0
Nataly

Who needs an AR-15???

Recommended Posts

kelpdiver

Personally I hate it more when people create threads but don't want to share their actual opinion, leaving us to guess and then just tell us we're wrong. Seems pointless.



I think I was pretty clear when I stated that I wasn't convinced banning them would *actually* make people safer, especially if the laws aren't or can't be enforced.

To me, it's pretty obvious a lot of people shouldn't own a gun - any gun. A lot of people also shouldn't be parents, but just as it's not for me to decide who should procreate, it's not for me to detect who is "safe" around weapons... I'm not sure how the US could be better at keeping firearms away from "crazy" people - especially when it's so easy to acquire one and so hard to determine who's crazy and who's just your average moron (but poses no danger to society).

Paradoxically, if nobody has a gun, nobody needs a gun to be safe. If everybody has a gun (and is prepared to use it), everybody needs a gun to be safe (but then no one is really safe). The ideal IMO is to have a balance where people are safe enough not to need a gun, but may have one "just in case" (or just for fun). Some US cities have LOADS of guns/riffles per person and nothing ever happens because people use them only for hunting and/or recreation. Some US slums have an especially high crime rate and you grow up with weapons not to shoot bambi, but to shoot people. :S One blanket rule for everyone is not going to magically fix all the gun-related problems... The US is a big and diverse country.

If there was a way to really restrict weapons that can be used in a mass shooting, (or keep them out of the hands of people who would commit a mass shooting), personally, I would rather give up some of my fun for the added safety (especially in areas with a high rate of gun-related crimes). But realistically, I don't see any obvious/effective/realistic solutions to achieve this.

Those people who quote "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"... Wow... I've been to places where there is A LOT more freedom than in the US and many of those people would LOVE to give up some freedoms in exchange for all the benefits of civilised/safe existance. True freedom comes with a heavy dose of selfishness/corruption/anarchy/chaos (not to mention poor health, poverty and low life expectancy), unfortunately. I know it's supposed to be the "land of the free" but you are sooooooo far from being free (in a good way) it's not even funny. And thank goodness for that, too... Lawlessness is great for some, but pretty shitty for most.

Yes, I do have experience with guns. C-7, glock.22, AK47, .22 LR, C-8, 12 gauge double barrel shotgun, to name a few. Was selected in 2004 to represent my country in the military shooting competitions with both the C-7 and the glock.22 (but as I resigned from the military in January 2005 and the international competition was in Scotland a couple of months after my exit date I was replaced). Much like I haven't jumped in a few years, I haven't shot in a few years. So I'm not current and I'm not a gun-geek, but I also don't need people explaining to me how they work, thanks.
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Paradoxically, if nobody has a gun, nobody needs a gun to be safe



You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. If no one had guns then the physically weak would be subject to the physically strong. That is because the weaponry available would knives, swords, bludgeoning weapons and bow and arrows. Other then the bow and arrow or crossbow, the others require physical strength and agility. The firearm doesn't.

Although the bow and arrow or the crossbow do require more strength then a firearm. Many bows require quite a bit of upper body strength as do crossbows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

Quote

Paradoxically, if nobody has a gun, nobody needs a gun to be safe



You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. If no one had guns then the physically weak would be subject to the physically strong. That is because the weaponry available would knives, swords, bludgeoning weapons and bow and arrows. Other then the bow and arrow or crossbow, the others require physical strength and agility. The firearm doesn't.

Although the bow and arrow or the crossbow do require more strength then a firearm. Many bows require quite a bit of upper body strength as do crossbows.



Agreed.

Thank god for guns, now hardly anyone takes advantage of the weak.

Back when all they had was Bow and Arrow, lots more weak people got taken advantage of.

What a salient point.

P.S Has anyone seen my 300 Megaton Nuke, I have it you know....to protect myself against the strong! Just watched a really interesting documentary about the Nuke race. Funny most of the arguments you guys use to justify why more/bigger/deadlier weapons are 'needed' is the same reason they have for building more/bigger/deadlier bombs.

You guys must be right.

I know the consensus is that thousands of nuclear weapons makes the world safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignugget

***

Quote

Paradoxically, if nobody has a gun, nobody needs a gun to be safe



You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. If no one had guns then the physically weak would be subject to the physically strong. That is because the weaponry available would knives, swords, bludgeoning weapons and bow and arrows. Other then the bow and arrow or crossbow, the others require physical strength and agility. The firearm doesn't.

Although the bow and arrow or the crossbow do require more strength then a firearm. Many bows require quite a bit of upper body strength as do crossbows.



Agreed.

Thank god for guns, now hardly anyone takes advantage of the weak.

Back when all they had was Bow and Arrow, lots more weak people got taken advantage of.

What a salient point.

P.S Has anyone seen my 300 Megaton Nuke, I have it you know....to protect myself against the strong! Just watched a really interesting documentary about the Nuke race. Funny most of the arguments you guys use to justify why more/bigger/deadlier weapons are 'needed' is the same reason they have for building more/bigger/deadlier bombs.

You guys must be right.

I know the consensus is that thousands of nuclear weapons makes the world safer.


There are plenty of stories of firearms being used by physically weak people to defend themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agreed with you and said you made a great salient point.

I am sure that MANY MANY MANY fewer weak people are now taken advantage of because of guns.

That is why I am arguing for giving weak, small, relatively defenseless countries nuclear weapons.

North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc etc. It makes everyone safer if the weak, small, defenseless have means to defend themselves.

Amen brother, Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignugget

I agreed with you and said you made a great salient point.

I am sure that MANY MANY MANY fewer weak people are now taken advantage of because of guns.

That is why I am arguing for giving weak, small, relatively defenseless countries nuclear weapons.

North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc etc. It makes everyone safer if the weak, small, defenseless have means to defend themselves.

Amen brother, Amen.



nice try, but that wasn't my point. That just makes you a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignugget

I agreed with you and said you made a great salient point.

I am sure that MANY MANY MANY fewer weak people are now taken advantage of because of guns.

That is why I am arguing for giving weak, small, relatively defenseless countries nuclear weapons.

North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc etc. It makes everyone safer if the weak, small, defenseless have means to defend themselves.

Amen brother, Amen.



If you really mean what you say in this post, you should take Old Glory off your profile. You shame what it means to be American.

If you didn't, then it's trolling as usual. :S
lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignugget

I agreed with you and said you made a great salient point.

I am sure that MANY MANY MANY fewer weak people are now taken advantage of because of guns.

That is why I am arguing for giving weak, small, relatively defenseless countries nuclear weapons.

North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc etc. It makes everyone safer if the weak, small, defenseless have means to defend themselves.

Amen brother, Amen.



I think you need to take a class in nuclear nonproliferation. I think you would be surprised at what you might learn. Your pontificating on this topic make you look no more educated than those on guns.
Propblast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldwomanc6

***I agreed with you and said you made a great salient point.

I am sure that MANY MANY MANY fewer weak people are now taken advantage of because of guns.

That is why I am arguing for giving weak, small, relatively defenseless countries nuclear weapons.

North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc etc. It makes everyone safer if the weak, small, defenseless have means to defend themselves.

Amen brother, Amen.



If you really mean what you say in this post, you should take Old Glory off your profile. You shame what it means to be American.

If you didn't, then it's trolling as usual. :S

What does it mean to be American to you?

More specifically, what about my statement makes me unamerican in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly

if nobody has a gun, nobody needs a gun to be safe.



Incorrect.

That would be survival of the fittest. The strong would prey upon the weak with immunity.

A gun in the hands of the weak makes them the equal of the strong, and protects the weak from being preyed upon.

Which of those two worlds do you want to live in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who needs the right to free speech?

Who needs the right to be free from illegal search?

Who needs the right to be tried by a jury?

Who needs the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?

Who needs the right to a speedy trial?

Answer these and you have your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly


Paradoxically, if nobody has a gun, nobody needs a gun to be safe. If everybody has a gun (and is prepared to use it), everybody needs a gun to be safe (but then no one is really safe).



What would you say to the thousands of women who use guns to defend themselves every year? (hint: they're not being threatened with a gun)
Should they be forced to use a less effective tool to defend themselves? or worse, submit?

Quote

The ideal IMO is to have a balance where people are safe enough not to need a gun, but may have one "just in case" (or just for fun)



That involves crime control, not gun control, but I like the idea. Guns for folks that want them, minimal crime, and liberty as far as the eye can see. That's for me.

Quote

One blanket rule for everyone is not going to magically fix all the gun-related problems... The US is a big and diverse country.



That's another reason why folks don't want federal laws for guns. Let states do it as they please, as long as they respect the second amendment (just like they have to respect the others).
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
propblast

***A) Is there a class called nuclear non-proliferation?

B) If so, is the lesson that more nukes makes us safer?



Yes

And believe it or not,


Yes.


So what are we disagreeing about?

We agree more nukes makes us safer, like more guns make us safer.

That's why North Korea, Botswana, Burma, Vietnam, The Isle of Man, Chile, Ecuador, etc etc all need nukes.

I think we are on the same page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation#Arguments_for_and_against_proliferation


According to Wiki we are the "Total Proliferation" guys.

"In embryo, Waltz argues that the logic of mutually assured destruction (MAD) should work in all security environments, regardless of historical tensions or recent hostility. He sees the Cold War as the ultimate proof of MAD logic – the only occasion when enmity between two Great Powers did not result in military conflict. This was, he argues, because nuclear weapons promote caution in decision-makers. Neither Washington nor Moscow would risk nuclear Armageddon to advance territorial or power goals, hence a peaceful stalemate ensued (Waltz and Sagan (2003), p. 24). Waltz believes there to be no reason why this effect would not occur in all circumstances."


The same applies to guns.

Lets proliferate our asses off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think what you like, but you would be wrong in this case. Where I live the need for a gun in self defense is so vanishingly small that it's not worth the effort. There are a million other things I can do to make my family and myself safer that would be more worthwhile.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stumpy

Think what you like, but you would be wrong in this case. Where I live the need for a gun in self defense is so vanishingly small that it's not worth the effort. There are a million other things I can do to make my family and myself safer that would be more worthwhile.



lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattjw916

Quote

Thats why there should be 0 guns



Um yeah, good luck with that.



Most of the time he lives in some liberal fantisy land

Maybe just to visit the professor
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"- Finally: rights... These are not rights. They are laws/privileges. And they can be taken away. Nobody can take away a right. Please don't bring up semantics... The fact is that your laws currently prohibit things that used to be rights - like owning a slave... And thank goodness this is no longer the case. Your "right" to bare arms can also be taken away if too many people abuse it."

Approximantely 160 years ago and back, owning slaves was legal. Today, it is illegal. The ban on slavery is not only codified in State Law but Federal Law as well...and this ban is further clarified in Amendment 13 of the US Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

The important part of the preamble to the first ten amendments reads as follows:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adoption of thethe Constitution, expresseda desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declatory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficient ends of its institution.

The preamble further goes on to define the conditions under which The Constitution can be amended i.e. Amendments added or deleted.

The Second Amendment is still in force. It is both a RIGHT and it is LAW. The only way this right and law can be removed and something new take its place is through the process stated in the preamble. The government can try to repeal the Second Amendment but it would be very very very very unwise to do so and I'll just leave it at that. Amending the Constitution is much harder than passing regular laws.

We are a governed people here in America NOT a ruled people. Note recent statistics for the State of Virginia, firearms sales are up 100% but violent crime DOWN 28%. We dont have the violent crime problem of Maryland and Washingto D.C. Virginia is a "shall issue state." This means an adult over 21 years of age with no criminal record can apply and receive a concealed carry permit...those are the only conditions. Criminals are wary, they don't know if their target is packing or not and are deterred from engaging in violent criminal behavior. Guess what, deterence works. An armed citizenry deters criminals and it deters govenrments from abusing the citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0