Topic: Gun Control (Read 33697 times)

LuciferSam · « **Reply #25 on:** February 08, 2006, 09:49:56 AM »

They could grip it between the dorsal guiding feathers, er, wings.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #26 on:** February 08, 2006, 02:09:21 PM »

I personally doubt that I'll ever own or use a firearm, but I wouldn't want a responsible citizen's rights to be infringed either.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #27 on:** February 08, 2006, 03:51:41 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

I personally doubt that I'll ever own or use a firearm, but I wouldn't want a responsible citizen's rights to be infringed either.

Exactly.

I much prefer crossbows anyway.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #28 on:** February 08, 2006, 04:17:57 PM »

Gun control is a dime group with your weak hand.</cliche>

Stratofortress · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2006, 06:35:22 PM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

Gun control is a dime group with your weak hand.</cliche>

Der, I don't get it . . . .

ewomack · « **Reply #30 on:** February 08, 2006, 08:05:13 PM »

Ewwww... guns.... ewwwww....

I'm not a fan of firearms. But humans being the way they are, we unfortunately have made them necessary. Like cell phones. Another mistake.

The Second Amendment does say what it says. So that makes gun ownership a right by law. But people also need to realize that the guys who wrote the constitution lived some three hundred years ago, and times have changed more than a bit. Back in the late 1700s they used inaccurate powder rifles that took a good 30 seconds to a minute to load (the bayonets probably killed more people). Plus, the US had no standing army at the time. So citizens had to have protection against uprisings or even invading foreign armies, especially on the frontier. Revisiting the amendment may make sense in the age of automatic weapons and the military industrial complex. There's no way that amendment protects us from anyone these days. For maximum safety, we would also need the right to body armor, infared battle helmets, grenades, and air-to-air missles. I would vote for more restrictions on guns (i.e., making them harder to obtain), but never banning them outright.

xpgeek · « **Reply #31 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:05:16 AM »

My opinion on this.

Citizens do and should have a right to bear arms, but there should be limits. For a person to defend their home or business they can own a gun, but not 50 of them. And no one gets automatic weapons, or any semi-automcatic weapons either over a certain power. A person may want, but simply doesn't need, an AK-47 or a .50 caliber sniper rifle to defend their homes or hunt animals with. If you want to play with weapons like that, go join the military, thats what they were designed for.

I also like to remind people, that when the founding fathers wrote the right to bear arms, the most powerful rifles took 30 seconds or more to load each shot. If they had known weapons would someday be capable of firing a hundred rounds a minute or accurately hitting a target a mile away, I think they would have written it much more carefully.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #32 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:49:36 AM »

Okay, so explain to me with logic why I cannot have 50 guns in your world.

I own 27 legally licensed firearms, by the way. I may have 50 someday...

LuciferSam · « **Reply #33 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:55:51 AM »

See, what you are saying is that there should be a block between giving people what they want and need, and have the ability to aquire either way.

So, say I want 60 different types of handgun. Do I need them all? Hell no. Do I want them? Hell yes! But you cut me off because, I'm assuming, they have the capacity to take lives.

What if I wanted 60 different types of teacup. Do I need them all? Hell no. Do I want them? Hell yes! And a teacup has a potential to lethality as well, but do you consider outlawing teacups?

The thing is, people have this inherent desire to collect and explore their passions; when you cut off their passion for guns, you are not only violating the intention of your 2nd amendment, but the basic freedoms also granted.

As to the actual criminality factor, there is one simple line that sums up a gun enthusiast's view perfectly:

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

There are a damn lot of gun control laws already in this country, and they work fine for their purpose. Why not focus on taking out the illegal weapons instead of persecuting honest citizens.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:58:36 AM »

Quote from: xpgeek

If they had known weapons would someday be capable of firing a hundred rounds a minute or accurately hitting a target a mile away, I think they would have written it much more carefully.

I don't like playing the "what would the founding fathers do if they knew X, Y and Z" game, because you can't.

What you can say though is that they were fighting a war against a tyranical government, and knew the citizens have a right to defend themselves, whether it's from the government or "bad guys" is not the issue.

Do I think someone could take out an Abrams? No, the military is well trained to deal with militias after all. But if it ever came to it, where we had to fight someone, like the government or someone else, we would need weapons in order to do it, and who says the military would necessarily support the government?

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2006, 02:18:41 AM »

Yeah, I'm not really sure what the difference between owning 1 gun and 50 guns is, aside from storage space and 49 guns.

It's not like you could shoot them all simultaneously and kill more people that way...although you could write an enemy's name on each one and use that particular gun to kill that person. But then what if you really hated two guys named Adam and you forgot to write their last name on the gun and accidentally killed Adam Laurier with the gun with which you meant to shoot Adam Stevenson? That sure would be embarrassing!

xpgeek · « **Reply #36 on:** February 09, 2006, 07:55:21 AM »

lol, ok, you can own 50 guns, or 100 if you want. I don't know, just whenever I think of someone having that many guns the word stockpile comes to mind, and dangerous cults and overly ambitious militias keep stockpiles.

I stand by my opinion about AK-47's and .50 caliber sniper rifles tho. Those types of guns were not designed for civilians, never intended for civilians, and shouldn't be owned by civilians.

About what the founding fathers wanted, who knows, many things were different back then, and I guess I shouldn't go there. An invading army took what a month or two to cross the ocean to even reach us. But I don't think they meant that amendment, or any amendment, to be permanent forever without ever being able to change it a little, if its what the people want.

Are guns even necessary for the reason they had in mind, in case the government ever does try to take over the country by force, force people to allow soldiers into their houses anytime they feel like it ? Could still happen, I wouldn't put it past Bush trying it. But I also wouldn't say no outright anymore. I would have said of course not no a couple of years ago, the US military is 20 years ahead in technology then anyone else in the world, and I would have said no army, or citizen force, really stands a chance against it. But then I gotta look at whats happening in Iraq, where, maybe not winning, but small fairly unorganized forces, fairly lightly armed, sure they got RPG's and IED's galore but they aint rolling out tanks and stealth planes, this rather small force, compared to the size of our armys, are having quite the effect. So I'd say yes now, a citizen force against the government forces could actually succeed.

TheJudge · « **Reply #37 on:** February 09, 2006, 08:04:17 AM »

My beef is more about the type of gun a person should or shouldn't have. But I'll play devils advocate in regards to the number of weapons. Consider this: When you fantasize about killing someone, you don't think "I'm going to spoon feed him till he explodes!" Instead, you think "I'm going to waste the bastard". A gun is the weapon of choice when it comes to murder. Some individuals out there want to kill people so they acquire guns for that purpose. Those guns are not registered and are acquired illegally.

Other people steel guns. Then they resell them to the people described above. They are not necessarly killers themselves, but they want to make a quick buck. Or maybe they are members of a gang and they steal guns to supply the gangmembers. The fact that you have 50 firearms, and everyone else on your street has 50 firearms increases the odds of success for those who are in the gun theft business and who resell them on the streets, thus increasing overall gun violence.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #38 on:** February 09, 2006, 11:16:46 AM »

"We need some guns! Let's go steal them from that guy's house!"
"Uh, I hear he has like 50 guns."
"HOLY SHIT NEVER MIND"

TheJudge · « **Reply #39 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:43:32 PM »

"We need some guns! Let's go steal them from that guy's house!"
"Uh, I hear he has like 50 guns."
"EXCELLENT!"

xpgeek · « **Reply #40 on:** February 09, 2006, 01:01:28 PM »

My biggest beef is also really about the type of guns people are allowed to have.

If you want to change my mind, give me an example of why a civilian would need a .50 caliber sniper rifle. What are you gonna do with it, shoot down a helicopter ? You can't use it for hunting, well you could but why would you want to. Shoot a deer with a .50 caliber round and the deers gonna be in pieces all over the place.

xolik · « **Reply #41 on:** February 09, 2006, 01:15:44 PM »

Quote from: xpgeek

If you want to change my mind, give me an example of why a civilian would need a .50 caliber sniper rifle.

You'll be thankful that you've got that .50 cal when Bigfoot comes after your stamp collection.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #42 on:** February 09, 2006, 01:45:32 PM »

If I wanted to murder someone a gun would not be my weapon of choice. I'm much more creative than that.

hackess · « **Reply #43 on:** February 09, 2006, 01:49:22 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

If I wanted to murder someone a gun would not be my weapon of choice. I'm much more creative than that.

Ditto.

TheJudge · « **Reply #44 on:** February 09, 2006, 01:58:40 PM »

Indeed there are more creative ways to commit murder. But there's a lot of uncreative people out there.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #45 on:** February 09, 2006, 02:42:56 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Indeed there are more creative ways to commit murder. But there's a lot of uncreative people out there.

Given the tech support questions now, can you imagine the questions people would have if everyone had a gun?

"So I point the end with the hole in it towards the bad guy and pull the trigger?"

"Yes."

"What's the trigger?"

"Just shoot yourself."

"I don't know how!"

TheJudge · « **Reply #46 on:** February 09, 2006, 03:17:23 PM »

Haha! Nice!

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #47 on:** February 09, 2006, 06:16:03 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

"We need some guns! Let's go steal them from that guy's house!"
"Uh, I hear he has like 50 guns."
"EXCELLENT!"

"So our plan is to break into the house of some guy who really likes guns?"
"Yes."
"We're not a very smart gang, are we?"
"I would answer that question but I am too busy eating this mustard."

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #48 on:** February 09, 2006, 07:43:46 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda

Quote from: TheJudge
"We need some guns! Let's go steal them from that guy's house!"
"Uh, I hear he has like 50 guns."
"EXCELLENT!"

"So our plan is to break into the house of some guy who really likes guns?"
"Yes."
"We're not a very smart gang, are we?"
"I would answer that question but I am too busy eating this mustard."

Actually it would be more like:

"I would answer that question but I am too busy eating my own face."

Stratofortress · « **Reply #49 on:** February 10, 2006, 09:50:54 AM »

Quote from: xpgeek

My biggest beef is also really about the type of guns people are allowed to have.

If you want to change my mind, give me an example of why a civilian would need a .50 caliber sniper rifle.

I will answer your question with a question. Why do people need sports cars with 510 horsepower engines? (The Dodge Viper, for example.) Is there any need to go 0-60 in less than 4 seconds? Of course not! It is excess, and that's the American way!

I'm sure Viper owners take their cars to race tracks on occasion just as owners of a .50 cal would go to a target range and blast the crap out of targets.

It's also a status symbol among one's peers. The .50 cal sniper rifle is akin to the Dodge Viper in this way. Both can kill, too.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Gun Control (Read 33697 times)