[QUOTE=junker|154;38404959]This argument could be compared to any other legislation that was established during dictations or any similiar situations. After Hitler's regime, jews were bad and pursuited in any way possible. Things change over time, your statement means nothing.[/QUOTE]
Godwin's Law alert.
Anyway, don't compare firearm rights to Hitler. That's just asking for Gunpunch to come down and pistol whip you into coherance.
fun fact about hitler, firearms were originally banned under his regime and not made legal until towards the end of the war when he decided that everyone needed to join his military because he was losing badly
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38405032]sorry but that was pretty incomprehensible[/QUOTE]
Sorry, english is not my first language and I really fail in these dicussions. I meant that dictators often change the legislation to their political view, adjusting the laws and such. Even if they are ethically wrong or morally questionable. Laws during that time are not viable today in any way, this could also be said about the document that Ridge posted.
Perhaps there is a time for change, the rules might be good at first. But it needs some adaption and modification to be viable in our current times. Things change. So quoting an old document is not really a way of solving this issue.
Gunpunch is pretty quick to attack people who dare to criticize them.
Fuck I never should have mentioned hitler in any way :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405091]Gunpunch is pretty quick to attack people who dare to criticize them.[/QUOTE]
Ah, look, children, the famed "ad-hominem" attack. :rolleye:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405091]Gunpunch is pretty quick to attack people who dare to criticize them.[/QUOTE]
You're not being attacked. You're being corrected.
[QUOTE=NoaJM;38405063]Godwin's Law alert.
Anyway, don't compare firearm rights to Hitler. That's just asking for Gunpunch to come down and pistol whip you into coherance.[/QUOTE]
Read the thread properly, I never made the connection to bearing firearms and Hitler. It is about the amendemnts and how legislation change over time.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;38405107]You're not being attacked. You're being corrected.[/QUOTE]
You smug idiot.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405091]Gunpunch is pretty quick to attack people who dare to criticize them.[/QUOTE]
Apparently, attacked=proven wrong.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405091]Gunpunch is pretty quick to attack people who dare to criticize them.[/QUOTE]
I do not own a gun, nor do I have any immediate plans to acquire one. I do not frequent weapons boards, or even weapons subboards.
That doesn't make banning guns any less idiotic. Nice ad-hominem.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38405115]Apparently, attacked=proven wrong.[/QUOTE]
There is no prove shown in any one of these comments. It is just some biased speculations from both parties.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38405108]You smug idiot.[/QUOTE]
Care to show where we are wrong then?
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=junker|154;38405132]There is no prove shown in any one of these comments. It is just some biased speculations from both parties.[/QUOTE]
You've been told where to look.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38405108]Read the thread properly, I never made the connection to bearing firearms and Hitler. It is about the amendemnts and how legislation change over time.[/QUOTE]
That is very well the case but some people can be quick to assume otherwise, like I just did. I could see what you were talking about, but mention Hitler once and everything goes sideways. Just sayin'.
[QUOTE=Ridge;38405107]You're not being attacked. You're being corrected.[/QUOTE]
More the opposite, one is trying to push falsehoods onto people.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38405145]Care to show where we are wrong then?
You've been told where to look.[/QUOTE]
By saying that you showed me absolute nothing except some google articles that I read a few minutes ago, which are not to be proven to be valid or reliable.
By saying "we" you make more a fool of yourself. Also what Ridge did was only provocation, nothing more. The thing with Argentina was also a bit provocative, don't you think?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405091][B]Gunpunch[/B] is pretty quick to attack people who dare to criticize them.[/QUOTE]
Though I [i]DO[/i] like that name...
[QUOTE=NoaJM;38405150]That is very well the case but some people can be quick to assume otherwise, like I just did. I could see what you were talking about, but mention Hitler once and everything goes sideways. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]
You definitly right, mentioning Hitler makes all discussions go awry. Thanks anyway, I never heard of Godwins law before.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405155]More the opposite, one is trying to push falsehoods onto people.[/QUOTE]
There are no falsehoods, only differences of opinion.
Moreso how are you not pushing falsehoods more than "gunpunch"?
[QUOTE=junker|154;38405160]By saying that you showed me absolute nothing except some google articles that I read a few minutes ago, which are not to be proven to be valid or reliable.
By saying "we" you make more a fool of yourself. Also what Ridge did was only provocation, nothing more.[/QUOTE]
Please inform me as to how I provoked anyone.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405155]More the opposite, one is trying to push falsehoods onto people.[/QUOTE]
most ironic thing I've read all day
By implying "we corrected you" without any viable contribution, you look like someone who makes fun of them. All your comments contain a sarcasm and provocations.
Although I might be biased because I sympathise with Sobotnik.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405177]There are no falsehoods, only differences of opinion.
Moreso how are you not pushing falsehoods more than "gunpunch"?[/QUOTE]
Protocol you are definitly right, these are only opinions fighting against eachother with no real result. Like many debates.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38405160]By saying that you showed me absolute nothing except some google articles that I read a few minutes ago, which are not to be proven to be [b]valid or reliable.[/b][/QUOTE]
You know. It's funny. If you had gone to the very thread I linked, you would have found links to studies showing that guns may increase homicide rates slightly, which would support what you are trying to say.
I'm inclined to believe that you wouldn't believe anything presented to you, citing credibility as a reason, purely because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.
I'm done. You clearly cannot be bothered to read.
I admit that I did not read your link directly, I googled it as you told me to. To be honest, I am capable of taking different factors into account and changing my view depending on how. But I fail to see it makes difference. In every educational entity that I participated, that dicussed this matter, the opposite was stated and said.
I guess we both can't prove anything. As I see my sources viable and you see yours as valid.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38404362]There are tons of guns in mexico and all the big cities are plagued with crime. It should be fairly easy to get a gun if every cheap and accessible gangster can get one, although [b]illegaly[/b].[/QUOTE]
Banning firearms and such only harms the law abiding citizen, preventing them from being properly able to defend themselves and allowing those who do not follow the law to take advantage. Case in point: Drug Cartels
Buying guns out of fear is a concept that has no future in our world. Get rid of the issues that causes this, making people think that they need guns to survive.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;38405283]Banning firearms and such only harms the law abiding citizen, preventing them from being properly able to defend themselves and allowing those who do not follow the law to take advantage.[/QUOTE]
Except the criminals wouldn't have guns either.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405321]Except the criminals wouldn't have guns either.[/QUOTE]
Banning guns doesn't suddenly get rid of all the guns that already exist :downs:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405321]Except the criminals wouldn't have guns either.[/QUOTE]
Sure, assuming somehow you collected every gun on earth and destroyed them. You'd also need to figure out how to erase the knowledge from peoples minds on how to create them. I mean if a guy in prison can make an smg out of pipe from a bed then imagine what somebody with rudimentary knowledge of machining can do.
It was said after all that in mexico there is only 1 gun store that is highly regulated. So how the hell did everybody in mexico get their guns? I know the US sold them some, but that wasn't their sole provider.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405321]Except the criminals wouldn't have guns either.[/QUOTE]
Well, achieving that is nigh impossible. There will be always a black market and illegal weapon deals all over the world. But decreasing the accessibility of weapons will surely make it harder and someday make it hard at all.
I lived in Luxembourg, getting guns there is really hard. Most criminals that have guns got them from a country where guns are a lot easier to acquire. Most guns are owned by policemen, military, hunters or persons that practice at ranges, although it is still heavily restricted to a degree.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405326]Banning guns doesn't suddenly get rid of all the guns that already exist :downs:[/QUOTE]
Yes but guns need to come from somewhere.
And usually, that's from legit manufacturers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
