Guns should be left at the gun-range/forest.
Also: I am really fascinated by nuclear weapons. I want to own one/collect a working one, I promise I won't use it, its only for recreation.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
FYI: if the president's law is unconstitutional, congress + the judiciary can declare it as such.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229316]Guns should be left at the gun-range/forest.
Also: I am really fascinated by nuclear weapons. I want to own one/collect a working one, I promise I won't use it, its only for recreation.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
FYI: if the president's law is unconstitutional, congress + the judiciary can declare it as such.[/QUOTE]
The very tragic flaw with your "nuclear weapon" analogy is this:
I can't protect my person, nor my family, with a nucelar bomb. So why would I want one?
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229316]Guns should be left at the gun-range/forest.
Also: I am really fascinated by nuclear weapons. I want to own one/collect a working one, I promise I won't use it, its only for recreation.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
FYI: if the president's law is unconstitutional, congress + the judiciary can declare it as such.[/QUOTE]
Are you [b]seriously[/b] going to try and make the comparison to nuclear weapons again? This isn't the first time someone has done it, and it was just as buttfucking retarded then as it is now. They aren't remotely comparable and it isn't a clever comparison.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39229337]The very tragic flaw with your "nuclear weapon" analogy is this:
I can't protect my person, nor my family, with a nucelar bomb. So why would I want one?[/QUOTE]
Arguments for gun ownership range well beyond "personal protection" I gave you my reason, I am interested in owning and preserving one. Consider me on-par with people who like to just "collect guns."
The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to use guns to protect your family from other people, only from a tyrannical state.
[quote]Are you seriously going to try and make the comparison to nuclear weapons again? This isn't the first time someone has done it, and it was just as buttfucking retarded then as it is now. They aren't remotely comparable and it isn't a clever comparison.[/quote]
Why are they not comparable? Because of the scales of destruction? Like, I dunno... going from 4-clip bolt action to a 30-round magazine? I'm just saying that the hypocrisy in this sort of libertarian ethics is hilarious.
Guys need to read the part he quotes:
[QUOTE=Bradyns;39224343]I'm sure people will overlook this, and assume that guns will be taken.[/QUOTE]
Is everyone being sarcastic in this thread?
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229404]Arguments for gun ownership range well beyond "personal protection" I gave you my reason, I am interested in owning and preserving one. Consider me on-par with people who like to just "collect guns."
[B]The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to use guns to protect your family from other people, only from a tyrannical state.
[/B]
Why are they not comparable? Because of the scales of destruction? Like, I dunno... going from 4-clip bolt action to a 30-round magazine? I'm just saying that the hypocrisy in this sort of libertarian ethics is hilarious.[/QUOTE]
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Where does it say that? It's pretty much blanketing all around weapon ownership by simply saying 'right to keep and bear arms'
Also, an AR-15 can't crisp 50,000 people in the blink of an eye. You're analogy is terrible.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229404]Arguments for gun ownership range well beyond "personal protection" I gave you my reason, I am interested in owning and preserving one. Consider me on-par with people who like to just "collect guns."
The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to use guns to protect your family from other people, only from a tyrannical state.
Why are they not comparable? Because of the scales of destruction? Like, I dunno... going from 4-clip bolt action to a 30-round magazine? I'm just saying that the hypocrisy in this sort of libertarian ethics is hilarious.[/QUOTE]
Four whole clips? Wow, that's a lot.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229404]The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to use guns to protect your family from other people, only from a tyrannical state.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The United States of America Constitution]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]
The second amendment does not say what people can or cannot do with their firearms. It simply says it is the right of the citizens to bear arms.
Just because Obama was elected does not mean he can pass what ever he wants. The constitution is for the people, it is not up for debate. It is not for Obama to change. Shall he change it via improper means, he should be removed from office.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39229471]
Also, an AR-15 can't crisp 50,000 people in the blink of an eye. You're analogy is terrible.[/QUOTE]
I feel like I have a retort to this statement, but I figure, why should I say it when you gun-folk have already said what needs to be said?
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39224425]we've already talked about this.
"You don't need it" is never sufficient reason to ban anything.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ybbats;39224445]Literally NO REASON TO BAN IT EITHER.
No gays need to get married, why can't we ban gay marriage?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39224575]
by simple definition you are infringing on the peoples right to bear arms, it's pretty clear cut at least how I see it[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39224627]Yeah a baby step to larger restrictions.
You give anti gun people an inch and they will push and push for more till they themselves die.
That damn Feinstein woman is in her 80s and she is still going on about assault weapons[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39224679]you have a really narrow view of the 2nd amend. then.
Why can't I feel a 75rnd drum is suitable?
and just putting aside that entire 2nd amend. interpretation and narrowing in on high capacity mags; why shouldn't civilians be able to own them? Give me specific reasons not "they don't need them"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ridge;39224873]((Quoting the Supreme Court)) Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39224899]
Field cannons were really the epitome of military technology when the 2nd amendment was written, so a basic musket really was basically top of the line military hardware, moreso than a semi auto carbine would be today. Oh and more buzzwords again, "high powered rifle," of course not taking into account the fact that the .70 caliber lead ball muskets back in those days could basically turn your entire torso into jello.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=kman866;39225250]Seriously?
Take guns away from criminals and they will find other ways to harm people. Criminals DO NOT follow laws. How hard is that to understand?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39225276]And it jammed up on him rather quickly. I own several high capacity magazines, including a 75 round drum similar to what the Aurora shooter had, and I haven't shot anybody nor do I intend to. Because the mentally ill harm someone is not justification to start banning things.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39225372]Prohibition does not work.
It did not work with alcohol, it did not work with any other drug, it will not work with guns.
If someone wants something badly enough, they will do anything in their power to get it.[/QUOTE]
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
ALSO: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico[/url]
I'm aware Wikipedia isn't a source, but I figure a lot of you aren't even aware how the "legal" guntrade with this country allows for the illegal trade in mexico.
Just saying!!!!!!
Nuclear weapons aren't easily accessible you idiot
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229628]I feel like I have a retort to this statement, but I figure, why should I say it when you gun-folk have already said what needs to be said?
[B]FUCKING SPACES YO[/B]
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
ALSO: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico[/url]
Just saying!!!!!![/QUOTE]
Nuclear bombs are hard to come by because of how hard it is to create a reliable one and the purified U-238 used to make it. Even if that U-238 weren't restricted by every government agency in the world, it would still be rare due to the availability of uranium ore and the need to purify that.
Also we don't have 310 million of them legally in the US already, so it would be pretty easy to say "Hey let's register all of the nukes under the National Firearms Act! Sure as shit they're Destructive Devices!". It's not so easy to say that about guns.
And that's related to an entirely different blackmarket. Namely cartels needing guns to smuggle drugs. Legalize drugs and prostitution, and make immigration a little easier and you'll effectively kill off any business for the dogs.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39229696]Nuclear bombs are hard to come by because of how hard it is to create a reliable one and the purified U-238 used to make it. Even if that U-238 weren't restricted by every government agency in the world, it would still be rare due to the availability of uranium ore and the need to purify that.
Also we don't have 310 million of them legally in the US already, so it would be pretty easy to say "Hey let's register all of the nukes under the National Firearms Act! Sure as shit they're Destructive Devices!". It's not so easy to say that about guns.[/QUOTE]
So would you be for gun-control if it was logistically possible?
I am under the impression that your defense of gun ownership is less about the logistics of gun control, and more about the tie between them and liberty (i.e: no reason for the governent to ban them, I have a right to fire arms).
If it is the latter, then let me have my nuke.
Funny thing about the cartels is, if we banned guns, guns would start flowing North instead of South.
Its well known that the US isn't the cartels sole source of firearms, they traffic firearms from all around the world.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229800]So would you be for gun-control if it was logistically possible?
I am under the impression that your defense of gun ownership is less about the logistics of gun control, and more about the tie between them and liberty (i.e: no reason for the governent to ban them, I have a right to fire arms).
If it is the latter, then let me have my nuke.[/QUOTE]
That's different. Nuclear weapons are specifically designed for mass murder of people and the total destruction of an area. Firearms pale in comparison to nuclear weapons.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229800]So would you be for gun-control if it was logistically possible?
I am under the impression that your defense of gun ownership is less about the logistics of gun control, and more about the tie between them and liberty (i.e: no reason for the governent to ban them, I have a right to fire arms).
If it is the latter, then let me have my nuke.[/QUOTE]
...
Do you understand how fucking retarded this sounds? I mean granted my first post on this thread was pretty pants-on-head retarded, but seriously? You are comparing an semi-automatic rifle to an nuclear weapon. One has the chances of killing 5 maybe 10 people, while the other can kill 50,000 in the blink of an eye, and causes increased cancer/mortality rates in the AoD. Can you actually think before you post?!
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229800]So would you be for gun-control if it was logistically possible?
I am under the impression that your defense of gun ownership is less about the logistics of gun control, and more about the tie between them and liberty (i.e: no reason for the governent to ban them, I have a right to fire arms).
If it is the latter, then let me have my nuke.[/QUOTE]
A nuke is not a valid self-defense option. It inherently creates a massive amount of destruction affecting tens of thousands of people, no matter how it is used. It is a weapon with one purpose: widespread death and destruction in a matter of seconds. Stop acting like it's same thing as owning a semi-automatic rifle.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229404]=Why are they not comparable? Because of the scales of destruction? Like, I dunno... going from 4-clip bolt action to a 30-round magazine? I'm just saying that the hypocrisy in this sort of libertarian ethics is hilarious.[/QUOTE]
Go get one pal. Have at it.
Good luck getting the billions of dollars in equipment and resources.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229800]So would you be for gun-control if it was logistically possible?
I am under the impression that your defense of gun ownership is less about the logistics of gun control, and more about the tie between them and liberty (i.e: no reason for the governent to ban them, I have a right to fire arms).
If it is the latter, then let me have my nuke.[/QUOTE]
Nobody here is promoting a complete removal of gun control, but they're not for banning any firearms either.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39229857]Go get one pal. Have at it.
Good luck getting the billions of dollars in equipment and resources.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn[/url]
Does this mean that you agree with my hyperbolic claim that citizens should be allowed to, if they so choose, own nuclear weapons?
[QUOTE=dogmachines;39229855]A nuke is not a valid self-defense option. It inherently creates a massive amount of destruction affecting tens of thousands of people, no matter how it is used. It is a weapon with one purpose: widespread death and destruction in a matter of seconds. Stop acting like it's same thing as owning a semi-automatic rifle.[/QUOTE]
1.) The thesis of deterrence goes against everything you've just said.
2.) Who cares WHY we choose to own guns the point is that we should have the liberty to do it. The gun owner who goes shooting at the range on the weekend and the wine-snob who collects guns in his basement have - under the law and as you'd likely argue, equal
To everyone saying that nukes are categorically different because of the SCALES OF DEATH, then I find going from probably 4 max killed under a bolt-action rifle and up to 20 with a semi-automatic rifle another a huge fucking increase in scale. Thats 400% more deaths.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39229978]Nobody here is promoting a complete removal of gun control, but they're not for banning any firearms either.[/QUOTE]
I agree that there probably should be a balanced approach.
But I feel like the "slippery slope" argument you all tend to taught can also be readily applied here. In the same way that each move toward regulation you all see as a step toward a complete ban, each of your defenses of some guns I feel can be repackaged to justify all firearms.
But now we get to the real point of me posting all this. A ban on assault weapons + hi-mags is not the end of the world, and honestly will probably reduce some (read: SOME) of the violent crimes in this country.
Seriously, that nuke comparison is the dumbest thing I've heard out of all these gun debate threads, and I've participated in far too many of them.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229979][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn[/url]
Does this mean that you agree with my hyperbolic claim that citizens should be allowed to, if they so choose, own nuclear weapons?
1.) The thesis of deterrence goes against everything you've just said.
2.) Who cares WHY we choose to own guns the point is that we should have the liberty to do it. The gun owner who goes shooting at the range on the weekend and the wine-snob who collects guns in his basement have - under the law and as you'd likely argue, equal
To everyone saying that nukes are categorically different because of the SCALES OF DEATH, then I find going from probably 4 max killed under a bolt-action rifle and up to 20 with a semi-automatic rifle another a huge fucking increase in scale. Thats 400% more deaths.[/QUOTE]
Rifle deaths only account for just over 4% of firearm deaths in the U.S. so try again
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229979][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn[/url]
Does this mean that you agree with my hyperbolic claim that citizens should be allowed to, if they so choose, own nuclear weapons?
1.) The thesis of deterrence goes against everything you've just said.
2.) Who cares WHY we choose to own guns the point is that we should have the liberty to do it. The gun owner who goes shooting at the range on the weekend and the wine-snob who collects guns in his basement have - under the law and as you'd likely argue, equal
To everyone saying that nukes are categorically different because of the SCALES OF DEATH, then I find going from probably 4 max killed under a bolt-action rifle and up to 20 with a semi-automatic rifle another a huge fucking increase in scale. Thats 400% more deaths.[/QUOTE]
Do you seriously not the get the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a nuke, or are you just trolling on an alt?
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229979]
To everyone saying that nukes are categorically different because of the SCALES OF DEATH, then I find going from probably 4 max killed under a bolt-action rifle and up to 20 with a semi-automatic rifle another a huge fucking increase in scale. Thats 400% more deaths.[/QUOTE]
"reloading". When a persons magazine runs dry, they don't just drop their weapon and surrender, they reload, whether it be by inserting a new magazine or inserting a clip into the bolt action. Magazine restrictions don't do anything to hamper a firearm, all they do is inconvenience legal owners and turn them into criminals.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230002]Rifle deaths only account for just over 4% of firearm deaths in the U.S. so try again[/QUOTE]
4% of 10,000 is still 400 people!!!!!!
Also i'm for banning handguns.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230002]Rifle deaths only account for just over 4% of firearm deaths in the U.S. so try again[/QUOTE]
Also the stuff they're trying to ban is an even smaller fraction.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39224369]If the following appears:
- Hi-Cap Magazine Ban
- Assault Weapon Ban
- Pointless 'bullet tracing' introduction
Call for impeachment[/QUOTE]Your avatar makes that post so much more worth while...
[QUOTE=Flameon;39229979]
But now we get to the real point of me posting all this. A ban on assault weapons + hi-mags is not the end of the world, and honestly will probably reduce some (read: SOME) of the violent crimes in this country.[/QUOTE]
It will reduce less than a % of gun crime in the US. It will be absolutely pointless, it will turn currently legal firearms owners into criminals. If the politicians gave a shit about gun crime in the US, they'd be going after handguns instead of scape goating AR-15's.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39230018]"reloading". When a persons magazine runs dry, they don't just drop their weapon and surrender, they reload, whether it be by inserting a new magazine or inserting a clip into the bolt action. Magazine restrictions don't do anything to hamper a firearm, all they do is inconvenience legal owners and turn them into criminals.[/QUOTE]
Reloading takes time and provide windows of opportunity for people to escape a shooter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
