[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48497521]Shooting is a fun hobby, having the right to bear arms helps protect the first by design, and there are ways to stop gun crimes rates which are already dropping without having gun control. One would be for politicians to actually do their jobs, which in America is a hard thing for them to do. Chicago didn't need more gun control, it needed someone to actually find reasonable solutions to the issues in the high crime areas, not banning the good guys in the areas from owning a means of protection. Should also mention some of these gun control laws were clearly written by people who know nothing of guns, sorta like that time Feinstein held an AK with a drum mag and managed to aim it at EVERYONE with her finger on the trigger, or that one idiot who wanted to ban barrel shrouds who didn't EVEN know what they were.[/QUOTE]
Feinstein was an idiot. Anti-gun nuts like her are why "gun control" (whatever that means nowadays) didn't pass. Seriously guys. America has a huge mental health issue. Stop wasting millions on banning shit for no reason and fix the root cause.
[QUOTE=Cone;48497363]so a lack of guns is as grievous a human rights violation to you as losing your right to free speech?[/QUOTE]
Those which balance their right to liberty to their right of security deserve neither.
I am going to post some good common sense pro gun videos, this is so the pro gun control people here can watch these and learn some good things by someone talking calmly and using common sense.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebttasyR6io[/media]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ALPGm7x4CQ[/media]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0HbODywDiE[/media]
/thread
[QUOTE=ban_ban16;48485799][video=youtube;pnQtBp3kRM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnQtBp3kRM4[/video]
Because you use guns to slice fucking cheese, make a meal with etc you read a book using a gun, you use a gun to make friends with -- holy shit![/QUOTE]
Why the fuck do you think there's holes in Swiss Cheese?
Banning High Caps is also pointless. It was proven that you lose basically no firepower having to reload because it takes so little time to do it. They put a woman on a firing range with basically no gun experience shooting down range, and had a guy 'taking cover' to her side about 15 feet away. His job was to charge her and try to get to her the instant she started reloading and every time she managed to reload and fire down range again before he closed 15 feet
I still maintain that the only things that need to change concerning our gun laws is force the states to release mental health records to be included in background checks, and ban private gun sales. Though I would rather not ban private gun sales, there's no denying that you can get whatever you want off of craigslist, criminal record or not, since there's no background checks (Nor is one possible). And these sales are legal in 40 states.
When you consider our country has 42% of the world's firearms, and every 9 out of 10 homes has a gun in it, that we have fewer than 3 homicides per 100,000 people while countries and territories that have nearly 0 guns per 100 houses have 20+ per 100,000 is a testament to how decent our gun control actually is
Yes releasing mental health records needs to happen. So does actually fixing mental health issues, not wasting money and effort banning shit to make soccer moms have a false sense of security.
And of course we have decent gun control laws. The .00001% that slip thru the cracks make all the anti gun people freak out and ask for a total review of all gun laws, and of course they ask for bans. Which obviously do nothing. They seem to ignore the fact that the person that slipped thru the cracks is mentally insane and was unchallenged to get help.
yeah you're right it's way less problematic to perfectly locate, diagnose, document, treat and predict every case of mental illness in the united states than it is to simply stop selling guns commercially
genius
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48498262]yeah you're right it's way less problematic to perfectly locate, diagnose, document, treat and predict every case of mental illness in the united states than it is to simply stop selling guns commercially
genius[/QUOTE]
Please tell me you're trolling.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48498262]yeah you're right it's way less problematic to perfectly locate, diagnose, document, treat and predict every case of mental illness in the united states than it is to simply stop selling guns commercially
genius[/QUOTE]
more people will probably die if guns were banned in the US than if all guns were made legal in the US
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48498331]more people will probably die if guns were banned in the US than if all guns were made legal in the US[/QUOTE]
I for one would fight back if people came knocking (breaking the fourth amendment) trying to take guns. So yes, more people would die.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48498262]yeah you're right it's way less problematic to perfectly locate, diagnose, document, treat and predict every case of mental illness in the united states than it is to simply stop selling guns commercially
genius[/QUOTE]
Well, it's impossible to stop the sell, but I mean if you want to spout idiotic stuff, then be my guest. It's better to get off our asses and do something about mental health, while banning guns is the dumbest thing in the world, and would nor could ever happen. Gun registration is also very stupid in the US, a video I shared above proves it. Even then, gun crime rates continue to drop anyway.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48498360]Well, it's impossible to stop the sell, but I mean if you want to spout idiotic stuff, then be my guest. It's better to get off our asses and do something about mental health, while banning guns is the dumbest thing in the world, and would nor could ever happen. Gun registration is also very stupid in the US, a video I shared above proves it. Even then, gun crime rates continue to drop anyway.[/QUOTE]
He's just clueless. Ignore him.
you also have to remember that we live in a country where things like the bundy ranch standoff can happen over fucking cows. people there were itching for any opportunity to start shit with federal officers. if people saw the government taking any steps to even just stop the sales of guns then you'd be seeing american revolution mk2: this time with automatics. i personally know a good number of people (read: my mother's entire family and part of my father's and also a good chunk of their friends as well as my own friends) who would be on the frontlines to defend their right to bear arms. frankly you'd have to be very naive to think that people wouldn't collectively exercise their second amendment rights to protect their second amendment rights
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
and you know what? that is perfectly fine by me
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48498262]yeah you're right it's way less problematic to perfectly locate, diagnose, document, treat and predict every case of mental illness in the united states than it is to simply stop selling guns commercially
genius[/QUOTE]
You seem to be under the impression those two actions would be equally effective with one just being the easier option.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48498802]you'd risk the life of yourself and your son so you can go shooting every now and then[/QUOTE]
He'd risk his life so every American can continue to have their gun rights. Actually a good portion of gun owners, including a significant portion of the military would risk their lives to defend gun rights, literally because they swore an Oath and support the Constitution. Anyway as said before, guns are not the problem in America.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48498802]you'd risk the life of yourself and your son so you can go shooting every now and then[/QUOTE]
for a lot of people, it isn't just about the guns, it is about what they feel it would symbolize if the government were to do something about that. a "if they break the second amendment what would stop them from breaking the others?". they wouldn't see it as the government taking their toys away, they would see it as the government becoming tyrannical, which it arguably would be should it happen in today's political and cultural climate. just because you may agree with the government taking people's guns doesn't mean it wouldn't be tyrannical, you just wouldn't be affected by the tyranny.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48497138]They are both equally as important.[/QUOTE]
So much so that basically every state in Europe has devolved into tyrannical dictatorships that regularly slaughter their citizen... oh wait.
The 2nd amendment is from a democratic standpoint completely pointless in any well-developed country.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48497138]They are both equally as important.[/QUOTE]
I consider the right to free speech one that trumps the right to own weaponry any day of the week.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48500037]I consider the right to free speech one that trumps the right to own weaponry any day of the week.[/QUOTE]
Imagine just rating this dumb and go "yeah I'm a completely rational person". Even if we go with the explanation "the 2nd amendment is there to protect the first!" (and if that even mattered in a well-functioning society), that still means the 2nd amendment is less important.
I mean how do you even defend that.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48501725]Imagine just rating this dumb and go "yeah I'm a completely rational person". Even if we go with the explanation "the 2nd amendment is there to protect the first!" (and if that even mattered in a well-functioning society), that still means the 2nd amendment is less important.
I mean how do you even defend that.[/QUOTE]
To me they are equally as important.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48501725]Imagine just rating this dumb and go "yeah I'm a completely rational person". Even if we go with the explanation "the 2nd amendment is there to protect the first!" (and if that even mattered in a well-functioning society), that still means the 2nd amendment is less important.
I mean how do you even defend that.[/QUOTE]
That's a bad argument. The ENTIRE Bill of Rights is equally important. Doesn't matter if something works in a well functioning society, it's still the case. The second does indeed protect the first, it technically helps to protect them all.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48502051]That's a bad argument. The ENTIRE Bill of Rights is equally important. Doesn't matter if something works in a well functioning society, it's still the case. The second does indeed protect the first, it technically helps to protect them all.[/QUOTE]
The Bill of Rights was designed so everything is equally as important.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48501907]To me they are equally as important.[/QUOTE]
Well then I suppose you're just a bit delusional, but fair enough, that's your opinion. I must admit I'm still a bit curious as to why. Just because the bill of rights was "designed so every right was equally important" - ehmm around 1790 - doesn't mean they actually are.
Would prefer not being able to express your opinions or going to the shooting range?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48502180]Well then I suppose you're just a bit delusional, but fair enough, that's your opinion. I must admit I'm still a bit curious as to why. Just because the bill of rights was "designed so every right was equally important" - ehmm around 1790 - doesn't mean they actually are.
Would prefer not being able to express your opinions or going to the shooting range?[/QUOTE]
Would you prefer not being able to express your opinions, or not be able to adequately defend your life if it's in danger?
Not trying to refute your point, just making it more balanced. If I replaced express opinions with tweet cat pictures, it would make the question unfair by biasing it toward one side.
The bottom line is, some individuals find the 1st more important. Some find the 2nd more important. It depends on your environment, someone who lives in an urban area surrounded by others might value the freedom of speech more. Someone who lives in a rural area and inherently can say whatever the fuck they want might value the 2nd. That's what is meant when all of the rights are claimed to be equal, they may not be equal to everyone, but they should be defended with equal vigor.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48502180]Well then I suppose you're just a bit delusional, but fair enough, that's your opinion. I must admit I'm still a bit curious as to why. Just because the bill of rights was "designed so every right was equally important" - ehmm around 1790 - doesn't mean they actually are.
Would prefer not being able to express your opinions or going to the shooting range?[/QUOTE]
They are all equally as important because they all allow civil liberties.
You don't get it, that's fine. You live in a different culture. That doesn't make me delusional. Ease up with the labeling.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48502180]Well then I suppose you're just a bit delusional, but fair enough, that's your opinion. I must admit I'm still a bit curious as to why. Just because the bill of rights was "designed so every right was equally important" - ehmm around 1790 - doesn't mean they actually are.
Would prefer not being able to express your opinions or going to the shooting range?[/QUOTE]
I love how you refuse to address my perfectly rational cases, but you have no problem in calling someone delusional. You know who is delusional? Any person willing to give up liberty for security!
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48499751]So much so that basically every state in Europe has devolved into tyrannical dictatorships that regularly slaughter their citizen... oh wait.
The 2nd amendment is from a democratic standpoint completely pointless in any well-developed country.[/QUOTE]
That actually makes me wonder, I wonder how far Nazi Germany would've spread if even half of the citizens in Europe had their own weapons and knew how to use them.
[QUOTE=Toro;48502603]That actually makes me wonder, I wonder how far Nazi Germany would've spread if even half of the citizens in Europe had their own weapons and knew how to use them.[/QUOTE]
Probably the same as they did, untrained civilians wouldn't have amounted to much when faced with Blitzkrieg tactics.
You could say that widespread availability of firearms would have somewhat helped resistance movements, I guess, but thee Nazi Occupation would have cracked down on them pretty hard regardless.
Most serviced men were already drafted in the first place anyway.
[QUOTE=Toro;48502603]That actually makes me wonder, I wonder how far Nazi Germany would've spread if even half of the citizens in Europe had their own weapons and knew how to use them.[/QUOTE]
Nice speculation, who knows? Personally I think most people who were willing to partake in operations like that were already doing it, blowing up train tracks etc.
But I don't know, if you have something to credit that speculation, I'd take my time reading it.
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48502552]I love how you refuse to address my perfectly rational cases, but you have no problem in calling someone delusional. You know who is delusional? Any person willing to give up liberty for security![/QUOTE]
I haven't given any liberty up for security, though. I don't live in Rwanda, but rather a pretty cozy area of Copenhagen. If you're talking about the US, I'd argue most people would be no worse off without a gun security-wise. But honestly I wasn't debating whether the US would be worse or better off without the 2nd amendment, simply which one was most important; the first or the second.
And what cases are you talking about? This post?
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48502051]That's a bad argument. The ENTIRE Bill of Rights is equally important. Doesn't matter if something works in a well functioning society, it's still the case. The second does indeed protect the first, it technically helps to protect them all.[/QUOTE]
My argument is that the 2nd amendment has become totally irrelevant, and therefore it doesn't matter whether they were equally important when the bill of rights was drafted.
If you're talking about other post you've made, they're irrelevant to my point:
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48501725]Imagine just rating this dumb and go "yeah I'm a completely rational person". Even if we go with the explanation "the 2nd amendment is there to protect the first!" (and if that even mattered in a well-functioning society), that still means the 2nd amendment is less important.
I mean how do you even defend that.[/QUOTE]
Again I'm not debating whether the 2nd amendment is good or bad (but you might be able to guess my opinion), simply that rating someone dumb for saying the 2nd is more important than the 1st in today's society is delusional.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
