Miscellaneous > The Lounge

Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom)

<< < (8/13) > >>

pofnlice:
Preamble to the Constitution

Recite:

WE the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility.  PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE (I beleive that's far enough)

The 2nd ammendment guarantees the RIGHT to keep and bare arms which is based on the (oddly enough) second sentance of the preamble.  Not law...it's a privaledge actually.  If you're a felon, you can't have em.  Although it was written with the intention of local and regional malitias in mind.  I would say honestly the average malitia is degenerated quite a bit over the years into crazed survivalists and seperatists.  However, it is our Constitutional right to keep and bare arms.  The Idea is to provide home, state and country defense.  If the citizens are armed, there is less incentive for large scale dissidence and hostility on our own shores.  I have many guns.  I deal with lots of people who have guns.  I treat people with guns as if they want to kill me when on the job.  Once I get their guns we talk and I decide whether to seize and arrest or give back and leave.  That's part of the job.  Although it can be a hell of an adrenaline rush...I would have it no other way.  I see the bad side of peeps everyday.  I own a PSG, Glock 22, Glock 25, Desert Eagle 500Mag, several derringers, Walther P228, Infield 30.06, Savage 308, Smith and wesson model 1200 12 ga on and on and on...  I dare someone to try to take them from me.  They are all registered and legal (even the silenced PSG- but I am law enforcement and have special permits being a sniper and all    )

Faust:

quote:Oh so its written on a MORE IMPORTANT bit of paper? Completely changes the situation then... Words arent important, beliefs are. If the belief of the American people changes tomorrow, so should the constitution. Sorry, but I hope that a democratic person like you wouldnt want a piece of paper signed by a lot of dead people to be more important than democratic process... So in the mean time we can argue for beliefs and you can't try and justify them with a symbol OK?

Wasnt this the same constitution that was amended to prohibit "intoxicating liquors!" DEAR GOD! The constitution says you cant booze! Must obey, it was in the constitution and surely you cant argue with the constitution right? Stop reading from a useless description of the law only when it profits you please.

Oh and arms? Arms means weapons and you are saying that this amendment lets you own any weapon you want without restrictions from the government.
Should you have the right to own nuclear weapons or do you believe in restrictions? Restrictions, not complete loss, is all I think would help.
--- End quote ---


No offense but please acknowledge past points rather than repeating what Jimmy James has already said.

edit:

Oh and its all nice and dandy how you all love these "rights" when they benefit you, but for other people (lets say David Hicks or anyone in Guantanomo) none of you think they exist.  It's only you who are entitled to a fair trial or arrest without cause, so don't tell me you believe in your constitution when youre flouting it like this.  Wasn't it said somewhere that those who really believe in free speech are those that let others say something they dont like?  None of you believe in your constitution.

edit:

 
quote:If the citizens are armed, there is less incentive for large scale dissidence and hostility on our own shores.
--- End quote ---


Wasn't the point for it to be possible for large scale dissidence against the government (as the only other holder of guns) to be possible?

[ November 08, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]

pofnlice:
It is solely because I am trying to prove a point.  It's not just a symbol.  It is what we use to determine our rights.  It's what the supreme court is there for.  it's not just a peice of paper written and signed by a bunch of dead guys.  It sets the basis and foundation for the way our country is governed today.  The insight the founding forefathers had was incredible.  They wrote a document that set a basic enough outline to help shape our country.  Yes it has been changed.  It's supposed to be, it was written to be changed.  What I said in theree wasn't simply "It's our right and if you don't like it tough."  I explained why it was determined to be a right in America.  The principle it's based on is somewhat outdated, and that particular amendment has been altered.  Just try and purchase assault rifles legaly.  there are certain handguns which can't be bought anymore.  Only law enforcement and military are authorized the over capacity magazines.  The NRA fought every one of these restrictions tooth and nail. Obviously, they lost.  

I hate to break it down into simple-eeze.  People are bad, not guns.  A bad person with a gun in his hands is just as dangerous as a stupid person with a gun in his hands.  Checks are done to screen gun buyers are legit.  I am not saying the system isn't fucked.  When my father passes I get about 20 guns.  I was raised with guns in the house.  I was raised handling and firing guns.  I was tought by my father responsability with guns by a responsable adult (he spells better than me too).  That is where the responsability lies.  In the person, not the public.  I now work with guns,  alot of different kinds, 40mm Automatic grenade launchers, Sniper rifles, assault rifles, pistols, single shot grenade launchers, automatic rifles, machime guns...you name it.  Knifes kill more peeps every year than guns do....where's the "Lets ban all knives"  movement?  punish the person, not the masses.

Just so you know, I do not support the belief that if I want a rocket launcher on the roof of my house I should have one.  That's just retarded.  But I see no problem with me having my PSG-1.  Does it bother you that a citizen has a silenced sniper rifle as a personally owned weapon knowing now a little of my background and history with weapons?  We don't punish the masses for hackers abusing computers and stealing identities and destroying peeps lives, we punish the individual.  It's still a crime to use something for other than it was meant for (in regards to this conversation, obviously the police aren't going to kick in your door for using a butter knife as a screw driver).

All I hear from anti gun folk is "guns are bad andd guns kill people"

Not true, people kill people.  Inanimate objects are niether good or bad, it's all about WHO is using them and WHAT they are using them for.

Anti-gun folks don't put up an effective fight of why guns should be banned.  I could apply the same theory to cars.  People drive poorly and wreck and diee, so cars should be banned.  Aircraft and trains crash as well, lets get rid of them.  Hammers can be used to kill too, why not them as well.  Hammers are bad.  I have never heard a valid reason why guns should be banned.  I agree they should be limitted.  But, how do you draw the line on what types of guns are legal or illegal.  And by the way, I have used my pistol hunting.  I find it a much more efficient way to finish off the suffering animal if I should only injure it rather than kill it with one of my rifles or shot guns.  Or, would you rather I slice it's throat and wait for it to bleed to death?

badkarma:

quote:Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
punish the person, not the masses.

--- End quote ---


And the whole anti-gun argument boils down to this:

prevent the masses from having to punish the person

the keyword here is (yup .. you guessed it) prevent

Another good solution would be to just remove all safety measures from guns ... then the problem would just solve itself  ;)

lazygamer:

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
And you need a desert eagle for hunting right? In most countries people who say they need their guns for "hunting" cant get access to replica M16s. Easy access to guns sure helped the washington sniper hey?
--- End quote ---


Did you know that the primary purpose of the Desert Eagle is target shooting and hunting, not self defense? As for replica M16s, are you refering to the semi-auto civilian models? Semi-auto versions of automatic rifles are common. What are you trying to prove here? This guy owns a Garand actually, an EIGHT round .30-06 SEMI-AUTO rifle, what a wonderful choice for hunting. And yes, he does need something meaner than a .22LR for hunting big animals.   ;)  


 
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy James

2) To protect the nation. Not everybody is in the military service. Those who are not can still fight if the battle comes to their homes, into their town, their city. If the United States were invaded, however improbable, if enemy troops set foot on our soil, there would be ordinary citizens dropping the fuckers as quickly as the US Military would be.
--- End quote ---


This would be very applicable to Canada, Canada has shit for military, the US does not.


 
quote:Originally posted by Lazygamer
There are different home defense situations, a gun may or may not help. Why does burglary still happen? This is because many people in the US do not own a gun, due to anti-gun messages and anti-gun laws in many states
--- End quote ---


 
quote:Originally posted by Faust
Do you have any evidence for this?
--- End quote ---


Do I need evidence? Use your imagination.

1)Someone could be ransacking your house and the noise wakes you up.

2)Someone could confront you at gunpoint while you walk about.

3)Someone could smash the window to your house, alerting you.

4)Someone could start raping your wife, alerting you.

5)Someone could point a gun at you while you are asleep.

#2 and #5 are situations where a gun for sure wouldn't help. There is no doubt more situations then those listed.


What about anti-gun stuff in America? Let's see what our friends at the Brady campaign have to say.

http://www.bradycampaign.org

Let's show their report card!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/related_documents/010703.asp

Now look at that. Do you notice that there are states in the US that get good grades? Yes, it isn't just a straight line of D or F grades(of course there is plenty of low grades to go around in this report).

 
quote:Orignally posted by Faust
A gun can kill someone a lot quicker than a baseball bat can. At least with baseball bats you can run, and there is more chance of a trained medic being able to save you. The columbine murderers used Tec-9 semiautomatic pistols. Dude they look more like mac-10s than pistols... There is NO NEED for you to have access to that gun. Its not useful for hunting and unless your being burgled by what, 20 or so guys you dont need something that powerful to defend yourself. If the columbine murderers didnt have access to guns as powerful as that then a lot less people would have died.
--- End quote ---


Good point, people can run from baseball bats, although in many cases they would not escape.

Your point doesn't take into account that fact that an attacker can hit you as many times as he wants with the bat when you are incapcitated.

Is there more chance of a trained medic being able to save you? I'd say so, except that the chance doesn't drasticly go down when bullets are used. What do you think would cause more damage to your bones though?


Yes, they used SEMI-AUTOMATIC Tec-9 pistols. You really messed up with this dude. So a pistol that LOOKS like a fully automatic weapon is useless for anything besides killing a large group of people? Can you please tell me about magazine capacities? I am not sure if these particular Tec-9s had magazines similar to pistols, or larger, like maybe 30 round magazines. IF they had 30 round magazines then your point has some credibility.

Oh and btw, you know why you need more than 10 rounds in a pistol? If that pistol is ever being used against multiple attackers, the shooter MUST be able to incapcitate all of them, otherwise the surviving attackers will for certain kill the shooter! Assuming the columbine shooters were using 30 round magazines, it would of made no difference because all the student and teachers were probably too terrified to try and attack. So a reload would by easy.

[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page