|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 17, 2013 18:45:20 GMT -5
I also think the "having guns to protect people from the government" thing is bullsh*t. Give me any shred of evidence that the government would become a dictatorship if guns were illegal. It hasn't happened in most other civilized democratic countries, there's about a 1% chance it would happen in the US. If the government wanted to become a bunch of Nazis, they could. A few guns isn't going to do sh*t against the weaponry available to the government. Germany under Hitler. ...............
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 18:46:26 GMT -5
I don't get this "it hasn't helped that much, why bother?" thing that a lot of Americans seem to say. Isn't different/more thorough background checks worth it if it saves even a few lives? Let me guess, we should stop giving to charity since poverty will never end? How do you know it will save lives? How do you know that a person who gets rejected won't buy a gun illegally and still kill? If someone is intent on killing they aren't going to bother following gun laws. Charity is a voluntary thing and you can do what you want with your money. And how do you know it won't save lives? How do you know a person who doesn't get a gun legally, won't bother try to get one at all? Statistically, it is bound to save one life. Even if the gun death is an accident. Why are Americans fighting so hard against something that has no negative implications for law abiding citizens, but potentially positive implications? It makes no sense. I'm also not sure why you just explained what charity is to me and what is has to do with whether charity is worth it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 18:46:58 GMT -5
What does it harm? If someone really really wants a gun they're going to get one, but it does force them to go through illegal means which isn't a bad thing IMO. So Congress should pass more laws that don't actually do anything because they don't harm anyone? I'm confused by what you mean that it isn't a bad thing to force criminals to get guns illegally. No. Congress should pass laws that do more good than harm. This is a law that does no harm at all and has the potential to do some good. Why not pass it? Forcing criminals to buy guns illegal makes it harder than just walking into a store. It's somewhat of a deterrent.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 17, 2013 18:47:33 GMT -5
Every response you had I completely DISAGREE with. You are wrong. Back then there were muskets and pistols. Now there are machine guns and full auto guns. You are bending the truth of the quotes of the founding fathers to fit into your own views. That is disrespectful. The bills isn't to restrict law abiding citizens access to guns, it is to restrict the mentally unstable and criminals from getting guns. First of all, I don't even own a gun. Secondly, how am I "bending the truth?" The quotes seem pretty in' descriptive to me. Last, the disarmament of a population ALWAYS comes before tyranny.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 18:47:36 GMT -5
I also think the "having guns to protect people from the government" thing is bullsh*t. Give me any shred of evidence that the government would become a dictatorship if guns were illegal. It hasn't happened in most other civilized democratic countries, there's about a 1% chance it would happen in the US. If the government wanted to become a bunch of Nazis, they could. A few guns isn't going to do sh*t against the weaponry available to the government. Germany under Hitler. ............... Well, that's one. How many other civilised democratic countries have banned guns? A lot. How many turned into dictatorships? Germany once, in the 40s.....who else?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:48:14 GMT -5
The bills isn't to restrict law abiding citizens access to guns, it is to restrict the mentally unstable and criminals from getting guns. The bill is to make what criminals do even more illegal? How do we judge mental instability when it comes to a background check?
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 17, 2013 18:49:26 GMT -5
Congress should pass laws that do more good than harm. This is a law that does no harm at all and has the potential to do some good. Why not pass it? This is an AWFUL precedent to set. "Well if it does more good than bad, we outta pass it..." This is basically the post-election equivalent of the "lesser of two evils" argument, which has us all at the mercy of rich people who don't give a flying about us.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 18:49:27 GMT -5
I also think the "having guns to protect people from the government" thing is bullsh*t. Give me any shred of evidence that the government would become a dictatorship if guns were illegal. It hasn't happened in most other civilized democratic countries, there's about a 1% chance it would happen in the US. If the government wanted to become a bunch of Nazis, they could. A few guns isn't going to do sh*t against the weaponry available to the government. So we should just take the chance? Sure, if the government is willing to drop nukes on us then guns won't matter. But if the government does get to a point where we see they are turning into something even worse then the people can stand up and try to take control before the nukes fly. If government becomes a bigger threat then we will need something to help the people take control. We shouldn't just sit idly by because the government can easily take us out. Look at Afghanistan. They don't have 1/10 of the stuff we have and they have been keeping us at bay for 12 years. If Americans are that scared, they should start building nuclear warheads then. At least they might be effective against the governments. Like I said, guns will do jacksh*t.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 18:50:30 GMT -5
Every response you had I completely DISAGREE with. You are wrong. Back then there were muskets and pistols. Now there are machine guns and full auto guns. You are bending the truth of the quotes of the founding fathers to fit into your own views. That is disrespectful. The bills isn't to restrict law abiding citizens access to guns, it is to restrict the mentally unstable and criminals from getting guns. First of all, I don't even own a gun. Secondly, how am I "bending the truth?" The quotes seem pretty in' descriptive to me. Last, the disarmament of a population ALWAYS comes before tyranny. Except all the times it didn't. The UK doesn't have a tyrannical government. Congress should pass laws that do more good than harm. This is a law that does no harm at all and has the potential to do some good. Why not pass it? This is an AWFUL precedent to set. "Well if it does more good than bad, we outta pass it..." This is basically the post-election equivalent of the "lesser of two evils" argument, which has us all at the mercy of rich people who don't give a flying about us. No, it doesn't do ANY bad. And is LIKELY to do SOME good. There's a few key words you missed out.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 17, 2013 18:52:06 GMT -5
Germany under Hitler. ............... Well, that's one. How many other civilised democratic countries have banned guns? A lot. How many turned into dictatorships? Germany once, in the 40s.....who else? Why don't you do some research on your own?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:52:58 GMT -5
How do you know it will save lives? How do you know that a person who gets rejected won't buy a gun illegally and still kill? If someone is intent on killing they aren't going to bother following gun laws. Charity is a voluntary thing and you can do what you want with your money. And how do you know it won't save lives? How do you know a person who doesn't get a gun legally, won't bother try to get one at all? Statistically, it is bound to save one life. Even if the gun death is an accident. Why are Americans fighting so hard against something that has no negative implications for law abiding citizens, but potentially positive implications? It makes no sense. I'm also not sure why you just explained what charity is to me and what is has to do with whether charity is worth it or not. You honestly think criminals will stop their criminal activity because the law forbids them from doing that criminal activity? Let's outlaw peanuts, it's bound to save many lives and won't hurt anyone. I don't understand the comparison you made with charity. No one is making laws about charity or forcing you to give to charity. So Congress should pass more laws that don't actually do anything because they don't harm anyone? I'm confused by what you mean that it isn't a bad thing to force criminals to get guns illegally. No. Congress should pass laws that do more good than harm. This is a law that does no harm at all and has the potential to do some good. Why not pass it? Forcing criminals to buy guns illegal makes it harder than just walking into a store. It's somewhat of a deterrent. Again to the peanut law. Why not ban peanuts? It'll do more good than harm. You'd think the death penalty would be a deterrent but it's not. So we should just take the chance? Sure, if the government is willing to drop nukes on us then guns won't matter. But if the government does get to a point where we see they are turning into something even worse then the people can stand up and try to take control before the nukes fly. If government becomes a bigger threat then we will need something to help the people take control. We shouldn't just sit idly by because the government can easily take us out. Look at Afghanistan. They don't have 1/10 of the stuff we have and they have been keeping us at bay for 12 years. If Americans are that scared, they should start building nuclear warheads then. At least they might be effective against the governments. Like I said, guns will do jacksh*t. So if the government starts attacking us we should just say "Oh well. They know what's best"?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 18:53:22 GMT -5
Well, that's one. How many other civilised democratic countries have banned guns? A lot. How many turned into dictatorships? Germany once, in the 40s.....who else? Why don't you do some research on your own? I think you are the one who needs to look at some facts once in a while instead of old sayings and conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 18:53:24 GMT -5
I also think the "having guns to protect people from the government" thing is bullsh*t. Give me any shred of evidence that the government would become a dictatorship if guns were illegal. It hasn't happened in most other civilized democratic countries, there's about a 1% chance it would happen in the US. If the government wanted to become a bunch of Nazis, they could. A few guns isn't going to do sh*t against the weaponry available to the government. Germany under Hitler. ............... Dude. The feds could crush any militia in the US without working up a sweat. All the fully automatic assault rifles in the world are useless against armor, air support and trained troops.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:55:24 GMT -5
Germany under Hitler. ............... Dude. The feds could crush any militia in the US without working up a sweat. All the fully automatic assault rifles in the world are useless against armor, air support and trained troops. So that means we should just let it happen if it ever does?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 19:01:34 GMT -5
And how do you know it won't save lives? How do you know a person who doesn't get a gun legally, won't bother try to get one at all? Statistically, it is bound to save one life. Even if the gun death is an accident. Why are Americans fighting so hard against something that has no negative implications for law abiding citizens, but potentially positive implications? It makes no sense. I'm also not sure why you just explained what charity is to me and what is has to do with whether charity is worth it or not. You honestly think criminals will stop their criminal activity because the law forbids them from doing that criminal activity? Let's outlaw peanuts, it's bound to save many lives and won't hurt anyone. I don't understand the comparison you made with charity. No one is making laws about charity or forcing you to give to charity. So if the government starts attacking us we should just say "Oh well. They know what's best"? No, I don't think criminals will stop because of laws. I think it could prevent people who are not mentally fit to carry guns from getting them and using them in the wrong way. The peanut analogy is asinine. This new bill isn't saying "ban all guns", so it wouldn't be "ban all peanuts". It's put new restrictions, new regulations, new safety checks on buying guns. If you're a law abiding citizen, it will be no problem. Why are all these so called law abiding citizens scared of this if they have nothing to hide? And I can't believe you don't get what I'm saying with charity. I'm making a comparison with charity, something which helps a lot of people and isn't a deterrent to anyone, to new gun laws, something which could help a lot of people and isn't a deterrent to any law abiding Americans. Not that hard to understand. And again, how likely is that the US government will become tyrannical? 0.00000000000001%?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 19:01:55 GMT -5
Congress should pass laws that do more good than harm. This is a law that does no harm at all and has the potential to do some good. Why not pass it? This is an AWFUL precedent to set. "Well if it does more good than bad, we outta pass it..." This is basically the post-election equivalent of the "lesser of two evils" argument, which has us all at the mercy of rich people who don't give a flying about us. What harm does the law do? What harm?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 19:03:09 GMT -5
Dude. The feds could crush any militia in the US without working up a sweat. All the fully automatic assault rifles in the world are useless against armor, air support and trained troops. So that means we should just let it happen if it ever does? But it's never remotely likely to happen is it? Radioactive monkeys who can kill humans with one touch could fall from the sky tomorrow. Should Americans prepare for that as well?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 19:07:38 GMT -5
And how do you know it won't save lives? How do you know a person who doesn't get a gun legally, won't bother try to get one at all? Statistically, it is bound to save one life. Even if the gun death is an accident. Why are Americans fighting so hard against something that has no negative implications for law abiding citizens, but potentially positive implications? It makes no sense. I'm also not sure why you just explained what charity is to me and what is has to do with whether charity is worth it or not. You honestly think criminals will stop their criminal activity because the law forbids them from doing that criminal activity? Let's outlaw peanuts, it's bound to save many lives and won't hurt anyone. I don't understand the comparison you made with charity. No one is making laws about charity or forcing you to give to charity. No. Congress should pass laws that do more good than harm. This is a law that does no harm at all and has the potential to do some good. Why not pass it? Forcing criminals to buy guns illegal makes it harder than just walking into a store. It's somewhat of a deterrent. Again to the peanut law. Why not ban peanuts? It'll do more good than harm. You'd think the death penalty would be a deterrent but it's not. If Americans are that scared, they should start building nuclear warheads then. At least they might be effective against the governments. Like I said, guns will do jacksh*t.[/quote] So if the government starts attacking us we should just say "Oh well. They know what's best"?[/quote] So we should have no laws at all because criminals are just going to break them anyway?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 19:19:47 GMT -5
So we should have no laws at all because criminals are just going to break them anyway? That is true. Only criminals will break the law so you make a good point. We should only have laws against things where there is a true victim.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 19:21:59 GMT -5
So we should have no laws at all because criminals are just going to break them anyway? That is true. Only criminals will break the law so you make a good point. We should only have laws against things where there is a true victim. But why? Why have a law against stealing? It's not going to stop anyone from stealing? Why does it matter if there's a victim or not?
|
|