Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

These US gun control / law debates are pointless, here's my opinion why Options · View
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:31:12 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Another problem the US has is it's view on the constitution and how it's unchangeable, despite the fact that it was written over two decades ago. Times change and laws get outdated. As was pointed out somewhere in one of the many threads about this Thomas Jefferson said that laws are only valid for a generation. If Norway was to have the same relationship to our constitution then we'd still be excluding Jews from our country. There needs to be a willingness to see that times have changed, thus the necessity for laws that were made to make sure that a young and newly established nation is not the same types that a well established democracy and military power needs.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
ByronLord
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:00:08 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 753
Location: Massachusetts, United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
Another problem the US has is it's view on the constitution and how it's unchangeable, despite the fact that it was written over two decades ago.


As recently as that, how time flies...

The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the North from banning slavery by baring states from maintaining the armed slave patrols that were necessary to chase runaway slaves and put down the slave uprisings that happened quite frequently.

It was about maintaining slavery from start to finish.

niceguy89
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:14:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2009
Posts: -24
Location: Texas, United States
ByronLord wrote:


As recently as that, how time flies...

The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the North from banning slavery by baring states from maintaining the armed slave patrols that were necessary to chase runaway slaves and put down the slave uprisings that happened quite frequently.

It was about maintaining slavery from start to finish.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Amendment_USA
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita

Really? Is that what milita meant? Well I'll be a slapped ass. All my history teachers must have lied to me.
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:19:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 543
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
I completely disagree with ByronLord's personal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The vast majority of gun owners in the US are law abiding responsible citizens. It just takes a few bad apples to make things look much worse than they are. If you will notice the majority of the mass shootings have been by mentally unstable young people, usually highly addicted to violent video games and with somewhat absent parents.

I agree with some of things Nicola posted. Certainly thorough background checks need to be done and I don't have any problems with a 5 day waiting period before one takes possession of their gun purchase.

elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:27:36 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
ByronLord wrote:


As recently as that, how time flies...

The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the North from banning slavery by baring states from maintaining the armed slave patrols that were necessary to chase runaway slaves and put down the slave uprisings that happened quite frequently.

It was about maintaining slavery from start to finish.


My apologies. Of course I meant centuries. I put the blame on being a non-native English speaker. But you see my point.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
DLizze
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:27:57 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
As a current firearm owner, and past hunter, I'd like to weigh in on several items, in no particular order.

1. About rapid rates of fire and high capacity magazines (there is no use or need for the latter without the former). Rapid rates of fire serve only one purpose: to throw a lot of projectiles out into the general vicinity where whatever the target is may happen to be. That is why they are useful to the military. Under combat conditions, over 90 percent of people do not aim and place their shots; they simply fire as raidly as they can. This has been the case ever since firearms were first instituted on the battlefield, back in the 1600's. I suspect it was probably true when the state of the art weaponry was the bow and arrow, as well. It goes against our survival instinct to expose ourselves to the enemy's fire for any period longer than necessary to fire our own weapon.

2. Usefulness of military weaponry for hunting: this leads to several points. The first is, there is no need for large caliber weapons for any small game anywhere in the world. All small game in the world can be dispached with a .22 caliber projectile.
As to large calibers (usually considered to be .30 and larger): More big game in the United States has been hunted, shot and killed with the .30-30 than any other single round. It has been clearly shown many times over in ballistics tests run by various hunting and firearm enthusiast groups, that the .30-30 round is sufficient to bring down any animal in North America, including the most dangerous species: boar, grizzly bear, polar bear, walrus and moose. I do own and use WWII surplus firearms for target shooting, and have used them for hunting in the past. (I no longer hunt) I have never needed more than one shot to kill any animal I have hunted. But I will admit, I have never hunted grizzly or polar bear, boar, walrus or moose. (I have, however hunted and eaten brown bear, white tail deer, mountain goat, elk, and most small game.)

3. The only semi-automatic firearm I own in a .22 rifle. The only reason I own that is I needed an inexpensive firearm to control barn rats, weasels and ground hogs when my wife and I had horses and chickens. I did not own a .22, (which is the cheapest firearm to use for rodent control) and it was cheaper to buy a 15 shot semi-auto than a bolt action or single shot weapon, back in 1970.

4. Handguns: I currently own only one; a Smith and Wesson Model 1 1/2 in .22 cal. that was purchased new by my great grandfather in 1879, for his daughter to carry as a protection firearm on her journey across the country. I have owned others in the past, and when employed as a security guard for Social Security, carried one on the job. As with long arms, rapid fire and large capacity magazines are totally usless except for one purpose: battle.

5. Home protection: I have always felt that the only home protection firearm necessary was a 12 ga shotgun. It does not need to be aimed, and one round is likely to wipe out any opposition. IF my home is invaded, I do not need to leave my bedroom. THeives can take any thing of value, but if they WANT to confront me, when they enter my bedroom, I will be ready and waiting.

In Maryland, any shotgun used during deer season is required to be either single shot, double barrelled (two shot) or if any other type, blocked so that the capacity of the magazine is limited to three rounds. (I can't imagine needing more than one round to kill a deer with a shotgun slug, but maybe I am a better than average marksman. I also can't imagine getting a chance to fire more than one, unless the animal is very badly wounded.)

In other words, I can see no compelling argument whatsoever for any firearm with a magazine capacity greater than three rounds, except to kill PEOPLE. And I would respectfully suggest to those hunters who need several shots to kill ther game, maybe a little range time is in order.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:00:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
ByronLord wrote:

The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the North from banning slavery by baring states from maintaining the armed slave patrols that were necessary to chase runaway slaves and put down the slave uprisings that happened quite frequently.

It was about maintaining slavery from start to finish.


Ummm... Well... Actually, the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that every able-bodied male not already in public service (the militia) would have the right to own "military style" weapons and ammunition, in case they would ever be needed to be called up for the defense of the nation.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:17:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DLizze wrote:
As a current firearm owner, and past hunter, I'd like to weigh in on several items, in no particular order.

2. Usefulness of military weaponry for hunting: this leads to several points. The first is, there is no need for large caliber weapons for any small game anywhere in the world. All small game in the world can be dispached with a .22 caliber projectile.
As to large calibers (usually considered to be .30 and larger): More big game in the United States has been hunted, shot and killed with the .30-30 than any other single round. It has been clearly shown many times over in ballistics tests run by various hunting and firearm enthusiast groups, that the .30-30 round is sufficient to bring down any animal in North America, including the most dangerous species: boar, grizzly bear, polar bear, walrus and moose. I do own and use WWII surplus firearms for target shooting, and have used them for hunting in the past. (I no longer hunt) I have never needed more than one shot to kill any animal I have hunted. But I will admit, I have never hunted grizzly or polar bear, boar, walrus or moose. (I have, however hunted and eaten brown bear, white tail deer, mountain goat, elk, and most small game.)



I suppose it depends on your definitions. Technically, the "military" caliber that an AR-15 fires really IS .22 caliber. It's actually a .223, but most people are willing to forgive the extra three thousandths of an inch. And I suppose it depends on your definition of "small game". Most people classify animals even up to coyote size as 'small game", and while I would certainly use a .223 to put one down humanely, I'd hardly think the plain-Jane .22 long rifle would be humane. Most hunters do care about humanely dispatching their quarry. They don't want their target to suffer needlessly. Hence the expression, "use enough gun". While I agree with you that plenty of kills HAVE been made on plenty of animals with a .30-30, for larger American game such as elk and moose, most hunters would never even consider using a .30-30 unless it was an emergency situation and no other rifle of a more suitable caliber was available.

DLizze wrote:


4. Handguns: I currently own only one; a Smith and Wesson Model 1 1/2 in .22 cal. that was purchased new by my great grandfather in 1879, for his daughter to carry as a protection firearm on her journey across the country. I have owned others in the past, and when employed as a security guard for Social Security, carried one on the job. As with long arms, rapid fire and large capacity magazines are totally usless except for one purpose: battle.



While I respect your opinion, I'd have to ask you this: What would you consider a self-defense situation dire enough to warrant the use of deadly force, if not a battle? If a person is going to employ deadly force, they had better be in a battle for their life, in which case, they had better have all the ammunition they need. How much will they need? Well, however much it takes, of course.

DLizze wrote:


5. Home protection: I have always felt that the only home protection firearm necessary was a 12 ga shotgun. It does not need to be aimed, and one round is likely to wipe out any opposition. IF my home is invaded, I do not need to leave my bedroom. THeives can take any thing of value, but if they WANT to confront me, when they enter my bedroom, I will be ready and waiting.



Many people feel as you do. Many others feel differently. Many people would rather be able have a choice of exactly where they want their projectiles to hit - that's not possible with a shotgun. I'm not going to say that you're wrong, I'm not going to say that they're wrong, either. it all boils down to what you're comfortable with.

DLizze wrote:


In other words, I can see no compelling argument whatsoever for any firearm with a magazine capacity greater than three rounds, except to kill PEOPLE. And I would respectfully suggest to those hunters who need several shots to kill ther game, maybe a little range time is in order.



In another thread, I asked for anyone who can see into the future and tell me exactly what my NEEDS will be to step forward. So far, nobody has. You never know what you'll have to be prepared for - the most you can do is try to be prepared for anything. If that means being prepared for a circumstance where I'll need a magazine with more than three rounds in it, then that's what I'll own. I don't need to try and predict what that situation will be - I can't see into the future either. What matters most is that I prepare as best I can for the unknown.

Buz
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:00:47 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,823
Location: Atlanta, United States
I am a gun owner and will support keeping gum ownership by non-felons legal. I wish that all gun owners would be as responsible and educated with their use of firearms as I am. But I generally oppose government control of anything. I strongly feel that governments are the most corrupt and inept organizations on the planet. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions.

OnanSands
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:28:51 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/16/2012
Posts: 22
Location: United States
i see an exchange on here that seems to be between gun owners, the arguments are well constructed and thought out. as for the assertion that the second ammendment served as an institution to perpetuate slavery, i have no comment except i have never heard of any such thing and if the writer reads this I would love to be pointed to a history book that contains that information. That is pretty shocking stuff.
I want to say to the gun guys, pro and con of bans: i appreciate your attempts to convey your ideas in a civil manner with one another. The whole tenor of the media debate is extremely shrill and uncivil.
I will disclose that i am a 'mentally ill" individual who would suffer from these regulations because even though i have no significant history of violent behavior, hey, people don't have much faith that a person with even a treatable chemical imbalance is not a psycho: Therefore arbitraily, even if I wanted to own a fire arm for protection, i would be rendered a second class citizen by said legislation. i guess if it is for the greater good then i am quite for it.

i do feel that this country has many citizenry that are not "diagnosed" with anything that should be disarmed because their politics renders them dangerous.
I just feel that there are too many heavy action mass murder weapons around and as our politics becomes more volatile and confused people would essentially start aggregating and para-militarizing themselves,
I mean the rhetoric on virtually any subject in politics is so vehement as to be blood thirsty vitriol, like they are just egging somebody on who is on the verge of "going rogue" so to speak.
i dont know, i just appreciate that you folks are arguing this in a rational, non abusive manner. THANKS, no ill go back to oogling naughty pictures before i really put my foot in my mouth. i am out of my depth here most times!!!
Monocle
Posted: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:50:49 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
DLizze puts up a thoughtful, experienced, logical examination of firearms, their function and purpose. Thank you very much. MNP counters, essentially an arguent argument of "what if the worst" and "you can't predict my needs or limit my choices to answer them."

We don't legislate in this country to cover the worst circumstance in any case. Or to cover what any one individual or small group of individuals can envision as the worst case. You want perfect freedom for that, you need a state where _you_ are _the_ law. And that's not here. Rights to firearms are guaranteed but not absolute. They can, and should, and _must_ be regulated.
niceguy89
Posted: Saturday, January 26, 2013 8:14:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2009
Posts: -24
Location: Texas, United States
Monocle wrote:
DLizze puts up a thoughtful, experienced, logical examination of firearms, their function and purpose. Thank you very much. MNP counters, essentially an arguent argument of "what if the worst" and "you can't predict my needs or limit my choices to answer them."

We don't legislate in this country to cover the worst circumstance in any case. Or to cover what any one individual or small group of individuals can envision as the worst case. You want perfect freedom for that, you need a state where _you_ are _the_ law. And that's not here. Rights to firearms are guaranteed but not absolute. They can, and should, and _must_ be regulated.


Yes regulated, not banned!
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:14:07 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


In another thread, I asked for anyone who can see into the future and tell me exactly what my NEEDS will be to step forward. So far, nobody has. You never know what you'll have to be prepared for - the most you can do is try to be prepared for anything. If that means being prepared for a circumstance where I'll need a magazine with more than three rounds in it, then that's what I'll own. I don't need to try and predict what that situation will be - I can't see into the future either. What matters most is that I prepare as best I can for the unknown.


Have you ever imagined a scenario where you are relaxing at your local nudist hangout? Where does someone conceal a personal safety weapon while visiting the nudist colony?

I'd argue with you, but I am very well aware of your staying power.

I'd prefer to knock back some cocktails with you and assume that in the event of anything going sideways while you are in the vicinity, you already have formulated plans on how to deal with any particular scenario. Of course I may get splattered with some asshole's hemoglobin in the process or have my eardrums shattered from concussive muzzle blasts, but that's a small price to pay for safety.

Cheers Pint Drunk

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:18:52 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
niceguy89 wrote:


Yes regulated, not banned!


What is your stance on my right to pop some Xanax or snort an eight ball of cocaine, or drink a case of beer and then jumping in my truck and going on a drug re-supply run or just out chasing some skirt... or hell, maybe tow the neighborhood kids around the snow & ice covered streets?

Should that be regulated or banned or open to the public?

In my lifetime, you could pretty much do two of those three things with near impunity.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Monocle
Posted: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:38:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
niceguy89 wrote:


Yes regulated, not banned!


For the umpteenth time. Really. No one with any legislative power in the US is proposing a universal gun ban, and no one will.
LYFBUZ
Posted: Saturday, February 02, 2013 11:05:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/27/2012
Posts: 3,383
Location: 1st star to the left, Canada
I don't need a gun..but I'm keeping my testicles...
Guest
Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013 6:36:51 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Nicola has it exactly right.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:47:35 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
"Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence."

Jefferson on things.

"Thomas Jefferson said that laws are only valid for a generation." -- Elit.

Is it pointless? It may well be when polemic view points are spewed ad nauseum for the benefit of only wallet and controversy. In the end there is no change, nor adherence to the next generations benefit. It is merely to satisfy ones stance. Pointedly opposed to those who may or may not wish one harm, but directed to those who seem to be "out to get you."

The U.S. has long laid lazily on laurels of past conquer. This has only led to a diminished ability in actual foresight, and brave ambition. "This is how it is, so why change now?"

We do change, slowly, and only through repeated knocks on realities door. Some don't want to answer, because the truth often does not set us free. And, only hinders our our subjective pursuit of happiness, and fear of an unknown. Hence the 1920's accommodation to female suffrage, and black peoples right to be treated fairly in the same millennium. Well, almost, we're still working on that haphazardly since racism doesn't not exist anymore.

It is not pointless, it just needs to be more pointedly considered.

Robbyreign
Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013 4:54:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2010
Posts: 150
Location: United States
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
I completely disagree with ByronLord's personal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The vast majority of gun owners in the US are law abiding responsible citizens. It just takes a few bad apples to make things look much worse than they are. If you will notice the majority of the mass shootings have been by mentally unstable young people, usually highly addicted to violent video games and with somewhat absent parents.

I agree with some of things Nicola posted. Certainly thorough background checks need to be done and I don't have any problems with a 5 day waiting period before one takes possession of their gun purchase.

AGREE 100%
niceguy89
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:04:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2009
Posts: -24
Location: Texas, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


What is your stance on my right to pop some Xanax or snort an eight ball of cocaine, or drink a case of beer and then jumping in my truck and going on a drug re-supply run or just out chasing some skirt... or hell, maybe tow the neighborhood kids around the snow & ice covered streets?

Should that be regulated or banned or open to the public?

In my lifetime, you could pretty much do two of those three things with near impunity.

If you do the crime you should do the time.

My personal experince, working in a county jail I saw someone brought in high on medical scripts and drunk on cheap beer. He was also mentally unstable, trying to kill himself. I was put on his 24 hour watch and had to stand there as he banged his head off the floor couple dozen times. This was his third time in and he was being sent to prison.

As I write this I have to wonder what the fuck do drugs and booze have to do with the gun rights. Why should Americans give up their Bill of Rights when stupid people break the law? Why not just stop allowing the dumb ass out of prison? Better yet why not fix the dumbass?
niceguy89
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:18:34 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2009
Posts: -24
Location: Texas, United States
Monocle wrote:


For the umpteenth time. Really. No one with any legislative power in the US is proposing a universal gun ban, and no one will.


1934 NFA- covers machine guns and selective fire guns. These are not banned. Why, because Congress knows that banning guns just ain't right. So today if machine guns aren't banned why should semi-automatic carbines be banned? Right now it is an argument over semantics. I support regulation of said firearms. Just not any (even only a few) guns being banned. I may be repeating myself, but only because I have not given up on keeping the United States united.
Monocle
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:34:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
Oh, good lord. Enough already. We get it. All types guns in any quantity must be available to ensure FREEDOM. We get it.
niceguy89
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 8:47:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2009
Posts: -24
Location: Texas, United States
Monocle wrote:
Oh, good lord. Enough already. We get it. All types guns in any quantity must be available to ensure FREEDOM. We get it.

Thank you.
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:24:51 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
Monocle wrote:
Oh, good lord. Enough already. We get it. All types guns in any quantity must be available to ensure FREEDOM. We get it.


We need all types of guns without restriction to ensure FREEDUMB*

I felt the need to correct you since niceguy86 said this was a debate about semantics. LOL



MoonlightSerenity
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:00:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/7/2012
Posts: 854
Location: United Kingdom
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
I completely disagree with ByronLord's personal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The vast majority of gun owners in the US are law abiding responsible citizens. It just takes a few bad apples to make things look much worse than they are. If you will notice the majority of the mass shootings have been by mentally unstable young people, usually highly addicted to violent video games and with somewhat absent parents.

I agree with some of things Nicola posted. Certainly thorough background checks need to be done and I don't have any problems with a 5 day waiting period before one takes possession of their gun purchase.



You are quite frankly an idiot if you believe that to be true.

Time and time again there has been studies into violent video games, and guess what - an addiction to them does fuck all unless that person was already easily swayed, but then all forms of media would have that affect on them not just games.

If you look at the facts then it proves that as games became more prominent the number of violent crimes actually reduced.

But enough of me commenting as you probably don't give a rats ass about the truth when it comes to games.

This link takes you to a study that the American government commissioned a few years ago which proves what you are saying wrong.

The real issue here is the mentality of the people of America as a whole, if that was to change then maybe the gun crime would go down. America as a whole don't want to accept that there is issues in their society and so are blaming other things that they think they can get away with.

Now then, the solution here is for better mental health care and more controls to stop people getting their hands on guns when they aren't stable enough to use them, and also by limiting what guns do get into the public hands. But I doubt most people will care for that.

Teased and Tormented -My very first story and competition entry is now up!
keoloke
Posted: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:05:56 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 599
Location: United States
nicola wrote:


Yes. Hence this post about the futility of trying to "debate" the issues at hand.



Yes, you are right about the futility of the debate. I have just made a comment on another post (HERE) and as I have also said… I’m done with this too.

I would just like to add a comment here that I wanted to respond as soon as you made this post, but then I let it go.

It’s not that it is late or not for the USA to backtrack, or as you say “totally impossible to control”.

Who says that they WANT to control it? Before a problem is adequately addressed so that appropriate measure can be taken, it first must be recognized as a problem. Here, it is not recognized (read not wanting) as such. Therefore it cannot be fixed. So while logistically you are right, in my opinion this is why.

Principessa has a post with hundreds of replies. Many of those replies simply prove that it's not (considered) a problem.. hence again the futility of the never ending debate.

Many believe that besides the police, if we have some other people armed (or all) we would control it. In my opinion this is equal to stick a Band-Aid on a serious cut and worse without the understanding of why, where and how we're getting hurt.

Rep. Jim Lucas (R), who is The Indiana amendment's sponsor to have an armed personnel in every school said "mass shootings like the one in Newtown could be prevented by more firearms. The way they are right now, school is a gun-free zone. Tragically we see the tragic consequences of gun-free zones, defenseless zones like the Colorado theater, Columbine, and Virginia Tech," Lucas told The Huffington Post Wednesday. "We have to work to overcome the stigma that firearms are a bad thing."

We had the NRA calling the town were those children died and asked to not support the ban. Guess what? A family was called where a child died.

We now have a town in Georgia were a measure was just passed that requires every head of household to own a gun and ammunitions. I feel for those people who chose not to arm themselves.





Choose n Practice Happiness

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is superfluous.
Ravyn
Posted: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:37:44 PM

Rank: Cock Connoisseur

Joined: 4/26/2010
Posts: 2,090
Location: Bend, United States
Buz wrote:
I am a gun owner and will support keeping gum ownership by non-felons legal.


Aww come on Buz you wanna take their ability to blow a good bubble away? Gotta love cute typos :)





Z1992
Posted: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:38:48 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/29/2013
Posts: 44
Location: United States
First, the right to own a firearm IS OUR right, as constituted by the second amendment. Obviously, anyone who has to question the second amendment of the United States Constitution is clearly reading it wrong.

Let's break the amendment down with the thoughts of our Forefather's in mind:

A well regulated Militia (civilians that band together in times of emergency), being necessary to the security of a free State (not as in the 50 states, but as in a state of being free), the right of the people (law-biding citizens) to keep and bear Arms (any unclassified weapon - from a handgun to a fighter jet), shall not be infringed (weapons will not be taken away, in order for the civilian population to rise against tyrannical governments).

The possession of a firearm has been in American culture since the birth of our nation. Since the days of fighting the tyranny of the crown *cough cough* Great Britain. *cough* You clearly have not done your American history homework.

I do not think that any foreigner to the United States should be giving their two cents about U.S. laws. We will deal with it ourselves. We as Americans do not judge British/Australian laws because we disagree with them. You have your country - we have ours. I'm sure that there is plenty of other issues in Australia that you can be dealing with - not to mention that I could easily nitpick the mistakes and ignorance of British history, but I won't.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:44:26 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
First of all, Z1992...your interpretation of the second amendment sounds like it was translated by aliens...because that ain't close to what I have come to learn it means. Talk to a constitutional scholar, either lawyer or professor, and you'll find you are wrong. In fact it's just a weird interpretation.

But, lets remember...the vote that failed was NOT a vote to ban anything. It was for background checks and how many bullets one could legally load in a magazine. No where...no way did any bill that has been considered by this congress desire to BAN ANYTHING. Furthermore, somewhere between 83% and 90% of Americans favor background checks and limiting magazine clips. Texas...you know the land that wants secede from the Union because the Union is too wacko...came in with a whopping 78% in favor of background checks and limiting the magazines. That is enormous coming from a land of cowboys.

The second Amendment is only a few sentences. Yet, I find it absolutely amazing that most gun lovers dismiss, overlook or just don't care to acknowledge the part that says "A well regulated militia".

What do you think that means...a well regulated militia? Yet, gun "rights" activists don't mention or acknowledge those words EVER. If it doesn't mean that the govt can impose rules, limits or whatever, just what does it mean? And don't try to tell me it means
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:40:03 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,604
Location: My Tower, United States
Z1992 wrote:
First, the right to own a firearm IS OUR right, as constituted by the second amendment. Obviously, anyone who has to question the second amendment of the United States Constitution is clearly reading it wrong.

Let's break the amendment down with the thoughts of our Forefather's in mind:

A well regulated Militia (civilians that band together in times of emergency), being necessary to the security of a free State (not as in the 50 states, but as in a state of being free), the right of the people (law-biding citizens) to keep and bear Arms (any unclassified weapon - from a handgun to a fighter jet), shall not be infringed (weapons will not be taken away, in order for the civilian population to rise against tyrannical governments).

The possession of a firearm has been in American culture since the birth of our nation. Since the days of fighting the tyranny of the crown *cough cough* Great Britain. *cough* You clearly have not done your American history homework.

I do not think that any foreigner to the United States should be giving their two cents about U.S. laws. We will deal with it ourselves. We as Americans do not judge British/Australian laws because we disagree with them. You have your country - we have ours. I'm sure that there is plenty of other issues in Australia that you can be dealing with - not to mention that I could easily nitpick the mistakes and ignorance of British history, but I won't.


so... let me get this right... you believe we, as american citizens, have the right to own any type of arms we desire? gun, tank, figher jet, scud missle, drone, BOMB, etc? i'm just asking for clarification here, btw.

oh, and pretty sure we haven't had in issue with british tyranny for quite some time - also, it is the right of anyone to state their opinion (that whole free speech thing) about anything they wish, whether or not they are an american citizen. do they have the right to change US policy? no. but voicing their opinion is a HUMAN right, not simply an american right.

btw, i've heard plenty of Americans judging British and Australian laws. happens all the time. the days when we were such separate nations are long over, the world is moving more and more towards co-dendency as our technology keeps evolving. :)

another thing, i could nitpick the mistakes of British history as well... Vietnam. Iran. Iraq. oh, wait...

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.