209 posts
fingers — Feb 22, 2010
Where do you draw the line on arms (bazookas) and why?
Why didn't slaves make use of the 2nd amendment ?
Why can't militias form any more ?
Why is your homicide rate much higher than comparable countries with gun controls
1: reasonably happy with the way things are with the exception of a few import laws. quick background check and a signature gets you out the door in most places. i draw the line at crew served weapons. if you can use it by yourself than you can have it. call me crazy...
2:because they were fucking slaves. had they been armed comperably to US citizens are now i guarantee slavery would have traveled a very different route through history. the second amendment didn't work for them because men with guns aimed at them prevented them from arming themselves. the point of the second amendment is to have those guns around in the first place to prevent that type of thing.
3:militias can and do form all over the place. there are several here in kentucky alone. again, where are you getting your info?
4:society. american society is a very violent one that sensationalizes and promotes violence. take away the guns and i would wager that our crime rate wouldn't change much at all. the tools people use to carry out the crimes would be all that changes
chase — Feb 22, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1265411987/125#147 date=1266798557]
Where do you draw the line on arms (bazookas) and why?
Why didn't slaves make use of the 2nd amendment ?
Why can't militias form any more ?
Why is your homicide rate much higher than comparable countries with gun controls
1: reasonably happy with the way things are with the exception of a few import laws. quick background check and a signature gets you out the door in most places. i draw the line at crew served weapons. if you can use it by yourself than you can have it. call me crazy...
I didn't ask your consumer preferences - I asked you to state the principle you use, which seeems to be "if you can use it by yourself" - so quite a lot of weaponry is wrongly banned in your opinion. 2:because they were fucking slaves. had they been armed comperably to US citizens are now i guarantee slavery would have traveled a very different route through history. the second amendment didn't work for them because men with guns aimed at them prevented them from arming themselves. the point of the second amendment is to have those guns around in the first place to prevent that type of thing.
But it didn't fucking work for them did it, for the same reason it will not work for the next tyranny. The state manages to round up millions into jails and enforce gun control when it wants as it has access to weapons and defence systems that make guns a minor threat to them 3:militias can and do form all over the place. there are several here in kentucky alone. again, where are you getting your info?
You can form militias like a scout group - fantasy role play for weirdos who love guns.
The government will no doubt have plans in place to "Waco" every one of these crank organisations if the overstep the mark.
again - your rights to form a militia in the real sense with a military/security function with it's role accepted by government has gone with the civil war.
Playing bang bang with other cranks does not count, but if it keeps them happy (and deluded) 4:society. american society is a very violent one that sensationalizes and promotes violence. take away the guns and i would wager that our crime rate wouldn't change much at all. the tools people use to carry out the crimes would be all that changes
You have to say that as it is the only reasonable sounding response you have, you don't have another, it is also why you are paranoid and need a gun.
Why not argue like this - "The increase in the homicide rate is small price to pay for the insurance guns provide against tyranny in the US (see slavery) :P
chase — Feb 19, 2010
i'll make myself very clear. the people in a country should have a last resort if all other means of dealing with the government fail. the declaration of independence is very clear what should happen if a government is to overstep its bounds and become oppressive. the second amendment was put in place so that should it ever be necessary to break bonds with the government, the citizens would have the tools to do so.
Dude. If people actually started taking up arms against the government, it would take like 3 hours the government to declare a state of emergency and make all your guns illegal. Everyone in the government supports the second amendment... now. But go ahead and try to take up arms against the government. Your guns will be gone in hours.
So the entire basis of your argument is BS. You "like to know that you can revolt if you need to." Maybe if it was 1780. The government has fucking blackhawk helicopters, predator drones, laser-guided missiles, infrared-equipped soldiers, and every military technology known to man. No citizen's group, even with machine guns, are going to take them on.
Make the argument based on hunting, or home defense. The argument that you need guns to defend against our government is ludicrous at best, and delusional at worst.
chase — Feb 21, 2010
The numbers don't support your views. 54% ( a majority) believe there should be some restrictions on gun ownership. That's exactly how I feel.
30% believe in the right to form militias. That is your view. That is not a majority viewpoint.
chase — Feb 22, 2010
1: reasonably happy with the way things are with the exception of a few import laws. quick background check and a signature gets you out the door in most places. i draw the line at crew served weapons. if you can use it by yourself than you can have it. call me crazy...
This is where I vehemently disagree. Background checks need to be more thorough. A quick background check will get you absolutely nothing of import. Is this person unstable? Are they filling blogs with suicidal or anti-American rhetoric? Are they drawing pictures of piles of dead bodies? Taking prescription medications for their moods? Etc. You may not want to know this, but you don't have kids. When your kids are in a public school, you want to know who has the guns and who has the problems.
Second, you can operate an RPG by yourself. You think those should be legal? You need an Uzi for home defense? Give me a break. Hell, a person can wire a building to blow with C4 by himself. Why is C4 illegal?
"4:society. american society is a very violent one that sensationalizes and promotes violence. take away the guns and i would wager that our crime rate wouldn't change much at all. the tools people use to carry out the crimes would be all that changes."
O.K. We are a violent society. We agree.
Now, if we are, an already agreed upon, violent society, why not recognize that? Why make better and better weapons, or guns? Why have a gun dealer on every corner selling the most comonly used "tool" for murder? We know the weapon of choice, why distribute it with a smile of our face? You can wager all you want too about the crime rate changing, I'd like to see where you gathered this conclusion from. You have no clue as to what the crime rate would do. If so, I'd like to see the evidence of this. Lets take the crime, in particular, murder, and think about how different it would be to stab someone to death with a knife, beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or run over someone with a car. think about it, that's much harder than simply pulling a triger. If I were at a bar, I'd much rather one of my friends beat up a ignorant crazy drunk, (;D) than my self having to do it.
A gun is not a tool after it's used, durring it's use, or before it's used. It's a weapon. A hammer is a tool. And now, I am hammering you on this tool thing. You'll catch hell in the Army. ;D
Hookbender — Feb 22, 2010 A gun is not a tool after it's used, durring it's use, or before it's used. It's a weapon. A hammer is a tool. And now, I am hammering you on this tool thing. You'll catch hell in the Army. ;D
If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail, right? :D
As for his training, I think Chase already knows which is his weapon and which is his gun. ;)
Ya think so? :D
You got anything to add or contribute to the conversation or you just trolling around? ;)
Nah, I've decided that it's more productive talking to inanimate objects. ;)
By all means then, go be productive. ;D
Der Fuhrer..... they loved that cat. Is the idea that the Jews and Gypsies shoulda been armed and they woulda changed things? I guess the "challenged" as well. When Hitler just gets slapped on things it kinda takes the heat off the rest of the people who put that nut in power.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
The debunk.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
But it is perhaps too subtle an argument for the average Gun Nut.
Do you trust these crank militias ?
They hate Obama viscerally - an abomination.
They would celebrate a big terror attack by Al Qaeda to show that he can't be trusted to defend the homeland.
They are probably praying for it.
lets use your own webpage
Contrary to myth that using a gun in self-defense is more likely to result in injury or death to the victim or innocent bystanders and fail to successfully thwart the crime rather than the criminal, the evidence, as opposed to selective anecdotes, suggests the opposite.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html
The results of this paper support the hypothesis that concealed handgun or shall issue laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings. Attackers are deterred and the number of people injured or killed per attack is also reduced, thus for the first time providing evidence that the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. The results are robust with respect to different specifications of the dependent variable, different specifications of the handgun law variable, and the inclusion of additional law variables (e.g., mandatory waiting periods and enhanced penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime). Not only does the passage of a shall issue law have a significant impact on multiple shootings but it is the only law related variable that appears to have a significant impact.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
and please read this article. it goes a long way towards explaining gun owners frame of mind when people start talking about "gun control".
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html
Yeah guncite.com is going to be one of my own websites
The best website to use to debunk an argument is one belonging to the other side of the argument making the case.
much like I would argue with a religious nut using one of their religious websites.
It is a standard technique in dissembling.
Be reasonable about the more extreme claims - Hitler didn't come to power due to gun control (as your post claimed)
Then use that so called "honesty" to validate propaganda.
Nah don't wash - I just use their "honest" bits against their acolytes :)
I'm in favor of gun control, and my wife is Jewish.
What a fucking stupid post, chase.
OK scanned read it.
Lots of people pleading against gun ownership.
They are right
Why are you worried ?
It has had no effect on your "rights" anyway.
Shit even the 57% of people who favour regulation on guns have had little effect.
You are free to peddle and propagate violence as life to new generations.
It doesn't make it right though - and on the substance of the arguments you have failed.
Yes - you have the right to your guns.
I already conceded that point several times.
But don't fucking pretend it is some "True American" idealist thing going on though.
Just treat it as it is -
It is a scummy little septic ass of a world view.
If drugs were made legal - the junkie is still a junkie.
charger — Feb 23, 2010I'm in favor of gun control, and my wife is Jewish.
What a fucking stupid post, chase.
i've resorted to trolling. you can't think that was serious?
HAHAHAHAAHA! Seems like old times...
Chase = Stratman
After the picture posts, I am now convinced. ;)
Tripper
I think what Chase fails to realize is that no "right" is absolute. Any of the so called rights can be limited or restricted. If the right to gun ownership is a threat to public safety, they can be taken away. And, the "courts" have agreed with this position.
The right to free speech has been limited as well. Or, restricted in some way.
In particular, Chase, you need to read this concerning the 2nd Amendment. This gives you some court rulings, which you seem to like, and a little 2nd amendment clarification.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ZJ5J-GTTL/guns.htm
What happened to your ability to post, Chase? all of a sudden you are posting all these bullshit images. a few hours ago you had decent arguments and thoughtful positions.
It's an epidemic. Conservatives always resort to the lowest common denominator. It's like you have no respect for our arguments. Man, that's your loss. If you want to be surrounded by buffoonery and ignorance, you go ahead and make that bed.
We can both post till we are blue in the face and neither opinion will change. We both understand eachother and the corresponding viewpoints. I'm simply bored with this subject. The overboard images are my way of bringing some fun back to this thread.
I think I'll start a new topic right now. The drug one never left the ground. It's no fun when we agree
Hookbender — Feb 24, 2010I think what Chase fails to realize is that no "right" is absolute. Any of the so called rights can be limited or restricted. If the right to gun ownership is a threat to public safety, they can be taken away. And, the "courts" have agreed with this position.
The right to free speech has been limited as well. Or, restricted in some way.
In particular, Chase, you need to read this concerning the 2nd Amendment. This gives you some court rulings, which you seem to like, and a little 2nd amendment clarification.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ZJ5J-GTTL/guns.htm
the Katrina era gun confiscations were ruled unconstitutional and an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Any other examples of a population losing it's 2nd amendment rights recently?
And you missed the point. There are different interpretations and understandings of the 2nd amendment other than your own. Your understanding isn't absolutely correct and others wrong. It isn't a black and white subject.
Your unwillingness to consider other alternatives and reason isn't something to be proud of. It's more than a simple disagreement. You could actually care less about the possibility of bettering society by illiminating the most commonly used murder weapon to make yourself feel better by carrying around guns. Violence won't cure violence. Killing won't eliminate murder.
Using the right thing and 2nd amendment isn't really much of an argument at all. It's lame in my opinion. Using a gun for hunting is a better argument than that. ;D
I don't care if you change your opinion or not. I care about your complete dismissal of alternatives and your reasoning behind having guns.
your intolerance is as blatant as mine. i refuse to give up rights afforded to me by the constitution and the US government in order to appease your view of a utopia where everyone whistles dixie while holding hands walking down the street. removing/outlawing guns will help our society along no better than the prohibition on drugs has. aren't those illegal/scheduled?
the world is a tough ugly place as i've learned in my first 25 years.
Moln labe!
Yeah, that's me alright. ::)
You sound like you have a romantic view of guns -
dare I say a Hollywood rose tinted cliché view of them.
Yes I do dare, you need to travel and make up your own mind.
Your views have been formed when you were "impressionable".
You may still be pro guns but you will see through the bullshit
you have been spouting.
A darker truth - you have guns because you have a culture and industry based on them
They are consumer goods, there are no principles at stake.
i'm sorry but you are wrong. at least in my case. don't sit across an ocean and make judgments on my characters and principles.
I am judging you on what you write.
I have lived in the US.
chase — Feb 24, 2010It's no fun when we agree
The problem is, Congress thinks the same way, so they find reasons to disagree on everything, and then they threaten filibusters, and then we all lose.
i filibuster this thread.
random images will be posted as obstruction of progress
chase — Feb 24, 2010your intolerance is as blatant as mine. i refuse to give up rights afforded to me by the constitution and the US government in order to appease your view of a utopia where everyone whistles dixie while holding hands walking down the street. removing/outlawing guns will help our society along no better than the prohibition on drugs has. aren't those illegal/scheduled?
the world is a tough ugly place as i've learned in my first 25 years.
Moln labe!
If your gonna judge me and make assumptions about me, then read what I've written here, as it's your only source, and interprete it. I've been on both sides of the argument. Now I'm on the side of banning guns completely, or at least restricting their use with sensible laws or restrictions that will work.
I've been shot with a gun, started carrying a gun everywhere I went for years, was completely pro gun.....until I learned that the gun wasn't needed. Period. So, I changed my position. So no, we are nothing alike in our experiences or thinking. Don't give yourself that much credit. I've already considered both sides and participated in both sides of the argument as well as lived in a way in which I carried out my pro gun or anti gun stance. I also learned to look past my own experiences and have become more in favor of doing what I think is best for everyone, not just little ole me.
Your pictures are stupid and certainly don't even come close to making me smile, by the way.
The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, keeps track of injuries and fatalities resulting from firearms. The NCIPC reported that in 1994, there were 38,505 firearm-related deaths. These included:
more than 17,800 homicides
more than 18,700 suicides
more than 1,300 unintentional, firearms-related deaths related to firearms.
Nationwide, approximately 70 percent of people who commit suicide do so witha firearm.
Among young people, the impact of guns is huge. According to the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, each day in the United States, fourteen people under the age of 19 die in gun-related incidents. The rate of firearm-related deaths for Americans age 14 and younger is twelve times that of children in other industrialized nations combined.
In addition, the NCIPC estimates that there were approximately three gun-related injuries for every death--a rough figure of 115,515 injuries for the year.
Also according to the NCIPC, in 1990, firearm injuries cost over $20.4 billion--directly, for hospital and other medical care, as well as indirectly, forlong-term disability and premature death, and at least 80% of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayers.
How the U.S. Compares to the Rest of the World
The United States is home to a tremendous number of guns. Current estimates place the number of guns in the United States at between 200 million and 250 million. In the period between 1968 and 1992, gun ownership in the U.S. increased 135 percent--and during that same period, handgun ownership increase 300percent. The 17 million residents of Texas alone own 68 million guns.
The United States has one of the highest murder rates in the world, and leadswestern nations in homicides. More Americans are shot in one day than Japanese are shot in an entire year.
Whereas other nations, such as Great Britain, have moved to ban handguns andassault rifles after shooting incidents, the United States has not done so. In Australia, just two weeks after a shooting at Port Arthur that killed 35 people, the nation's various levels of government agreed to ban weapons like those used in the attack. Similarly, Great Britain banned handguns after a manbroke into a Scottish school and opened fire, killing 16 children.
Other nations treat gun control as a public health issue, Robert Spitzer of the State University of New York at Cortland, told ABC News. "There is generalagreement in other nations that the government has the right to engage in regulation that is good public policy protecting the health and safety of the populace," he said.
However, in the United States, strong political interest groups such as the National Rifle Association oppose gun control and say that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own weapons.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/9/Gun-control.html#ixzz0gV6XqDVz
"Among young people, the impact of guns is huge. According to the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, each day in the United States, fourteen people under the age of 19 die in gun-related incidents. The rate of firearm-related deaths for Americans age 14 and younger is twelve times that of children in other industrialized nations combined."
Thought maybe this should be pointed out. This is good enough reason to ban guns, IMO.
You got anything to say about this figure, Chase? You want to preach rights to the families of these children?
Fuck your so called right.
i suggest you move than; for the safety of your children. my rights aren't going anywhere regardless of how you feel.
Hookbender — Feb 25, 2010"Among young people, the impact of guns is huge. According to the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, each day in the United States, fourteen people under the age of 19 die in gun-related incidents. The rate of firearm-related deaths for Americans age 14 and younger is twelve times that of children in other industrialized nations combined."
Thought maybe this should be pointed out. This is good enough reason to ban guns, IMO.
You got anything to say about this figure, Chase? You want to preach rights to the families of these children?
Fuck your so called right.
How many of those are gang related? 12? 13? All 14?
Why don't we ban gangs first?
I'm not sure it matters Craig. I'm assuming that accidental death, murder, etc are all considered. The fact that the rate of death is so high compaired to other countries in that age group kinda makes your concern, unworthy of considration.
chase — Feb 25, 2010i suggest you move than; for the safety of your children. my rights aren't going anywhere regardless of how you feel.
Surely if it was decided democratically to institute gun control you would give up your guns.
Or would that be the signal to join your militia in a defence against tyranny :;)
Hookbender — Feb 25, 2010I'm not sure it matters Craig. I'm assuming that accidental death, murder, etc are all considered. The fact that the rate of death is so high compaired to other countries in that age group kinda makes your concern, unworthy of considration.
Actually I think it's the most important point. You don't have to be a racist to realize that, by far, the largest percentage of gun related deaths (that are not suicides - the #1 cause) are done by young, black men who are probably in gangs (or innocent bystanders during gang banging). These people won't be disarmed and there isn't much of any control there anyway.
CraigBert — Feb 25, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1265411987/175#193 date=1267098294]I'm not sure it matters Craig. I'm assuming that accidental death, murder, etc are all considered. The fact that the rate of death is so high compaired to other countries in that age group kinda makes your concern, unworthy of considration.
Actually I think it's the most important point. You don't have to be a racist to realize that, by far, the largest percentage of gun related deaths (that are not suicides - the #1 cause) are done by young, black men who are probably in gangs (or innocent bystanders during gang banging). These people won't be disarmed and there isn't much of any control there anyway.
Actually, a lot of the more violent gangs are now from Central and South America. The Crips and the Bloods are so 1994.
Hookbender — Feb 25, 2010"Among young people, the impact of guns is huge. According to the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, each day in the United States, fourteen people under the age of 19 die in gun-related incidents. The rate of firearm-related deaths for Americans age 14 and younger is twelve times that of children in other industrialized nations combined."
Well hell, I don't think we should be aiming for what other "industrialized" nations are doing. They all have high tax rates, commie health systems, and really high standards of living.
I think instead we should aim our sights a little lower. I mean, what's the death rate for the under-14 crowd in Sudan? I'm sure we could compete pretty easily with that.
It is a valid point
It is hard to find stats broken down by categories to make claims
about patterns of incidents to draw causality.
That would be something that could be made public information to inform people.
A database.
Because nothing concrete and indisputable informs the debate in the US
and the vacuum is filled with made up facts of the NRA.
The only comparisons available are with other countries.
Clearly the US isn't going to ban gun rights anytime soon
But gun control isn't a rights issue - it is a law enforcement issue.
There is less control over guns than driving and cars
I lived in your state for a while and it amazed me that I could buy a gun once I had a
WA drivers license.
Seemed a pretty daft criteria -
consider the reverse reality - a place where you can get a car and drive once you get your gun license
that is how dumb it seems to me.
Clearly both need to be controlled if only to keep people aware of their responsibilities.
Responsibilities include things like accounting for weapons you have bought.
get it on the same footing as vehicle control.
fingers — Feb 25, 2010[quote author=chase link=1265411987/175#191 date=1267076861]i suggest you move than; for the safety of your children. my rights aren't going anywhere regardless of how you feel.
Surely if it was decided democratically to institute gun control you would give up your guns.
Or would that be the signal to join your militia in a defence against tyranny :;)
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
