The pro-fear establishment shows its cowardly nature.
01-06-2014, 03:44 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 923
Total Cats: 67
Joe, bit ridiculous of statements by you. Have I forgotten how you typically talk through topics like this such that you go for absurd inaccurate statements?
AR15s in their pocket?
Take away their right to purchase military assault rifles?
You are better than that I thought, those are the sad absurd statements made by the people who think no one should ever own any type of firearm (except them and their bodyguards).
AR15s in their pocket?
Take away their right to purchase military assault rifles?
You are better than that I thought, those are the sad absurd statements made by the people who think no one should ever own any type of firearm (except them and their bodyguards).
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 03:44 PM
#22
I can order the history of the Pigme People from Amazon, but I have to show up in person to get a gun.
They tried and will try again.
The use of terminology like "military style assault rifle" is used in order to cause an immediate thought of fear. If it is an assault rifle, that must mean its only use is assaulting. There is very little difference between these so called "assault rifles" and a standard hunting rifle. Pistol style grip, detachable magazine are really the 2 that people think somehow make a gun evil.
2nd ammendment:
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.
First we can argue what is a well regulated militia. Is it the National Guard? Is it Jim Bob and his friends? That one is hard to parse, considering at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, Jim Bob and his friends were the Continental army and much of it were Militias of communities bringing their personal muskets and weaponry to fight for the freedom of the colonies.
2nd part: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole point of this is so in the case of the Government becoming tyrannical (i.e. taxation without representation), the people have recourse. At this time, arms were considered canons and muskets. The modern equivalent is the tank and m16. But, the government has taken it upon its self to already infringe. Like the comic above, where does the limiting and adjusting of the 2nd amendment end? We have drawn the line in the sand and will not budge any more.
It's interesting that some people genuinely fear that the executive branch of the federal government is going to take away their right to purchase military assault rifles for personal use.
Or that they ever even had this "right" in the first place. A lot of folks seem to think that this is granted to them by the constitution, though if you really dig deep into the second amendment and take the time to grok its meaning, it actually says nothing of the sort.
Or that they ever even had this "right" in the first place. A lot of folks seem to think that this is granted to them by the constitution, though if you really dig deep into the second amendment and take the time to grok its meaning, it actually says nothing of the sort.
2nd ammendment:
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.
First we can argue what is a well regulated militia. Is it the National Guard? Is it Jim Bob and his friends? That one is hard to parse, considering at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, Jim Bob and his friends were the Continental army and much of it were Militias of communities bringing their personal muskets and weaponry to fight for the freedom of the colonies.
2nd part: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole point of this is so in the case of the Government becoming tyrannical (i.e. taxation without representation), the people have recourse. At this time, arms were considered canons and muskets. The modern equivalent is the tank and m16. But, the government has taken it upon its self to already infringe. Like the comic above, where does the limiting and adjusting of the 2nd amendment end? We have drawn the line in the sand and will not budge any more.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 03:57 PM
#24
I really don't think the problem is what types of weapons people can own. I am much more concerned with adequate training. I think anyone should be able to purchase a wide variety of guns that they could legal keep at a residence and transport from point to point for range shooting/hunting with certain restrictions. All of these arbitrary bans are stupid because people who want to cause harm will regardless and if they need access to heavy artillery to do it they will know where to get it. In many states this is what we currently have in place.
My problem is that concealed carry licenses require no real training on a regular basis. I am a huge proponent of concealed carry but I think many people that do have no real business carrying a gun because they have no idea how to use it tactically. I wouldn't be against mandatory service in the reserves for those of age that includes weapons training.
My problem is that concealed carry licenses require no real training on a regular basis. I am a huge proponent of concealed carry but I think many people that do have no real business carrying a gun because they have no idea how to use it tactically. I wouldn't be against mandatory service in the reserves for those of age that includes weapons training.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 03:57 PM
#25
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Burden of proof, of what?
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:05 PM
#27
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
But it doesn't make sense. Proof to own guns, what does that mean? What is being proven? Or did you mean the proof that people have the right to own guns? I guess the wording threw me off.
Nobody is arguing the fact that the 2nd amendment says exactly that. You are allowed to own guns.
Nobody is arguing the fact that the 2nd amendment says exactly that. You are allowed to own guns.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:08 PM
#28
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Taos, New mexico
Posts: 6,592
Total Cats: 554
I used to be pro-gun, but recently I have begun to change my mind. Seeing how crazy a lot of people seem, and how incapable so many people are at dealing with daily stress and criticism, maybe it should be harder to get a firearm. And while you are allowed by law to own as many guns as you want, why does one need a whole gun safe full of rifles and pistols? I know the "because I can" and the "why shouldn't I be able to" arguments, but that doesn't explain why so many common people need so many weapons.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:09 PM
#29
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I used to be pro-car modifications, but recently I have begun to change my mind. Seeing how crazy a lot of people are behind the wheel, and how incapable so many people are at following the traffic laws in place, maybe it should be a harder process to modify your car to make it faster? And while you are allowed by law to modify your car as you want, why does one need a car with that much power? I know the "because I can", and the "why shouldn't I be able to" arguments, but that doesn't explain why so many common people need such fast cars.
One is transportation, one is a killing device. Sure a car can be used to kill as well, but I could also kill someone with a tightly rolled piece of paper.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:10 PM
#30
But it doesn't make sense. Proof to own guns, what does that mean? What is being proven? Or did you mean the proof that people have the right to own guns? I guess the wording threw me off.
Nobody is arguing the fact that the 2nd amendment says exactly that. You are allowed to own guns.
Nobody is arguing the fact that the 2nd amendment says exactly that. You are allowed to own guns.
I'm saying, fine, but that doesn't mean things are regulated arbitrarily. If you think "military assault rifles" should be banned, then you have to offer justification for that. It's not the pro-2A side's responsibility to justify why they ought to have those rifles, it's your responsibility to justify the ban. If you think they are more dangerous, then we need a conclusive, reason-based argument for why they are more dangerous than other guns. If you think the costs to society outweigh the benefits, then we need to have a calculation of those costs and benefits.
That's what I'm saying. The right to own guns exists; the burden of proof rests on those who want to limit or regulate that right, not on those who want to maintain it.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:11 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 923
Total Cats: 67
I used to be pro-car modifications, but recently I have begun to change my mind. Seeing how crazy a lot of people are behind the wheel, and how incapable so many people are at following the traffic laws in place, maybe it should be a harder process to modify your car to make it faster? And while you are allowed by law to modify your car as you want, why does one need a car with that much power? I know the "because I can", and the "why shouldn't I be able to" arguments, but that doesn't explain why so many common people need such fast cars.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:14 PM
#33
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
And no one is talking about banning, but regulating, and last I checked, ownership and operation of automobiles is regulated. Rightly so, because cars can be dangerous and can kill.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:16 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 923
Total Cats: 67
That is completely apples to oranges though. One is designed for transportation, one was designed with the sole purpose of killing. Sure you can take a gun and do some harmless target practice, but its purpose to exist is still to kill.
And no one is talking about banning, but regulating, and last I checked, ownership and operation of automobiles is regulated.
And no one is talking about banning, but regulating, and last I checked, ownership and operation of automobiles is regulated.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:17 PM
#35
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Which is why I brought up the fact that I could kill someone with a rolled up piece of paper. And really, it is a tool. A tool of death. Anything else you do with it is simply honing skills to make you a more efficient user of said killing tool.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:18 PM
#36
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Taos, New mexico
Posts: 6,592
Total Cats: 554
My point is that people love to hate guns, but wait until this same criticism turns to another hobby that you love. It's the same. thing.
Car = tool for transportation
sports car = fun
shotgun = tool for hunting
ar/ak/blah blah = fun
Why do we need these things? We don't need them.. but I damn sure bet you would be defending your freedom to own a sports car if they were banned.
Reply
0
0
01-06-2014, 04:23 PM
#38
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
But I wouldn't be against listening to reasons why they should be banned, and with a strong enough argument, I could be convinced to agree. It seems so many pro-gun people are unwilling to listen to reasonable restrictions. Again, I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, just more regulation.
Reply
0
0
