[Discussion] Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

[NarutoDKurosaki]

Never heard an intelligent argument for gun bans

Are you for or against? Whats your argument?

 

[Morgiana]

“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

“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”― James Madison

What do you think?

 

[Solaris Vexius]

Are you for or against? Whats your argument?

I'm against gun bans

 

[Waggy]

the government is bent on taking over by abolishing the 2nd amendment, as soon as guns are banned all you blowhard liberal democrats will go scrabbling for the guns you never had and at this point never will and the Libertarians and people who stood loyal to the second amendment will assemble a rebellion and an insurrection and crush the tyrannical monarchy and hopefully all of these anti-gun idiots with it.

 

[YowYan]

the government is bent on taking over by abolishing the 2nd amendment, as soon as guns are banned all you blowhard liberal democrats will go scrabbling for the guns you never had and at this point never will and the Libertarians and people who stood loyal to the second amendment will assemble a rebellion and an insurrection and crush the tyrannical monarchy and hopefully all of these anti-gun idiots with it.

/end thread.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

yes gun control is good
I think if someone using a gun it makes them look weak

Some of us are weak and we know it. If it came down to a real life or death fight we would lose. We carry guns to prevent ourselves from dying.

Now if someone gets into a bar brawl and pulls out a gun they are cowards.

With guns.

With tools. Medieval weapons are no less effective today compared to old times. Imagine a mass murderer with molotov's, home made grenades, and a sword.

Never heard an intelligent argument for gun bans

Funny because I have a huge amount of facts and statistics that I use all of the time. All arguments against guns are based on fear.

 

[Amantius]

Take them all, it's time ppl start fighting with their ****ing hands.

 

[NarutoDKurosaki]

Take them all, it's time ppl start fighting with their ****ing hands.

Then bad guys keep them, and get them through the black market

 

[Aim64C]

Take them all, it's time ppl start fighting with their ****ing hands.

Interesting.

This is not how real warriors operate. A real warrior recognizes the intrinsic value of peace and that once one commits to violence, you've thrown civility, honor, and everything but survival to the side. You are going to survive - live - and the other is going to subjugate or die.

If I ever get into a fight with an individual, they are going to die unless they submit, and do it fast. That's all there is to it.

You can think it dishonorable - but, as I posted in the meaning of life thread, those who do not accept the validity of tools will cease to be a part off this species' genetic pool.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

Interesting.

This is not how real warriors operate. A real warrior recognizes the intrinsic value of peace and that once one commits to violence, you've thrown civility, honor, and everything but survival to the side. You are going to survive - live - and the other is going to subjugate or die.

If I ever get into a fight with an individual, they are going to die unless they submit, and do it fast. That's all there is to it.

You can think it dishonorable - but, as I posted in the meaning of life thread, those who do not accept the validity of tools will cease to be a part off this species' genetic pool.

I wish people would duel more often instead of fighting. Duels used to be such a great thing and both showed civility towards one another. Now kids get in fights cause you accidentally hit them with a snowball -_-

Tis true, the reason humans are so powerful is not because of our strength but our intelligence and willingness to use tools.

 

[narutolover143]

The sad thing about this is that you probably know several firearm owners and interact with them on a regular basis each and every day.

Why do you think that "having guns means you will be foolish?" Because most firearm owners are responsible to the point that they are not going to get someone killed (though I will admit that quite a few do not properly store their firearms for their household... too many will store a firearm as if he/she is the only one in the house long after a wife/husband and kids are involved). You don't realize they are firearm owners because they aren't gunning down everything in their path.

Which seems to be the image the media wants to paint these days: "But there was another side to [individual]... she was a gun enthusiast and regularly visited the shooting range. None of her neighbors realized just what kind of woman she was. A room in her home was lined with various assault weapons she kept on display."

Yet the 'crazy lady with all the weapons' was not the one who flipped out and killed people. Granted - she exercised poor discretion in allowing her son access to those firearms... but how many parents allow their kids access to alcohol and vehicles (in the same night)?

People will error and there is nothing that can be done about this... spare shackling everyone up and throwing them into a cell where they are force-fed and given intravenous hydration. That is the only way everyone can be fully free from harm so that they may enjoy life.



There are more firearms in the U.S. than there are registered vehicles being operated by fully government licensed individuals.

Guess which one kills more people.



So does someone trying to protect themselves with a knife. What's your point?



Pandora's Box.

That said... it doesn't really matter what we humans create or discover - there are people in this world who realize that it merely takes the will to use the advantages they have to exploit others. People are, to some degree or another, sheep (at least in certain aspects of their life). You go about trusting in the herd.

But it really only takes one of them to become a wolf - to realize that a little force... be it threat of contract termination, threat of death, destruction of property, public humiliation... any kind of advantage - can be used to exploit and restrict that other person's behavior or earnings. You won't give me preferential treatment? Sexual harassment charge. The rumors alone will destabilize your reputation. You want to run a business... that's fine - but there are some rough types around here that will rough up your shop... unless you pay us to protect you, that is. We offer a quite valuable service to the community for a nominal fee.

Someone could easily develop a 'gun' to protect his/her community from thugs. Wouldn't be but a few years later and the thugs would be running around with 'guns.'

I suggest you look into the Red Queen Hypothesis:

You must be registered for see links

Basically... we are in direct competition with each other for resources that make our offspring more competitive. It even underlies our psychology. It's a simple concept that can apply to even very complex systems (such as society). Just as we have viruses that infect organisms... we have 'viruses' that infect society. Ideologies that sap the resources of a society for its own replication.

Most forms of criminal behavior are a sort of social virus.

Our own society is going to end up collapsing before too much longer because the life of a virus is considered equal to the life of a functional cell. We've failed to develop lymphocytes and antibodies to address the problem of viral amplification... and it's going to destroy us.

But it will be amusing to watch.

so all this you have to say i have taken into consideration and have figure that what i meant was the people that are going to act foolish with a gun. i really don't care which is worse because curiosity hatred and plain ignorance are all keys to someone getting killed it doesn't matter which is worse but it does matter when someone dies because of someone else's foolish mistake. And i'm right to a point GUNS shouldn't have been made it was man's falt that this world is going to hell because of their wrong choices. Obviously it's our fault so why not own up to it and stop making excuses like "we need them for protection" it doesn't help! oh for the record i don't know any firearms sellsman thank you very much and also about "society is going to end up collapsing" and "We've failed to develop antibodies to address the problem of viral amplification...and it's going to destroy us." what's with the "it will be amusing to watch" thing? it won't be interesting when you find one of your family members or friends in between that now would it? Sorry for being maybe too blunt, but I don't understand what your getting at. If had to i will protect myself with something other than a gun. i'm passive I HATE violence and always will. correct me if i'm wrong on anything i have said or you think i may have said out of context. again don't mean to be blunt that's just me. Have a nice day.

 

[Aim64C]

so all this you have to say i have taken into consideration and have figure that what i meant was the people that are going to act foolish with a gun.

A certain number of people are going to act foolish. What they have in their possession at the time is relatively irrelevant to that fact.

i really don't care which is worse because curiosity hatred and plain ignorance are all keys to someone getting killed it doesn't matter which is worse but it does matter when someone dies because of someone else's foolish mistake.

You're putting far too much consequence on death.

But, since it's an absolute atrocity that people die - perhaps you would care to focus on things that are responsible for far more deaths per annum than firearms (such as vehicles, alcohol, and dehydration). Not to mention STDs and the toll they are taking on human life.

Every right and freedom has a consequence to be paid in blood.

And i'm right to a point GUNS shouldn't have been made it was man's falt that this world is going to hell because of their wrong choices.

Your hubris is suffocating. You proclaim to know how the universe -should- work, and assume that it is currently operating in a manner in which it shouldn't.

Obviously it's our fault so why not own up to it and stop making excuses like "we need them for protection" it doesn't help!

Because any functionally intelligent individual will recognize the advantage granted by use of a firearm. All it takes is for them to have the will to use that advantage to leverage their own will against that of society in order to get what they desire.

Let's say you create something aproximating your little utopia - no one has firearms and the police only need to bludgeon the occasional miscreant with a cudgel. Someone, however, decides that he wants a car - but would rather not pay for one. He goes to the dealership, takes the keys, and shoots anyone who decides to take issue with him.

But that's fine - the police are on the scene within five minutes, just in time to stop the offender from leaving the parking lot after detailing the interior of the vehicle (can't make a daring escape in a dirty ride, now can we). So, he gets out of the vehicle and proceeds to exterminate the responding police.

Then he drives around their vehicles (or over the curb - the worst travesty, yet - a vehicle not driving within the lines) and goes home. Anyone who challenges him gets shot, and he soon decides it's time for the local judge to be changed - shoots her and starts sitting on the bench. People who don't go with his rullings get shot.

That's exactly why firearms (or anything granting physical, economic, or political advantage) will never disappear from our world. Anyone foolish enough to try will find themselves being made servant to those willing to utilize that advantage.

oh for the record i don't know any firearms sellsman thank you very much

I believe the term I used was "owners."

and also about "society is going to end up collapsing" and "We've failed to develop antibodies to address the problem of viral amplification...and it's going to destroy us." what's with the "it will be amusing to watch" thing? it won't be interesting when you find one of your family members or friends in between that now would it?

That's how the world works. You choose people who are valuable to you, and when other people decide to trifle with their life - you defend those valuable to you. If necessary, you destroy the threat.

If you lose that person, then you do not use their loss as an excuse for castrating yourself and submitting to the will of others.

Sorry for being maybe too blunt, but I don't understand what your getting at.

You're not going to hurt my feelings. You don't even know where the return key is.

Yeah, I admit, I am being a bit of a ****, there.

If had to i will protect myself with something other than a gun. i'm passive I HATE violence and always will.

Then you'd better hope someone like me is always near.

Ultimately, pacifism is a philosophy doomed to extinction. Left to their own devices - pacifists will end up being eliminated by or subjected to a tyrant.

Unless they are only the type of pacifist that doesn't like to get his/her hands dirty and is more than willing to call others in to be violent on their behalf.

In the end - violence is a necessary part of life. Those unable or unwilling to utilize it are ultimately not fit for survival.

correct me if i'm wrong on anything i have said or you think i may have said out of context. again don't mean to be blunt that's just me. Have a nice day.

There are elements of freedom that I hold as superior to all other things.

I do not subscribe to the idea that the behavior of a few within society is grounds for banning merchandise. I do not subscribe to the idea that firearm owners are a problem. I do not subscribe to the idea that I am subservant to the will of some social dichtomy.

I believe this pretty much captures my emotions on the subject:

[video=youtube;dBi7DIAdY-Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBi7DIAdY-Y[/video]

The recent actions at the national level have made me quite pro-secession. I no longer see it as sensible for the state to be part of the union, as the relationship is no longer beneficial, but compromising on our part.

If it comes down to it - I will do what is necessary to survive. If that means I go against federal law because it is dysfunctional, then that means I go against federal law and dispatch anyone foolish enough to enforce what amounts to a dysfunctional lifestyle.

I am an individual before I am a human.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

so all this you have to say i have taken into consideration and have figure that what i meant was the people that are going to act foolish with a gun. i really don't care which is worse because curiosity hatred and plain ignorance are all keys to someone getting killed it doesn't matter which is worse but it does matter when someone dies because of someone else's foolish mistake.

Yeah guns are not even close to the number of foolish deaths by people not paying attention. More people die to gravity than guns.

You must be registered for see images

And i'm right to a point GUNS shouldn't have been made it was man's falt that this world is going to hell because of their wrong choices.

We managed to kill one another just fine without guns thank you very much. Bombs are another popular method that are much more deadly.

Obviously it's our fault so why not own up to it and stop making excuses like "we need them for protection" it doesn't help! oh for the record i don't know any firearms sellsman thank you very much and also about "society is going to end up collapsing" and "We've failed to develop antibodies to address the problem of viral amplification...and it's going to destroy us."

It is a god given natural right to protect one's self.

You must be registered for see links

She was legislated into being a rape victim despite being able to carry a gun. If she defended herself she would have been kicked out of school and lost everything she worked hard for. If she gritted her teeth and let him rape her then she can keep going to school but she was violated. If this was not an anti-gun zone she WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAPED. 2 other girls wouldn't have been raped and 1 other girl would still be alive, you doomed 1 girl and allowed 3 girls to be raped because of fear. The anti-gun zones are criminal safety zones and promote this type of behavior. In a pro-gun zone 4 people would have been saved.

what's with the "it will be amusing to watch" thing? it won't be interesting when you find one of your family members or friends in between that now would it? Sorry for being maybe too blunt, but I don't understand what your getting at. If had to i will protect myself with something other than a gun. i'm passive I HATE violence and always will. correct me if i'm wrong on anything i have said or you think i may have said out of context. again don't mean to be blunt that's just me. Have a nice day.

So if 4 large men break into your house you are going to stop them with a lamp you just picked up before they kill you and rape yout mother? Yeah I doubt that. You need to get with reality and understand what you can and cannot do before you lose everything.



The reason most of us have a gun is to prevent violence. We hope to never have to use it but we have it just incase the need arises.

 

[-Ibrahim-]

Who cares? Why do people insist on arguing about this over and over again. Who gives a ****! You act like your opinion is gonna change anything, its not. The govt makes the rule. You can be for or against it, but it wont mean a single shit. Just saiyan.

Just super saiyan.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

Who cares? Why do people insist on arguing about this over and over again. Who gives a ****! You act like your opinion is gonna change anything, its not. The govt makes the rule. You can be for or against it, but it wont mean a single shit. Just saiyan.

Just super saiyan.

In a republic the government should fear its people. It does, that is why they are trying to ban guns. Many of our politicians fear being kicked out of office so if enough people are educated we can encourage them to support our second amendment.

 

[Aim64C]

Who cares? Why do people insist on arguing about this over and over again. Who gives a ****! You act like your opinion is gonna change anything, its not. The govt makes the rule. You can be for or against it, but it wont mean a single shit. Just saiyan.

Just super saiyan.

. . .

What?

The government makes the rules?

The government is extended its authority under the consent of the governed. This is exactly why there is a division of power within the U.S. government - different tiers of government have been granted permission, through our consent, to make rules and laws regarding certain topics.

The way the government in the U.S. is -supposed- to function is the following:

The people establish the State. The State manages its own affairs. In every sense - the State is identical in function and authority to the national government of European nations. The National Government is based off of a Constitution drafted under the recognition that unified states would convey many advantages. The Constitution, basically, states that membership into the Union requires the States to follow a few basic rules regarding the rights of its citizens, that THE STATE pays taxes to the national government (direct taxation of citizens is prohibited under the Constitution ... not that anyone paid any attention to to that), and that the State relenquishes any rights to coinage/currency (the State cannot print currency and must function according to the national standard).

The State holds ultimate responsibility to its citizens and also is the highest tier of local authority (though the state may delegate its authorities to other tiers of government, such as counties and/or cities recognized by the state).

Major changes to the Constitution require it to be, essentially, ratified once more for it to take effect. Eliminating an amendment (particularly one within the original Bill of Rights that, without, the Constitution would have never been ratified) is just such a change.

If at any time a change is made to the Constitution without proper consent of the governed, or a law is put into place that contradicts the rights granted within the Constitution - the population has every right to question the authority and relenquish their consent to be governed by that authority.

The government is not superior to the people. The government IS the people. Governments are formed to address and handle the needs of the population.

If at any point the population adopts the attitude of "Meh... The government is in charge and I'll do whatever the bureaucracy says to do" - it is doomed to an oppressive existence. Perhaps not at first - but it is inevitable that the selfish ambitions of individuals within the government, and other seats of power within society, will exploit that mentality to suppress oposition to their motives.

Honestly, I'm not all that fearful of "they are going to take our guns!" - The fact that people with no knowledge of firearms are now being granted authority to tell people who -are- educated and experienced in the use of firearms how to go about living is what I see as an ultimately fatal mistake of our government.

I took highschool chemistry (and was worth my salt), design computer circuitry as a hoby, and know how to create some very, very nasty things. They'd rather I stick to firearms than get a crew together and be creative.

 

[YowYan]

. . .

What?

The government makes the rules?

The government is extended its authority under the consent of the governed. This is exactly why there is a division of power within the U.S. government - different tiers of government have been granted permission, through our consent, to make rules and laws regarding certain topics.

The way the government in the U.S. is -supposed- to function is the following:

The people establish the State. The State manages its own affairs. In every sense - the State is identical in function and authority to the national government of European nations. The National Government is based off of a Constitution drafted under the recognition that unified states would convey many advantages. The Constitution, basically, states that membership into the Union requires the States to follow a few basic rules regarding the rights of its citizens, that THE STATE pays taxes to the national government (direct taxation of citizens is prohibited under the Constitution ... not that anyone paid any attention to to that), and that the State relenquishes any rights to coinage/currency (the State cannot print currency and must function according to the national standard).

The State holds ultimate responsibility to its citizens and also is the highest tier of local authority (though the state may delegate its authorities to other tiers of government, such as counties and/or cities recognized by the state).

Major changes to the Constitution require it to be, essentially, ratified once more for it to take effect. Eliminating an amendment (particularly one within the original Bill of Rights that, without, the Constitution would have never been ratified) is just such a change.

If at any time a change is made to the Constitution without proper consent of the governed, or a law is put into place that contradicts the rights granted within the Constitution - the population has every right to question the authority and relenquish their consent to be governed by that authority.

The government is not superior to the people. The government IS the people. Governments are formed to address and handle the needs of the population.

If at any point the population adopts the attitude of "Meh... The government is in charge and I'll do whatever the bureaucracy says to do" - it is doomed to an oppressive existence. Perhaps not at first - but it is inevitable that the selfish ambitions of individuals within the government, and other seats of power within society, will exploit that mentality to suppress oposition to their motives.

Honestly, I'm not all that fearful of "they are going to take our guns!" - The fact that people with no knowledge of firearms are now being granted authority to tell people who -are- educated and experienced in the use of firearms how to go about living is what I see as an ultimately fatal mistake of our government.

I took highschool chemistry (and was worth my salt), design computer circuitry as a hoby, and know how to create some very, very nasty things. They'd rather I stick to firearms than get a crew together and be creative.

Do you really think he's going to read all that? Like he said, he doesn't care about this subject. Try to keep it short like the guy above your post.

 

[Aim64C]

Do you really think he's going to read all that? Like he said, he doesn't care about this subject. Try to keep it short like the guy above your post.

If an explanation of how a government is to function, taking up so small an area, is too much to ask of one - then it is only fitting that that one be treated as the tool one is.

This nation is plagued by the following ideology:

"So, what do you think about that new proposition on the ballot, this year?"

"The one about how many trees you can have in your yard?"

"Yeah, that one."

"Well, I think it's great that they want to keep down on tree farming. Why would anyone need more than ten trees?"

"But do we need a law against that? And what about people who have yards that are a few acres - or people who have small orchards on their property?"

"But there are all of these people with so many trees in their yards, and the sticks pile up. It's a fire hazard."

"[insert explanation about existing fire ordnances and laws that already exist but do not solve the aforementioned problem because they cannot be enforced.]"

"Bored now. I guess our votes will just cancel each other out!"

 

[YowYan]

If an explanation of how a government is to function, taking up so small an area, is too much to ask of one - then it is only fitting that that one be treated as the tool one is.

This nation is plagued by the following ideology:

"So, what do you think about that new proposition on the ballot, this year?"

"The one about how many trees you can have in your yard?"

"Yeah, that one."

"Well, I think it's great that they want to keep down on tree farming. Why would anyone need more than ten trees?"

"But do we need a law against that? And what about people who have yards that are a few acres - or people who have small orchards on their property?"

"But there are all of these people with so many trees in their yards, and the sticks pile up. It's a fire hazard."

"[insert explanation about existing fire ordnances and laws that already exist but do not solve the aforementioned problem because they cannot be enforced.]"

"Bored now. I guess our votes will just cancel each other out!"

Fell asleep after the second line, I'm sorry. In all seriousness; Sure, you can be informed on things, but you don't have to make each and every post a script for a detective movie. It is and stays a forum with mostly juvenile members. Either way, you can still inform others and summarize what you'd like to say. The way you build-up your posts is annoying to me xd Lot of unnecessary words

 

[NarutoDKurosaki]

Fell asleep after the second line, I'm sorry. In all seriousness; Sure, you can be informed on things, but you don't have to make each and every post a script for a detective movie. It is and stays a forum with mostly juvenile members. Either way, you can still inform others and summarize what you'd like to say. The way you build-up your posts is annoying to me xd Lot of unnecessary words

oh well, at least he makes a good argument.