car that goes over 60mph either, but you don't see the government limiting that. It's been brought up MANY times in this thread that "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than every other rifle out there. The media conjured up the term in order to scare people into thinking that a.) these weapons are all full auto and can kill 10,000 babies in 10 seconds b.) that it looks scary, and therefore must be evil and banned. Truth is, that real assault rifles, are capable of select fire, they've also been heavily regulated since 1934
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Feb 3, 2013 17:02:51 GMT -5
I'm not completely against owning a gun or hunting rifle, but there needs to be regulations, background checks and drug tests. I don't see how that is unreasonable. And I don't care what anyone says, no one needs to own an assault rifle. No one needs a car that goes over 60mph either, but you don't see the government limiting that. It's been brought up MANY times in this thread that "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than every other rifle out there. The media conjured up the term in order to scare people into thinking that a.) these weapons are all full auto and can kill 10,000 babies in 10 seconds b.) that it looks scary, and therefore must be evil and banned. Truth is, that real assault rifles, are capable of select fire, they've also been heavily regulated since 1934 Plus, it only takes one bullet to kill a person. Whether it be from a single shot Derringer or a Mac 10, which I don't think are street legal at all anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 3, 2013 17:42:22 GMT -5
No one needs a car that goes over 60mph either, but you don't see the government limiting that. It's been brought up MANY times in this thread that "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than every other rifle out there. The media conjured up the term in order to scare people into thinking that a.) these weapons are all full auto and can kill 10,000 babies in 10 seconds b.) that it looks scary, and therefore must be evil and banned. Truth is, that real assault rifles, are capable of select fire, they've also been heavily regulated since 1934 Plus, it only takes one bullet to kill a person. Whether it be from a single shot Derringer or a Mac 10, which I don't think are street legal at all anymore. It only takes one 'stab' from a knife to kill someone but I don't see the government regulating knifes. Some of those are big and scarey looking too, including kitchen knives.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 3, 2013 17:43:08 GMT -5
Chuck Woolery says it all! Very good video.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Feb 4, 2013 7:25:09 GMT -5
So you guys are saying guns shouldn't be regulated at all? Again I ask, it's okay to regulate marriage, religion and vagina's but it's not okay to regulate a ![](http://www.wrestlingfigs.com/images/wfcensored.gif) ing firearm!?! And I think the father of one of the Newtown victims makes a really valid point: "The liberty of any person to own an assault weapon and a high capacity magazine is second to the right of my son to his life." The man got a standing ovation for saying that.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 7:42:28 GMT -5
Although I get that the people who own the guns are the ones using them to kill people, and while I don't necessarily think "all guns should be banned" I do want to say this....
You cannot compare guns to things like cars by using the logic of "If you want to ban all guns, you have to ban things like cars because they can be just as dangerous in the wrong hands. Cars don't kill people, people kill people". That argument doesn't fly with me.
Cars are useful in everyday life. Without cars, many simple things would become huge complications. Guns are not useful for anything other than hurting other people. Guns serve no purpose in this world other than to severely injure or kill living things. Even a knife has many different uses. I can't think of one use for a pistol or a shotgun or anything like that other than the one I listed above (not counting a flare gun or a starting pistol, which are specialised).
The world would be a better place if guns had never been invented. I truly believe that. I also hate the "we have to protect our rights" anti-government mentality that seems to have been bandied about in this thread. Anyone who honestly thinks there is a chance the US government could rise up and turn against it's own citizens (with taking all guns being apart of it) in this day and age sounds like a complete nutjob.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 4, 2013 10:01:08 GMT -5
Although I get that the people who own the guns are the ones using them to kill people, and while I don't necessarily think "all guns should be banned" I do want to say this.... You cannot compare guns to things like cars by using the logic of "If you want to ban all guns, you have to ban things like cars because they can be just as dangerous in the wrong hands. Cars don't kill people, people kill people". That argument doesn't fly with me. Cars are useful in everyday life. Without cars, many simple things would become huge complications. Guns are not useful for anything other than hurting other people. Guns serve no purpose in this world other than to severely injure or kill living things. Even a knife has many different uses. I can't think of one use for a pistol or a shotgun or anything like that other than the one I listed above (not counting a flare gun or a starting pistol, which are specialised). The world would be a better place if guns had never been invented. I truly believe that. I also hate the "we have to protect our rights" anti-government mentality that seems to have been bandied about in this thread. Anyone who honestly thinks there is a chance the US government could rise up and turn against it's own citizens (with taking all guns being apart of it) in this day and age sounds like a complete nutjob. Your first statement is very far from the truth unless you are referring to those criminals who get their firearms illegally. Gun enthusiasts/law abiding gun owners such as myself will most likely never have to kill or shoot anyone. On your second statement, sure cars are useful in every day life however a weapon can be just about anything in a criminal's hands, a knife, a car, a bat, and a gun. What about cigarettes? Are they useful in every day life? They kill more then any guns do. The world would be a better place without guns? Maybe... but maybe not. Before guns there still were wars, still mass killings, still criminals using weapons of all different kinds. Still innocent people being murdered. Yes the "people kill people, not guns" is so cliche but it's so true. It's human nature and those evil doers will always find a way, guns or no guns. Go read a history book and you'll see murder and crime happened since the dawn of man and it will never stop, guns or no guns. JS
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 10:52:46 GMT -5
Although I get that the people who own the guns are the ones using them to kill people, and while I don't necessarily think "all guns should be banned" I do want to say this.... You cannot compare guns to things like cars by using the logic of "If you want to ban all guns, you have to ban things like cars because they can be just as dangerous in the wrong hands. Cars don't kill people, people kill people". That argument doesn't fly with me. Cars are useful in everyday life. Without cars, many simple things would become huge complications. Guns are not useful for anything other than hurting other people. Guns serve no purpose in this world other than to severely injure or kill living things. Even a knife has many different uses. I can't think of one use for a pistol or a shotgun or anything like that other than the one I listed above (not counting a flare gun or a starting pistol, which are specialised). The world would be a better place if guns had never been invented. I truly believe that. I also hate the "we have to protect our rights" anti-government mentality that seems to have been bandied about in this thread. Anyone who honestly thinks there is a chance the US government could rise up and turn against it's own citizens (with taking all guns being apart of it) in this day and age sounds like a complete nutjob. Your first statement is very far from the truth unless you are referring to those criminals who get their firearms illegally. Gun enthusiasts/law abiding gun owners such as myself will most likely never have to kill or shoot anyone. On your second statement, sure cars are useful in every day life however a weapon can be just about anything in a criminal's hands, a knife, a car, a bat, and a gun. What about cigarettes? Are they useful in every day life? They kill more then any guns do. The world would be a better place without guns? Maybe... but maybe not. Before guns there still were wars, still mass killings, still criminals using weapons of all different kinds. Still innocent people being murdered. Yes the "people kill people, not guns" is so cliche but it's so true. It's human nature and those evil doers will always find a way, guns or no guns. Go read a history book and you'll see murder and crime happened since the dawn of man and it will never stop, guns or no guns. JS I am referring to criminals/anyone who is using guns for evil in my first statement. I know not everyone who owns a gun is some murderous maniac or anything like that. However, just because someone owns a gun legally doesn't mean they don't have bad intentions. It'd be crazy to think everyone who's ever committed a crime with a gun obtained it illegally. As for anything being a weapon in a criminal's hands, like I said, knifes/cars etc. all have outside purposes. Yeah there's a risk with those things, but a high reward. As I said before, the world would be a worse place without cars. Guns have a very high risk, with a very low reward. They don't have a purpose. IMO a gun is a risk for the sake of a risk. And you're right about cigarettes. They aren't useful. If I could control the world, cigarettes would not exist. Unfortunately, smoking is less of an issue in the world atm. Also, the comparison of guns and cigarettes isn't quite as black and white. Guns can have major effects on other people i.e. if I shoot someone, they're life is at serious risk. If I were to smoke around someone, it's unlikely the cigarette smoke would ever do any serious damage. You have a point about people always finding a way to hurt someone even if they didn't have a gun. However, no guns would undoubtedly save lives. If guns suddenly vanished off the face of the Earth, lives would be saved. And in the end, wouldn't that be worth it? Even just a few lives, for getting rid of something with no real use? Unfortunately, there isn't a magic device that could simultaneously remove all guns from the world. And that's why I'm not in favour of a gun ban. Guns are here now, and there's no way to completely get rid of them. I think something needs to be done though.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 4, 2013 13:13:01 GMT -5
The difference between cigarettes and guns is that you can't kill someone else with your cigarette.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 4, 2013 13:44:00 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?
|
|
|
Post by Gazza on Feb 4, 2013 14:02:12 GMT -5
Is anyone as bored of this discussion/argument on here as I am?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 4, 2013 14:12:02 GMT -5
Is anyone as bored of this discussion/argument on here as I am? If you are bored of it why respond to it?
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Feb 4, 2013 14:21:09 GMT -5
The basis of the 2nd Amendment was that citizens had the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia to protect a free state.
So people who are crying that if they can't own a rocket launcher that their 2nd Amendment rights will be taken away....clearly they don't understand the constitution and they are just like people who miss-quote the bible and cherry pick the parts they like to justify being able to do whatever they want.
So unless you are part of a well regulated militia, no, you do not have the right to bear arms and really have no use for high powered assault rifles.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Feb 4, 2013 14:28:42 GMT -5
What do you guys think of the American Sniper being shot and killed at a gun range?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 4, 2013 14:33:34 GMT -5
The basis of the 2nd Amendment was that citizens had the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia to protect a free state. So people who are crying that if they can't own a rocket launcher that their 2nd Amendment rights will be taken away....clearly they don't understand the constitution and they are just like people who miss-quote the bible and cherry pick the parts they like to justify being able to do whatever they want. So unless you are part of a well regulated militia, no, you do not have the right to bear arms and really have no use for high powered assault rifles. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
|
|
|
Post by Gazza on Feb 4, 2013 14:33:42 GMT -5
Is anyone as bored of this discussion/argument on here as I am? If you are bored of it why respond to it? Because that's my opinion on it and I'm allowed to reply with it,am I not?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 4, 2013 14:36:10 GMT -5
If you are bored of it why respond to it? Because that's my opinion on it and I'm allowed to reply with it,am I not? Yes however if you are bored with something why reply to it was all I was saying. Also posting that you are bored with it has no relevance to the topic at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Feb 4, 2013 14:41:41 GMT -5
The basis of the 2nd Amendment was that citizens had the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia to protect a free state. So people who are crying that if they can't own a rocket launcher that their 2nd Amendment rights will be taken away....clearly they don't understand the constitution and they are just like people who miss-quote the bible and cherry pick the parts they like to justify being able to do whatever they want. So unless you are part of a well regulated militia, no, you do not have the right to bear arms and really have no use for high powered assault rifles. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What exactly about people stockpiling weapons in their homes is "well regulated"? Keep in mind, that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when a state might actually be over taken, and the most powerful weapons that existed were single fire pistols, single fire muskets, and maybe a cannon if anybody was actually crazy enough to one of them personally. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 4, 2013 15:31:13 GMT -5
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson
|
|