The W
Views: 98464423
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.8.07 1008
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Thinking Rationally About Guns Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2036 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (39 total)
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 153/443
EXP: 633755
For next: 26414

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2809 days
Last activity: 2809 days
#21 Posted on 28.8.02 1211.36
Reposted on: 28.8.09 1213.55
What's a rational debate without some statistics thrown in?

According to this BIASED website":

In 1999, approximately 10,000 people were murdered by guns in the United States.

In 1998, over 30,000 people died from gunshots in the U.S.

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder.

10 children are killed by guns in the U.S. every day, on average.

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States.

Here's the basic problem ... for every competent and responsible person on this planet, there are five who are not. People get drunk and kill themselves or loved ones. People are careless and leave guns where their children can play with them. People get depressed and find that guns are much more effective than overdose or sitting in a running car. No amount of "gun education" will make gun-owners safer and smarter, just like no amount of "car education" will make many idiots drive safer and smarter.

It sounds like Grimis' letter writer was a competent and responsible person, who had an opportunity to use his gun in self-defense. Good for him. But for every situation like that, there are 22 situations where someone accidently shoots their spouse, children, or friends.

Having an armed population was smart in the 19th century. But having 21st century weaponry in the hands of any old fool is stupid and destructive. But there are so many guns flowing around the States now that I don't think much can be done to solve the problem.


Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 242/4700
EXP: 21446257
For next: 390405

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1212 days
Last activity: 1009 days
#22 Posted on 28.8.02 1354.27
Reposted on: 28.8.09 1359.04

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    What's a rational debate without some statistics thrown in?

    According to this BIASED website":

    In 1999, approximately 10,000 people were murdered by guns in the United States.

    In 1998, over 30,000 people died from gunshots in the U.S.

    A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder.



I guess the 2.5 MILLION Defensive Gun Uses(a number agreed upon by many college criminologists) don't mean too much



    Originally posted by Gavintzu


    10 children are killed by guns in the U.S. every day, on average.

    In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States.



1. Note the year 1996. The ban on private gun ownership went into effect in late 1996 or early 1997. Crime has QUADRUPLED in England since then becuase the addage than the gungrubbers make fun of here has come true in the UK: if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

2. Additionally Switzerland was not included in this assessment. Switzerland also has few shootings and every household has guns. And we're not talking peashooters, legit M-16s/automatic handguns, etc.


    Originally posted by Gavintzu


    Here's the basic problem ... for every competent and responsible person on this planet, there are five who are not. People get drunk and kill themselves or loved ones. People are careless and leave guns where their children can play with them.



People leave knives out and boiling water on the stove. I'm not hearing anybody screaming for knife control.


    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    People get depressed and find that guns are much more effective than overdose or sitting in a running car.


Again, I hear no cries for knife control, rope control, etc. The suicide thing is a pathetic argument for gun control because if people are determined to commit suicide, they are going to do it. People can jump off cliffs; do you call for cliff control?


    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    No amount of "gun education" will make gun-owners safer and smarter, just like no amount of "car education" will make many idiots drive safer and smarter.


Car control! Car control!


    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    It sounds like Grimis' letter writer was a competent and responsible person, who had an opportunity to use his gun in self-defense. Good for him. But for every situation like that, there are 22 situations where someone accidently shoots their spouse, children, or friends.

    Having an armed population was smart in the 19th century. But having 21st century weaponry in the hands of any old fool is stupid and destructive. But there are so many guns flowing around the States now that I don't think much can be done to solve the problem.





What problem? Do you think an armed populace is a bad thing? Do you feel it is good that a criminal could know any law abiding citizen can do nothing to avoid being robbed/raped/murdered etc.

There are 2.5 million defensive gun uses in this country every year. That's theoretically 2.5 million crimes averted.

If you don't feel that you can handle gun owenrship fine. But don't tell me that me and the several million other gun owners in the US cannot handle our basic constitutional and basic human right to self-defense.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 332/3024
EXP: 11160198
For next: 311247

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#23 Posted on 28.8.02 1400.38
Reposted on: 28.8.09 1401.01

      Originally posted by Gavintzu
      No amount of "gun education" will make gun-owners safer and smarter, just like no amount of "car education" will make many idiots drive safer and smarter.


    Car control! Car control!



Yes, but you do realize that you're comparing an object that is designed to kill (and, indeed, has no other real function) to a mode of transportation that only results in a fatality when an accident occurs.

And you do realize that, unlike guns, cars ARE heavily-monitored - through vehicle registration, enforcement of parking and traffic laws and drivers liscencing, and that if guns had a third as much oversight, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

But, let me guess, it made sense when Rush said it.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 154/443
EXP: 633755
For next: 26414

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2809 days
Last activity: 2809 days
#24 Posted on 28.8.02 1543.52
Reposted on: 28.8.09 1554.42
Grimis sez:

    People leave knives out and boiling water on the stove. I'm not hearing anybody screaming for knife control.

But if a child plays with a knife, he may badly cut himself. If a child spills boiling water on himself, he gets a bad burn. If a child plays with his daddy's handgun, his brains, or his younger sister's, may get splattered all over the wall. You don't see a qualitative difference here?

10 innocent children a day, each and every day. That's a hell of a sacrifice you are willing to make in order to assert your property rights, don't you think?


    The suicide thing is a pathetic argument for gun control because if people are determined to commit suicide, they are going to do it.


But people change their minds, or get help about their depression. I have a good friend who tried to commit suicide when she was a teenager. She swallowed a bottle of pills, and spent some time in the hospital. Guess what? She pulled through, got help, and is now a relatively happy and productive person. If she lived in the States, and her Daddy owned a gun, she would probably be dead today, and the world would be a poorer place for it. Again, more lives you are willing to sacrifice for your property rights.


    If you don't feel that you can handle gun owenrship fine. But don't tell me that me and the several million other gun owners in the US cannot handle our basic constitutional and basic human right to self-defense.


Can't you take up karate instead? And again, you may be a competent and responsible person. But I would say most people are not, and many, many innocent people pay the price every year.

And to keep things in perspective about violent crime ... according to the Bureau of Justice national violent crime was at 25 crimes per thousand people in 2000.

"In 2000 for every 1,000 persons age 12 or older, there occurred

--1 rape or sexual assault
--2 assaults with injury
--3 robberies

Murders were the least frequent violent victimization -- about 6 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 1999."

Ooooooh don't like those odds. Better buy an Uzi just in case.

Edit: And as to your much-vaulted Swiss example: according to yet another biased website it's not as simple as it seems.

"Gun ownership is by no means universal in Switzerland. Swiss criminologist Martin Killias says that about 27 percent of Swiss households have guns. Canadian analyst and activist Wendy Cukier points out that this is approximately the same level as Canada."

"It is true that men participating in home-based military service-and that is virtually all men between 20 and 42 years of age-are issued fully automatic weapons and ammunition, which they keep in their homes."

That sounds like a good compromise. The right to bear arms linked with mandatory military service. That would teach men to treat their guns with respect. Grimis, you wouldn't mind getting conscripted full time into the military for 2 years, and then having to serve in the reserves for another 20 years, right? That's what the Swiss do.



(edited by Gavintzu on 28.8.02 1421)
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 106/561
EXP: 885884
For next: 61440

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 25 days
#25 Posted on 28.8.02 1735.24
Reposted on: 28.8.09 1742.51
For the record I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh and I'm not even sure if I've spelled the name right.


"And you do realize that, unlike guns, cars ARE heavily-monitored - through vehicle registration, enforcement of parking and traffic laws and drivers liscencing, and that if guns had a third as much oversight, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

But, let me guess, it made sense when Rush said it."


Well, Thank the Lord for all these vehicle restrictions! Because without them we'd have drunks driving on suspended licenses, people driving without insurance, and people driving with no licenses at all. Oh wait, we already have that. too bad the rules don't extend to the BAD PEOPLE

"10 innocent children a day, each and every day. That's a hell of a sacrifice you are willing to make in order to assert your property rights, don't you think?"

This is no reason to deny me or anyone else the right to defend themselves. Just because a few people store their guns irresponsibly does not make guns bad. GUNS ARE DANGEROUS! Everyone knows it. So people who have them need to treat them with the respect they command or risk accidents like kids blowing themselves away for playing with something that's not a toy. Don't a lot of people on wienerville point to the Darwin awards in things like this?

The suicide argument is one of the weakest I've ever heard for gun control. It's much easier to buy a couple bottles of Nytol than it is to get a gun. Slashing wrists, hangings, jumping from buldings, carbon monoxide poisoning, and gas ovens all afford easier access than firearms.

"Can't you take up karate instead?"

Please. I'm not Jet Li or Jackie Chan or anyone else who has the years to dedicate to learning the art. and kung fu is better anyway. If I want to defend my home, I'll take a .44 revolver or a 12 gauge shotgun over some chop sockie crap any day. And I'll come out of it alive. Try a karate chop on some clown hopped up on PCP and if he even feels it, maybe he'll flash those pearly whites at you before slicing you open.

"In 2000 for every 1,000 persons age 12 or older, there occurred

--1 rape or sexual assault
--2 assaults with injury
--3 robberies

Murders were the least frequent violent victimization -- about 6 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 1999."

Ooooooh don't like those odds. Better buy an Uzi just in case.

Hey, you only have 1 in 1000 chance of getting raped! And 1 in 500 of being assaulted! well, gee, screw guns! let's let women get raped and other people get beat so bad they lose their eyesight! You call 1 in 1000 good odds? Too bad the 1 woman in those stats wasn't carrying real protection. Then we'd see some lower stats I'm sure.

Let's cut the BS. We Americans have the constitutional right to defend ourselves with firearms. All the hokey stats and sob stories about kids killing themselves doesn't change the rights of EVERY AMERICAN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. Firearms are the great equalizer. no matter how short you are, how weak you are, male or female, young or old: you can protect yourself with a firearm. And that is why we can not allow ANYONE to steal those rights away.

Pepper spray my @$$.
EastCoastAvenger
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 350/536
EXP: 843245
For next: 40644

Since: 4.1.02
From: Clearwater, FL

Since last post: 1935 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#26 Posted on 28.8.02 1815.48
Reposted on: 28.8.09 1829.02
Has anyone thought of how DIFFICULT it would be to actually enforce total gun control? I mean, Americans (as a group) are not as willing to give up their guns as a lot of people seem to think they should be. Change the laws all you want. Some will abide by them, while others say "fuck you" and keep a revolver, automatic or shotgun in the attic or under the bed in the event shit gets a bit flaky.

Kind of like the current drug (specifically weed) laws: Force a law on Americans that most of us don't agree with or believe in, and it will be ignored to the degree that arresting everyone who breaks the law becomes an exercise in futility.

If guns are ever outlawed completely in the U.S. (I SERIOUSLY doubt that will ever happen) I think the words of Andrew Jackson apply. TO paraphrase, They've made the law, let them enforce it now if they can!
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 297/1528
EXP: 4059666
For next: 131482

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2773 days
Last activity: 2615 days
AIM:  
#27 Posted on 28.8.02 1936.28
Reposted on: 28.8.09 1952.32

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    And again, you may be a competent and responsible person. But I would say most people are not, and many, many innocent people pay the price every year.


The price of what? Their actions, or our freedoms? Without sounding callous, your friend made a choice to end her own life. While that is highly tragic, your solution is equally tragic. You seem to be saying that we can't be trusted with freedom, so we need a benevolent, paternalistic government to take it out of our hands before someone gets hurt. Some people can't handle simple freedoms, like driving, for reasons we've already discussed. They drink, they fall asleep at the wheel, they drive recklessly. Some people can't handle guns. Anything can be dangerous in the hands of an idiot. Inlcuding, dare I say, the right to vote.

Here's an interesting comparison: How many people are killed by AIDS, worldwide? AIDS is, for the most part, sexually transmitted. If we banned sex, the spread of the disease would drop considerably. AIDS is as much an unintended consequence of sexual intercourse as innocent deaths are an unintended consequence of guns.
El Weasel
Longanisa
Level: 15

Posts: 25/35
EXP: 13827
For next: 2557

Since: 11.6.02

Since last post: 2619 days
Last activity: 2574 days
#28 Posted on 28.8.02 2137.44
Reposted on: 28.8.09 2138.19
We need guns, do you expect any cops to save your ass. If you think people can't handle guns, my guess is you can't handle money. So, why don't I take it and spend it for you or the government! You don't know where to live, you are an idiot, so I guess I'll tell you where you should go. Also, you don't know what are the right TV shows to watch. You could watch wrestling and end up dead or paralized due to being so dumb and not understanding what you are looking at. I could go an forever probably.

If you don't get the point, I'll tell you. The more inclined you are to be against people having guns, the more inclined you are to think people can't handle anything.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 335/3024
EXP: 11160198
For next: 311247

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#29 Posted on 29.8.02 0750.59
Reposted on: 29.8.09 0753.54
You people make good arguements - too bad you aren't arguing against any kind of real issue. To wit: background checks, waiting periods and gun registration are NOT the same thing as banning all guns. Banning all guns IS a bad idea, and pretty much anyone will tell you that. However, it's not the same thing as gun control.

But since the arguement against, say, waiting periods amounts to "Me wantee now!", you choose to skirt the issue and pretend like we're talking about something else entirely.

Hot damn, do I love Internet Republicans.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 243/4700
EXP: 21446257
For next: 390405

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1212 days
Last activity: 1009 days
#30 Posted on 29.8.02 0757.30
Reposted on: 29.8.09 0758.50

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    Grimis sez:

      People leave knives out and boiling water on the stove. I'm not hearing anybody screaming for knife control.

    But if a child plays with a knife, he may badly cut himself. If a child spills boiling water on himself, he gets a bad burn. If a child plays with his daddy's handgun, his brains, or his younger sister's, may get splattered all over the wall. You don't see a qualitative difference here?

    10 innocent children a day, each and every day. That's a hell of a sacrifice you are willing to make in order to assert your property rights, don't you think?


      The suicide thing is a pathetic argument for gun control because if people are determined to commit suicide, they are going to do it.


    But people change their minds, or get help about their depression. I have a good friend who tried to commit suicide when she was a teenager. She swallowed a bottle of pills, and spent some time in the hospital. Guess what? She pulled through, got help, and is now a relatively happy and productive person. If she lived in the States, and her Daddy owned a gun, she would probably be dead today, and the world would be a poorer place for it. Again, more lives you are willing to sacrifice for your property rights.


      If you don't feel that you can handle gun owenrship fine. But don't tell me that me and the several million other gun owners in the US cannot handle our basic constitutional and basic human right to self-defense.


    Can't you take up karate instead? And again, you may be a competent and responsible person. But I would say most people are not, and many, many innocent people pay the price every year.

    And to keep things in perspective about violent crime ... according to the Bureau of Justice national violent crime was at 25 crimes per thousand people in 2000.

    "In 2000 for every 1,000 persons age 12 or older, there occurred

    --1 rape or sexual assault
    --2 assaults with injury
    --3 robberies

    Murders were the least frequent violent victimization -- about 6 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 1999."

    Ooooooh don't like those odds. Better buy an Uzi just in case.

    Edit: And as to your much-vaulted Swiss example: according to yet another biased website it's not as simple as it seems.

    "Gun ownership is by no means universal in Switzerland. Swiss criminologist Martin Killias says that about 27 percent of Swiss households have guns. Canadian analyst and activist Wendy Cukier points out that this is approximately the same level as Canada."

    "It is true that men participating in home-based military service-and that is virtually all men between 20 and 42 years of age-are issued fully automatic weapons and ammunition, which they keep in their homes."

    That sounds like a good compromise. The right to bear arms linked with mandatory military service. That would teach men to treat their guns with respect. Grimis, you wouldn't mind getting conscripted full time into the military for 2 years, and then having to serve in the reserves for another 20 years, right? That's what the Swiss do.



    (edited by Gavintzu on 28.8.02 1421)



I just lost a very elongated response to all of this somewhere in the great beyond of the Internet. But here are the points:

- If a child burns himself on water or turns his brains to jello with a gun, it's called Bad Parenting.

- Not to sound callous, but if your friend had killed herself with a gun it really isn't my problem. It's a bummer yeah but American freedoms are woth more than protecting somebody who wants to off themselves.

- My girlfriend is a second degree blackbelt. She knows that her karate is fucking useless against a perp with a gun.

- You don't feel threatend by crime? Walk down East Baltimore or SE Washington DC at midnight unarmed and tell me how safe you feel(Assuming you make it out alive).

Oh and one more thing:

Amendment II: 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.

What part of that, Gavintzu, does not comprehend. (And nobody give me the "Milita is the National Guard" Bullshit argument either...)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 337/3024
EXP: 11160198
For next: 311247

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#31 Posted on 29.8.02 0813.28
Reposted on: 29.8.09 0821.52
"Amendment II: 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."

Oh, and by the way, didn't you argue with me, like, a month ago, that the "dirty bomber" didn't deserve a lawyer or a trial, and now you're suddenly Mister Constitution?!

(If that was someone else, I apologize. You know all you right-wingers look alike. ).
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 107/561
EXP: 885884
For next: 61440

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 25 days
#32 Posted on 29.8.02 0813.49
Reposted on: 29.8.09 0823.36

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    You people make good arguements - too bad you aren't arguing against any kind of real issue. To wit: background checks, waiting periods and gun registration are NOT the same thing as banning all guns. Banning all guns IS a bad idea, and pretty much anyone will tell you that. However, it's not the same thing as gun control.

    But since the arguement against, say, waiting periods amounts to "Me wantee now!", you choose to skirt the issue and pretend like we're talking about something else entirely.

    Hot damn, do I love Internet Republicans.


Without reading every post again, isn't the first one to mention background checks, waiting periods, and registration? I don't think the other posts mentioned these "issues" so the posts from the "internet republicans" have hardly dodged them. Why does the gov't need to know each and every gun someone owns? Again, it's only the people who follow the law who register guns. But once they create their database of who has what, it will be easy for them to round up the guns of law abiding citizens when the Dems pass their bills to crush the 2nd amendment. The Elitist Intellectual Democrats and their peacenik friends like to dismiss that as paranoia, but it's Big Government infringing upon the rights of the people in ways the framers of the constitution would be horrified to see.

What Democrats will say they don't want to ban ALL guns? Which ones do they want to ban now? And which ones will they ban after the ones they could ban now? The Dems want to get that ball rolling so it will be harder to stop. There are too many leftists who don't want anyone to have any guns. In a perfect world there wouldn't be much wrong with the checks and waiting periods. But it's not a perfect world. And the line needs to be drawn in the sand. We Supporters of the 2nd amendment (notice I do not say Republicans) can not let the Democrats and other cowards infringe upon on our constitutional rights at all. Once they start they will not stop until no decent law abiding citizen is allowed to protect themselves as proclaimed by the 2nd amendment.

Our rights to keep and bear arms to protect our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness are written in the constitution. Any attempt to infringe upon them is an attempt to take away that right.

I don't share the same sentiment for internet Democrats. They are just as bad as real life ones.

Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 725/3273
EXP: 12698058
For next: 393295

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 141 days
Last activity: 141 days
#33 Posted on 29.8.02 0837.45
Reposted on: 29.8.09 0843.48

    Originally posted by PalpatineW

    Here's an interesting comparison: How many people are killed by AIDS, worldwide? AIDS is, for the most part, sexually transmitted. If we banned sex, the spread of the disease would drop considerably. AIDS is as much an unintended consequence of sexual intercourse as innocent deaths are an unintended consequence of guns.




Just wanted to respond to this quickly before class. I'll get back to the rest of you later.

This comparison doesn't work, unless the only purpose of sex is to transmit AIDS to other people. But that's not the only purpose of sex, while the only purpose of guns is to kill things.

-Jag
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 155/443
EXP: 633755
For next: 26414

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2809 days
Last activity: 2809 days
#34 Posted on 29.8.02 1146.19
Reposted on: 29.8.09 1148.51
Grimis sez:

    Amendment II: 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.

    What part of that, Gavintzu, does not comprehend?

At what point did I argue that the second Amendment would support gun control?

But here's something to chew on. The American constitution is not the Word of God. Americans change the damn thing all the time, historically speaking. Times change.

At one point the constitution allowed for human slavery. Times changed, and you changed the constitution with it. At one point the constitution was changed to outlaw the making and sale of alcohol. Then you changed that change.

18th century weaponry was about as dangerous as a man armed with a knife. Having farmers running around with one-shot blunderbusses was not really that big a deal in 1767.

But fast forward to 2002. One lunatic with a semi-automatic can wipe out dozens of lives. The right to bear arms is being carried with a tremendous sacrifice in innocent lives every single day. All over the civilized world, oops I mean first world, society does not allow their fellow citizens to carry military-grade weapons. Is everyone else in Europe, Asia, Canada, and Australia wrong about this issue, or is it just America?

(Edited for lousy typing)


(edited by Gavintzu on 29.8.02 0947)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 245/4700
EXP: 21446257
For next: 390405

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1212 days
Last activity: 1009 days
#35 Posted on 29.8.02 1322.55
Reposted on: 29.8.09 1329.02
    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    But here's something to chew on. The American constitution is not the Word of God. Americans change the damn thing all the time, historically speaking.


There are Twenty-seven amendemnts to the constitution. After the Bill of Rights, there have only been seventeen changes since 1791. THe document was built to last and it has.


    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    Times change.

    At one point the constitution allowed for human slavery. Times changed, and you changed the constitution with it. At one point the constitution was changed to outlaw the making and sale of alcohol. Then you changed that change.



True. Nobody said the document was uncahngeable. But only the things that we completely egregious have been changed. It would be impossible to repeal the 2nd amendment.


    Originally posted by Gavintzu


    18th century weaponry was about as dangerous as a man armed with a knife. Having farmers running around with one-shot blunderbusses was not really that big a deal in 1767.

    But fast forward to 2002. One lunatic with a semi-automatic can wipe out dozens of lives. The right to bear arms is being carried with a tremendous sacrifice in innocent lives every single day.



So is the right to drive. You keep talking about this "sacrifice" of hte right to bear arms without realize that there is a "sacrifice" to drive and a "sacrifice" of somebody's time and or right to wear the shirt made in Taiwan on your back.


    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    All over the civilized world, oops I mean first world, society does not allow their fellow citizens to carry military-grade weapons. Is everyone else in Europe, Asia, Canada, and Australia wrong about this issue, or is it just America?

    (Edited for lousy typing)


    (edited by Gavintzu on 29.8.02 0947)



Probably everbody else has it wrong. BEsdies, we like having freedom in America. That's why in Europe(And yes in your country of Canada) you don't have the right to a gun and you can be jailed for saying something deemed "offensive" and "politically incorrect."

(edited by Grimis on 29.8.02 1532)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 594/2104
EXP: 6556635
For next: 94055

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 7 days
#36 Posted on 30.8.02 1114.34
Reposted on: 30.8.09 1115.28
What Democrats will say they don't want to ban ALL guns?

Uh, this Democrat for one. Honestly, I like a good debate as much as the next guy, and I think this thread has been pretty cool, but the "the multitudes of crazy liberals out there are all lying and are just waiting for the chance to send jackbooted thugs to your house to take your guns and make sure you don't say anything 'politically incorrect'" is a little ridiculous. I mean, I take everyone else on this board at their word, and I'd like the same courtesy. As for the polititians, of course I don't believe them, but remember the #1 rule of politians: if it's a big, well known issue, and it's not popular, they won't do it. Even Barbara Boxer knows taking away all guns is not a popular thing among Americans.

I'm not saying this is solely a Right-wing thing. Liberals are as paranoid about, say, abortion and first-amendment rights as conservatives are about gun-control. But in any arguement the "we shouldn't do or discuss something reasonable because it might lead to something unreasonable" line of reasoning is a pretty cheap one.

Finally, I've been very impressed with conservative republicans like Bob Bar and Dick Armey stepping up on constitutional issues lately, and as a democrat, I'd really like to see liberal democrats step up on traditionally right-wing constitutional issues, like gun control.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 248/4700
EXP: 21446257
For next: 390405

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1212 days
Last activity: 1009 days
#37 Posted on 30.8.02 1129.49
Reposted on: 30.8.09 1130.03

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    I've been very impressed with conservative republicans like Bob Bar and Dick Armey stepping up on constitutional issues lately, and as a democrat, I'd really like to see liberal democrats step up on traditionally right-wing constitutional issues, like gun control.


That is the bad thing about them leaving congress, and I have little faith that anybody from either side is going to pick up the slack, especially including other issues(like Asset Forfeiture in regards to the 4th, Certain 9th and 10th issues as related to Congressional funded and unfunded mandates, etc.)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 341/3024
EXP: 11160198
For next: 311247

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#38 Posted on 30.8.02 1456.46
Reposted on: 30.8.09 1459.08
And I've got to say, as a Democrat, nothing pisses me off more than having to see Dick Armey, Bob Barr and John McCain fight our battles for us because the Democrats that were elected to push the left-wing agenda are afraid to say anything the face of Dubya's hyped-up approval rating.

But that's a whole other thread.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 161/443
EXP: 633755
For next: 26414

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2809 days
Last activity: 2809 days
#39 Posted on 31.8.02 0837.07
Reposted on: 31.8.09 0837.10

Hey Grimis, let's try this argument for a while.

You sez:

    "Amendment II: 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."

That's fine. But surely you don't think all arms are protected by the second amendment? Do you really think that private citizens should be able to own hand-grenades, bazookas and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles?

Of course not. (I hope). But what is the difference between these weapons and military-grade guns and ammo like M-16s and hollow-point bullets? If the government can restrict access to the first group of arms, surely it can and should restrict access to the second.

Ha.



ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: The McLaughlin Group's 20th Anniversary Clip Show
Next thread: USA Today turns 20
Previous thread: Cartoons!
(2036 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Thinking Rationally About GunsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.194 seconds.