OH HEY LOOK I CAN READ THE CONSTITUTION:
Regulation is the name of the game boys, and it's even in the fucking document you all seem to think allows everyone to own bazookas for self defense.
Another shooting, close to
- Thread starter Dresden14
- Start date
OH HEY LOOK I CAN READ THE CONSTITUTION:
Regulation is the name of the game boys, and it's even in the fucking document you all seem to think allows everyone to own bazookas for self defense.
I was going to let it slide, but you sir are clearly retarded and off your meds. You say guns have no place in society and serve no purpose. How many people in places that aren't named California rely on having a gun along with harvesting what the land provides to survive? There would be more people who would choose to live off wild animals though it is regulated, ie. you have to have a LICENSE, and are limited to how many animals you are allowed to harvest. Also you jump someones shit for saying how sportsmanship and bonding with weapons is a crock and you and your family get along just fine. Now I now that's bullshit because you have posted at least twice how dysfunctional your family is and how much you dislike them and how you couldn't wait to get out of the house to flee to the bastion of society known as "Sunny San Diego". Before you mouth off about shit which you have no reference you may want to get out a bit and see how others really live and use said intolerable weapons.
I don't want people to die because we have taken away their guns. I want those people to have to go down to the Department of Firearms and take a written gun exam, then do a shooting test, then do a safety test. And they should have to renew that license every few years.
I don't see how anyone can argue against increasing the safety training and properly licensing gun ownership, nor how anyone (especially small-government fans) can argue that we need thorough licensing for driving vehicles but guns just need a waiting period and a background check.
Hey fuckface, why should people need licenses to hunt animals but not licenses to just keep the gun in their houses?
Hey fuckface, my family extends beyond two fucked up parents to a bunch of people I care a lot about and take care of, and furthermore, shut the fuck up about my family.
Hey fuckface...San Diego is Sunny.
ftfy
OH HEY LOOK, dchuk CAN'T READ THE CONSTITUTION!
He thought that "Well regulated" applied to the right to keep and bear arms, not just a common militia!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!
Now address the issue dchuk: How do we overthrow an oppressive regime that comes to power after obomba regulates all our guns to oblivion?
...Seems they serve a mighty important function in society afterall, just by their existence.
The militia, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, was seen as all members of the country, as our military basically didn't exist and was composed of a bunch of regional militias. Here's an excerpt of George Mason explaining this:
The 2nd amendment was written in a time when our country's only means to protect itself was to arm the populace. I think it's safe to say things have changed a little bit (just like how we can't buy and sell black people anymore) and now that we do have a well regulated militia in the form of the Military.
Now, why is it ok to have a well regulated Military but not a well regulated general population of gun owners?
I don't really know what that phrase is supposed to mean. When I think of hiding behind a gun I think of cops who abuse their power and scumbag criminals. I don't think of the average person who owns firearms for hunting or self-defense.
If a gun's used for hunting the person using it isn't hiding behind it. They're using it as a tool to acquire calories. And if they're using it for self-defense then I guess you can call that hiding but that's like calling someone out for speeding when they're rushing someone who's dying to the hospital.
What do you mean hiding behind a gun?
See, off your meds.
You have backtracked from saying there is no good reason to having a gun regardless of the situation, to now saying you simply need to be licensed to own a gun. And no it's not sunny right now, actually the weather has been shit the past couple of days.
INB4youpullanotherbutthurti'moutpost
You're right, things have changed... We've gone from our government arming the troops only for DEFENSE to now only arming them for OFFENSE.
Things have changed too much, methinks. The founding fathers, Mr. Mason included, would lead the march against washington today... Yet you want to give washington more power against us. Just wow.
Frankly I don't want a well regulated military either, but maybe you're asking the wrong guy that question.
But again, I see that you have avoided the bigger issue here:
Is this scenario just so far fetched to you that you refuse to answer it because it sounds like conspiracy theory to you?
If so, please explain the genesis of all other civilizations to date.
In most places, that is exactly how it works. That nutcase in Connecticut was not able to legally go buy a gun, so he had to murder his mother and steal them. His mothers guns were all licensed and registered. Someone like me who has a criminal record is not allowed to have a gun, so believe me there are a ton of regulations regarding firearms.
So what you are arguing for is already the case in most places. Also like I said previously, violent crime is at it's lowest level in 40 years despite how the media tries to portray it.
I think I outlined pretty clearly two different situations in which privately owned firearms serve a benefit to society. The fact that you don't think either of those situations could ever apply to you is probably part of the reason you keep insisting that there are no legitimate uses for firearms, and I get that.
I don't drink alcohol, and I don't think it does people a lot of good, in fact, I think it does people a lot of harm. However, just because I have no use for a bottle of whiskey, and I don't think it benefits society in any appreciable way doesn't mean that I'm going to assume to know best, and rush to legislate/regulate alcohol sales based on my own personal judgement. That's the difference here.
I don't think I know what is best for other people, and I don't have any desire to impose my will on them by restricting their rights to acquire property as they see fit, and you do.
Claiming to be "acting for the greater good of society" is just a cheap way of justifying a moral bias, dchuk, and it's fine if you want to do that. Just be honest about it, and admit that you think you know more about how to improve the lives of the 350 million people that live in America than the owners of those lives themselves.
Interesting side-note.
The deadliest school massacre in American history was in 1927.
There was one gunshot fired from a hunting rifle to detonate the 2nd round of explosives packed into his car.
Free Range Kids » Why the Sandy Hook Shooting Feels So Close
The reality is, if someone wants to commit unthinkable violence on a massive scale, there are easier and far more effective ways to do so than guns. Molotov cocktails. Pipe bombs. IED's. They can all be created for less than the price of a gun. They could poison food or water. They could suffocate people with toxic gas. The list is endless.
And without guns, citizens are doomed to be victims. Whether an attacker is using a gun or home-made bombs - unarmed civilians have zero chance of stopping them.
Furthermore, every gun law in CT (5th strictest in the country) WORKED. The guns were stolen, not legally purchased. The only person carrying weapons in the "gun free zone" was the shooter.
And when the police finally showed up to try and stop it, they all had guns.
The deadliest school massacre in American history was in 1927.
There was one gunshot fired from a hunting rifle to detonate the 2nd round of explosives packed into his car.
Free Range Kids » Why the Sandy Hook Shooting Feels So Close
The reality is, if someone wants to commit unthinkable violence on a massive scale, there are easier and far more effective ways to do so than guns. Molotov cocktails. Pipe bombs. IED's. They can all be created for less than the price of a gun. They could poison food or water. They could suffocate people with toxic gas. The list is endless.
And without guns, citizens are doomed to be victims. Whether an attacker is using a gun or home-made bombs - unarmed civilians have zero chance of stopping them.
Furthermore, every gun law in CT (5th strictest in the country) WORKED. The guns were stolen, not legally purchased. The only person carrying weapons in the "gun free zone" was the shooter.
And when the police finally showed up to try and stop it, they all had guns.
Yes, let's form more government agencies. Just like the Drug Enforcement Agency enforces drug laws, amirite?
1) I see no reason for guns, but I understand that some people like them, so I think a compromise is to increase regulation and safety training for gun owners. This isn't difficult to understand.
2) show some class and keep the personal attacks out of this. This is the Internet, no need to get personal
Yes, let's form more government agencies. Just like the Drug Enforcement Agency enforces drug laws, amirite?
So do you think the DMV is an unnecessary government agency?
Again, without comparing crime rates to gun sales or ownership levels it's all a moot point. If gun sales remained the same or increased then I will accept the data but until then it's not really proving anything in this argument
Are you going to tell me that we couldn't save an incredible amount of lives if people didn't get drunk?
If we could prevent people from drinking to excess, we would see the most incredible reduction in not only drunk driving fatalities, but also assaults and murders, not to mention deaths from alcohol related diseases like cirrhosis, and cancer. The loss of life due to excessive alcohol consumption FAR outnumbers the deaths caused by firearms. In fact, there are more drunk driving fatalities alone than there are homicides by firearm in the USA every year. Why aren't you calling for some kind of legislation to make it more difficult for people to get drunk? Nobody NEEDS to get drunk, and it doesn't serve any beneficial purpose for society, and we could save a lot of innocent lives if we just made it a little more difficult for people to drink as much as they want to.
By your rationale of "protecting the public", a law against excessive consumption would make perfect sense. It's a real public health issue, and since people don't have enough sense to decide for themselves when they've had enough to drink, the government should do it for them.
You aren't arguing for this though, either because you don't realize how serious a problem it is, or you don't care about the deaths caused by excessive alcohol consumption, or you don't think the government should have a right to tell people how much they can drink because you like to have a few now and then. I'm not really sure.
I'm not asking for stricter controls on alcohol because I don't look to restrict the rights of other people to do what they want to do with their bodies and their lives, regardless of whether I agree with their choices.
Last edited: