Ask me about Communism.

[Oblarg]

For every one time a legally owned gun is used in self defense, there are about 5 murders involving firearms.

 

Don't give me the "self defense" bull****, there would be fewer gun related deaths if guns were more tightly regulated. To deny this is stupidity.

 

A firearm is just a tool. If a person hellbent on murder didn't have a firearm he would use a different tool. A bat, a knife, or even a spork if needed. Do not blame the tool. Blame the one using the tool.

 

 

Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people?

[I want teh kotor 3]

For every one time a legally owned gun is used in self defense, there are about 5 murders involving firearms.

 

Don't give me the "self defense" bull****, there would be fewer gun related deaths if guns were more tightly regulated. To deny this is stupidity.

 

A firearm is just a tool. If a person hellbent on murder didn't have a firearm he would use a different tool. A bat, a knife, or even a spork if needed. Do not blame the tool. Blame the one using the tool.

 

 

Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people?

 

Because even if they're illegal, the nutcases who want to kill you will have them, or something else. Also, I'm pretty goddamn sure knives are weapons.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people?

 

Because it is our right to protect ourselves from anyone who seeks us harm. Even the government. That is the purpose of the Second Amendment.

[Oblarg]

Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people?

 

Because it is our right to protect ourselves from anyone who seeks us harm. Even the government. That is the purpose of the Second Amendment.

 

Sorry, that reasoning became obsolete after the civil war. Are you a member of a well-regulated, state-government run militia? Because that's what the second amendment was intended to do - give states the ability to keep a well-regulated militia as a check on the federal government's power, and that ceased to be an issue with the change of focus from a collection of states to a nation at the end of the civil war. The second amendment is not intended to protect an individual's right to "protect himself against the evil government" at all, and if you think that you are abysmally ignorant of your own nation's history.

 

Oh, and here you go, back to the self-defense claim. The self-defense argument has been thoroughly debunked time and time again, you're more likely to be killed by a gun if you own a gun than if you don't.

[Killian Kalthorne]

If the Federal Government tries to take away our freedoms detailed in the Bill of Rights then there will be militias out their that will fight it and every freedom loving American should support them. I will not give up a single freedom that I have without a fight to the death. If a government fails its people then it is the right of the people to take out that government by whatever means necessary.

[Oblarg]

If the Federal Government tries to take away our freedoms detailed in the Bill of Rights then there will be militias out their that will fight it and every freedom loving American should support them. I will not give up a single freedom that I have without a fight to the death. If a government fails its people then it is the right of the people to take out that government by whatever means necessary.

 

Oh, so you're one of those...

 

I suppose you also think amendments to the constitution are worthy of revolt, too? It's mind-boggling that someone could actually think that rights contained a document written 200+ years ago are infallible. Your "rights" are nothing more than a social phenomenon that makes the society as a whole more stable and productive; when those same rights become ineffectual due to changing conditions, there is no divine mandate that you should be able to keep them.

 

Oh, and there's still no constitutional right to own a gun for the purpose of rebelling against the government. Sorry.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Lets take a look at it shall we.

 

"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."

 

A regulated militia, not necessary ran by the state, but in order maintain the security and freedom of that State. If the freedoms and security of the people of that State are infringed by the Federal Government then it is the right of that militia to fight the Federal government. The second part of the amendment states that we, the people of this country, have the right to keep and bear arms. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[Oblarg]

Lets take a look at it shall we.

 

"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."

 

A reuglated militia, not necessary ran by the state, but in order maintain the security and freedom of that State. If the freedoms and security of the people of that State are infringed by the Federal Government then it is the right of that militia to fight the Federal government. The second part of the amendment states that we, the people of this country, has the right to keep and bear arms. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

"being necessary to the security of a free State."

 

Sure sounds like it's intended to protect State's rights and not individual rights to me. I think you need to take US history again, bud.

[Killian Kalthorne]

You have your interpretation, and I have mine. I'll use mine, thank you so very much.

[Oblarg]

You have your interpretation, and I have mine. I'll use mine, thank you so very much.

 

"I'm tired of losing, so I'm going to tip the board over."

 

Very mature.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Actually Oblarg, looking at American history, and more specifically the DoI, the Founding Fathers specifically desired that the people be free to rebel against an unjust government.

[lord of flies]

Actually Oblarg, looking at American history, and more specifically the DoI, the Founding Fathers specifically desired that the people be free to rebel against an unjust government.

History has shown army defections as far more vital to revolutions against unjust governments than poorly trained paramilitary ****heads.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Actually Oblarg, looking at American history, and more specifically the DoI, the Founding Fathers specifically desired that the people be free to rebel against an unjust government.

History has shown army defections as far more vital to revolutions against unjust governments than poorly trained paramilitary ****heads.

 

I can't argue against that. However, army defections that can use militias and absorb them into their structure can become stronger.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Actually Oblarg, looking at American history, and more specifically the DoI, the Founding Fathers specifically desired that the people be free to rebel against an unjust government.

History has shown army defections as far more vital to revolutions against unjust governments than poorly trained paramilitary ****heads.

 

I'm not going to deny that, but I'm not entirely sure how that follows from my post.

[Walsingham]

I have to say, after having studied and interviewed the militias that they would be as successful in going up against US Army regulars or even staties as the girl scouts.

[Meshugger]

For every one time a legally owned gun is used in self defense, there are about 5 murders involving firearms.

 

Don't give me the "self defense" bull****, there would be fewer gun related deaths if guns were more tightly regulated. To deny this is stupidity.

 

A firearm is just a tool. If a person hellbent on murder didn't have a firearm he would use a different tool. A bat, a knife, or even a spork if needed. Do not blame the tool. Blame the one using the tool.

 

 

Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people?

 

To give some perspective of things, while i was serving in the military, we were always instructed on "incapacitating" the enemy when training with our assault rifles and machine guns. Not once did any superior officer say that we should kill, murder or slaughter the enemy.

 

To put it more frankly, our objectives as soldiers were to render the enemy incapable to do more fighting. If we happen to kill the enemy soldier in battle, then we do. The same could be achieved by shooting his arms, legs or him simply giving up.

[lord of flies]

To give some perspective of things, while i was serving in the military, we were always instructed on "incapacitating" the enemy when training with our assault rifles and machine guns. Not once did any superior officer say that we should kill, murder or slaughter the enemy.

 

To put it more frankly, our objectives as soldiers were to render the enemy incapable to do more fighting. If we happen to kill the enemy soldier in battle, then we do. The same could be achieved by shooting his arms, legs or him simply giving up.

Massacre also renders the enemy incapable of fighting. It's interesting that this is still the logic used, considering "massacre is easier than battle" was one of the main reasons for the Native American genocide.

[Oblarg]

For every one time a legally owned gun is used in self defense, there are about 5 murders involving firearms.

 

Don't give me the "self defense" bull****, there would be fewer gun related deaths if guns were more tightly regulated. To deny this is stupidity.

 

A firearm is just a tool. If a person hellbent on murder didn't have a firearm he would use a different tool. A bat, a knife, or even a spork if needed. Do not blame the tool. Blame the one using the tool.

 

 

Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people?

 

To give some perspective of things, while i was serving in the military, we were always instructed on "incapacitating" the enemy when training with our assault rifles and machine guns. Not once did any superior officer say that we should kill, murder or slaughter the enemy.

 

To put it more frankly, our objectives as soldiers were to render the enemy incapable to do more fighting. If we happen to kill the enemy soldier in battle, then we do. The same could be achieved by shooting his arms, legs or him simply giving up.

 

Let me generalize it further:

 

Why should you have the right to own something which is intended to harm other people when you don't have the right to harm other people?

[Trenitay]

Why should I have no right to own something intended to hurt people if I never have and never intend to hurt someone with it?

[Oblarg]

Why should I have no right to own something intended to hurt people if I never have and never intend to hurt someone with it?

 

Begs the question, why own it?

[Trenitay]

I use mine for trap shooting.

[Oerwinde]

Lets take a look at it shall we.

 

"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."

 

A regulated militia, not necessary ran by the state, but in order maintain the security and freedom of that State. If the freedoms and security of the people of that State are infringed by the Federal Government then it is the right of that militia to fight the Federal government. The second part of the amendment states that we, the people of this country, have the right to keep and bear arms. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

It doesn't state which arms you have the right to bear. So if the government decides to ban everything but single shot bolt action rifles its entirely constitutional.

[Guard Dog]

Ok, you guys can just forget about Gun Control. The SCOTUS took that up in 2007 in DC v. Heller. The Court held that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment."

 

Stare decisis. That is settled law. The government is not going to come take everyones guns away unless the hold a match to the Constitution first. It will be a generation or more before that issue is taken up again. The previous Gun Control ruling was in 1938. So forget about gun control. It will never happen.

 

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

[Guard Dog]

Let me generalize it further:

 

Why should you have the right to own something which is intended to harm other people when you don't have the right to harm other people?

 

Hunting, self defense, target shooting, collecting (I have three antiques one of which saw actual service with the Union Navy during the Civil War, it is priceless).

 

I don't like this whole conept of someone else telling me "No you can't do/have/say/think/read/believe this thing because "I" don't think you should!" You are simply imposing you will or morality on someone else using the law as a means of forcible coercion. If you are oppsed to firearm ownership, don't buy one. It is not for you to tell somone else what they can or cannot do. Personally I am against abortion but I do not think it should be illegal. I think it's immoral and would not participate in one without medical necessity but I believe everyone must decide for themselves what is right or wrong for them. If someone else decided to get one I would not stop them and I would try tp prevent someone else from stopping them even though I believe it's wrong. Personal freedom is the single most important thing in the world. We MUST all be free to choose our own path in life, even if it leads to ruin.

 

Suppose i decided that the internet is a dangerous and immoral thing and that no one should have free unrestricted access to it? Now suppose I had the political power to impose that morality on everyone else, and did so? Do you think that would be a good thing? Even if you did not use the internet would it be a good thing? Try to cram this concept into that narrow little closed mind of yours, totalitarianisim is not much fun when you find yourself on the recieving end of it. And sooner or later, everyone under it does. Communisim IS totalitarian. Even Marx said it must be inescapable. Those fences and walls in Europe were meant to keep people in, not out. I strongly suggest you think about that.

[Meshugger]

For every one time a legally owned gun is used in self defense, there are about 5 murders involving firearms.

 

Don't give me the "self defense" bull****, there would be fewer gun related deaths if guns were more tightly regulated. To deny this is stupidity.

 

A firearm is just a tool. If a person hellbent on murder didn't have a firearm he would use a different tool. A bat, a knife, or even a spork if needed. Do not blame the tool. Blame the one using the tool.

 

 

Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people?

 

To give some perspective of things, while i was serving in the military, we were always instructed on "incapacitating" the enemy when training with our assault rifles and machine guns. Not once did any superior officer say that we should kill, murder or slaughter the enemy.

 

To put it more frankly, our objectives as soldiers were to render the enemy incapable to do more fighting. If we happen to kill the enemy soldier in battle, then we do. The same could be achieved by shooting his arms, legs or him simply giving up.

 

Let me generalize it further:

 

Why should you have the right to own something which is intended to harm other people when you don't have the right to harm other people?

 

There is no definitive answer to that, and you know it. Who should decide what is "intended for harm"? There's no absolute in that, only relative and compromise. That's why you don't see Toyotas with turrets on the roof or burglaralarms that fire rocketpropelled grenades. Laws have been created to reflect on that, societies and civilizations has thriwed on those compromises.

 

The question however, lies in changing the nature of man(hurrr). Warfare is an extreme form conflict that is extrapolated from our desire to compete, win and pass on our genes for the next generation.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Meshugger