propblast
I would counter your point about cars with a point.
Do we ban the ownership of fast or sport autos?
Nope.
And police buy these weapons as civilians. They buy those weapons using civilian funds(personal) for a variety of reasons.
We control access to fast cars. Via prohibitive cost, licensing and insurance requirements and laws prohibiting dangerous operation.
Evidence supporting my conclusion that guns are a better weapon of death than a fast car:
Columbine
Aurora
Jonesboro
The Senator who got shot in the face
the little school kids
etc
etc
etc
None of those killers sat down and decided a Ferrari was the way to go about killing their targets.
Maybe you know better than me WHY they chose the gun over the Ferrari (or the parachute which could also be used to kill someone)?
lawrocket[Reply]Why *would* any civilian need these?
Rights aren't about satisfying a person's need? It's like asking, "why do you need to ask this question?" You don't NEED to ask it. But you CAN. You WANTED to. And preventing a person from something because that person doesn't "need" it is a pretty dangerous thing.
Who "needs" to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Who "needs" to have the right to petition? Answer - NOBODY.
It's about a right. Not a need. Not a desire. A right.
To be sure I understand your position:
If there was no 2nd amendment, you would not hold this opinion?
The same is done with guns.
Propblast
Bignugget***
I know many that put food on the table with them.
(Really, without Ar-15s families would perish from starvation?)
They are well suited for that purpose.
I know thousands of folks that compete with them in healthy safe competition. Men, women and children. In fact some of the nicest folks and most well behaved kids I have seen at Civilian Marsksmanship events.
(Awesome, so control their access, hence the phrase 'Gun Control'. I have no problem with you teaching your kids how to use a gun safely and then practicing that skill in a fun competition setting.)
Many practice with them to be proficient at work. Either Law Enforcement or other.
(Perfect. Since I dont have one of those jobs, I dont need one, or access to one.)
They are a tool. They have a positive purpose.
In a lot of ways they are like a parachute. You don't *need* one of those either. They can get folks killed if used improperly. They can kill others if used improperly.
(They can't kill massive numbers of people in short time frames like guns, but I suppose they can kill an innocent person if used improperly by someone else)
If used correctly they provide a healthy source of entertainment, which is important to the human spirit.
(Lol really? I think we could find something to substitute for your spirit.)
I would agree with your last statement that banning them doesn't make anyone safer.
(Agreed. Making them actually go away would make people safer.)
I do think the issue gets charged.
(Agreed)
I once asked a friend whom was Greek. ( we were both cave divers why she wanted to ban guns because of the acts of a few criminals) why she was so supportive of taking tools away from the law abiding. This was after she had found out that one of our favorite cave diving spots was going to be banned due to vandals and a death due to a untrained and but licensed person getting in their. She was adamant about personal responsibility and choice, and upset that anyone would take that away from her in reference to cave diving. I told her that was how many felt about semi auto firearms.
She sat quiet for about 30 minutes during our drive and then agreed with me on guns. She said thinking of it that way really changed her mind. She just needed a comparison that made sense. This was a friend who for 5 years maintained that weapons should be banned. It was interesting to see the change.
(Unfortunately you may be responsible enough to cave dive in that spot, but since there are idiots who aren't responsible, you lost the access. Same with guns, only instead of just drowning yourself, you have the ability to shoot 30 kids first)
Modern weapons are built well and are safe. They can provide one of the necessities of life: Food.
(Cmon. Really? We live in 2013, not in Frontier times. Shop N Save can probably provide the food more cheaply than hunting)
The provide entertainment.
(So do strippers)
They provide safety.
(Not for the guy getting his face shot off they don't, or the kids at the many schools that have been shot to fuck)
-propblast
I don't want to offend you but I do think you have a very narrow viewpoint on life.
Propblast
rushmc 18
Nataly***Whats need got to do with anything? Why do you buy lipstick? Nothing to do with need, you just want it amnd there nothing wrong with that.
Not a great example... When's the last time 71 people in a cinema were attacked/injured/killed by a woman armed with lipstick??
what does this have to do with and ar 15?
He could have killed and wounded more with a Remington 1100
But in the end, the gun had nothing to do with it
the person does
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Hi Nataly,
try explain a whuffo why you like skydiving, he/she can't just get it.
I'd love to own a F-18 just to dogfight with friends or an F1 car to feel the rush.
I love weapons because they are just cool! I use them in the military, I like them for the fun of shooting at the range, I keep them for home self defense too.
Give an F-18 to an idiot and he will kill people with that, let a average guy drive a F1 car on the freeway, same shit!
If you think to the AR-15 or whatever weapon, not as the weapon but at as general object that brings satisfaction to your soul, you can see that all the above "toys" I mentioned above, are the same things with the same purpose, (removing the reason why they have been created for a specific task).
One thing to add is that also weapons have a certain political and sociological role in our society, unlike the Lamborghini or the private jet or whatever "toy" you can think, that's why the word "assault rifle" triggers so many emotions and thoughts.
My opinion is that people not accustomed and/or uneducated with weapons, will always see the dark side of that, same like non skydivers or non BASE jumpers will see some stupidity and unnecessary risk in our activities.
try explain a whuffo why you like skydiving, he/she can't just get it.
I'd love to own a F-18 just to dogfight with friends or an F1 car to feel the rush.
I love weapons because they are just cool! I use them in the military, I like them for the fun of shooting at the range, I keep them for home self defense too.
Give an F-18 to an idiot and he will kill people with that, let a average guy drive a F1 car on the freeway, same shit!
If you think to the AR-15 or whatever weapon, not as the weapon but at as general object that brings satisfaction to your soul, you can see that all the above "toys" I mentioned above, are the same things with the same purpose, (removing the reason why they have been created for a specific task).
One thing to add is that also weapons have a certain political and sociological role in our society, unlike the Lamborghini or the private jet or whatever "toy" you can think, that's why the word "assault rifle" triggers so many emotions and thoughts.
My opinion is that people not accustomed and/or uneducated with weapons, will always see the dark side of that, same like non skydivers or non BASE jumpers will see some stupidity and unnecessary risk in our activities.
The mind is like a parachute: If you don't open it, it doesn't work.
dmcoco84 4
I like that phrase... "That's a first world problem."
This is a first world thread.
This is a first world thread.
dmcoco84 4
Bignugget***
Rights aren't about satisfying a person's need? It's like asking, "why do you need to ask this question?" You don't NEED to ask it. But you CAN. You WANTED to. And preventing a person from something because that person doesn't "need" it is a pretty dangerous thing.
Who "needs" to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Who "needs" to have the right to petition? Answer - NOBODY.
It's about a right. Not a need. Not a desire. A right.
To be sure I understand your position:
If there was no 2nd amendment, you would not hold this opinion?
Reading is Fundamental
It is Time to Repeal the First Amendment:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4408061#4408061
Same Applies.
This picture sums up my feeling in regards to gun control.
MOLON LABE.
MOLON LABE.
Bignugget***[Reply]Why *would* any civilian need these?
Rights aren't about satisfying a person's need? It's like asking, "why do you need to ask this question?" You don't NEED to ask it. But you CAN. You WANTED to. And preventing a person from something because that person doesn't "need" it is a pretty dangerous thing.
Who "needs" to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Who "needs" to have the right to petition? Answer - NOBODY.
It's about a right. Not a need. Not a desire. A right.
To be sure I understand your position:
If there was no 2nd amendment, you would not hold this opinion?
No. My position is that the issue of "need" is irrelevant unless there is a dictator deciding what the "needs" are (I.e., Kim Jon I'll deciding that only the North Korean military "needs" food).
The queation is nonsensible. Think about it - who needs skydiving? Don't need it? Then let's not have it. Who needs pot? Nobody. Alcohol? Nobody needs it (short of those with chronic dependence but at a point in their lives they didn't need it). Who needs a motorcycle? A three bedroom house? A lawn. A backpack? A mobile phone? Access to the internet? An education? Air conditioning? A brassiere?
Human need only a few things. Food. Water. Shelter. Breathable air. Warmth. And a place to relieve oneself. Other than that, to suggest that something should not be available because it isn't "needed" is silly.
Who "needs" a blowjob? Nobody. And for a while there was a ban on the "infamous crime against nature." The "need" was limited to procreative sex and thherefore in missionary. There. Nothing else is "needed." We came to our senses and realized that it's not about "need." It's that people can do what they want.
The whole "needs" concept is extremist. Guns as a "need." No. A cop doesn't need a gun.
Unless it's a "need" then it's unnecessary? Who "needs" Piers Morgan? Nobody. So get rid of him, right?
No. Freedoms mean that we can meet our desires as well as our needs. If our desires harm others, then socety can lay down the hammer. Freedom has risks. Perhaps that's why people want to have guns.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Who "needs" a blowjob?
ME
devildog 0
Why? Well, aside from the freedom of having one (which in reality, it's not that scary of a weapon. There are plenty of hunting rifles that are far more powerful), and assuming you don't want to go down the route of you have the right to protect yourself from the government, the LA city riots are a prime example. The cops turned tail and RAN while people were robbed, brutalized and killed as mobs swept through the area. Koreans protected their shops with these scary "assault" rifles, and guess what? They managed to defend themselves quite well.
Now then, if we move to a more generic situation, any house should have one when considering general self defense. The AR-15 is easy to aim and has a low kick, which means you don't need to practice a lot to be decent with it. Moreover, if you have multiple intruders coming at you (armed especially), a 6 shot revolver isn't going to cut it if they want you dead. You'll *need* something with a much larger capacity, especially since the vast majority of bullets miss when it comes to shooting. A lady recently in GA shot an intruder 5 times (6th shot missed) and drove him off as she was hiding in her closet with her kid. The guy lived btw. Had there been just one other baddy, she'd have been in trouble as she would have had to reload. With an AR-15, not so much. Tap tap tap. Move to /prep for the next target.
Now then, if we move to a more generic situation, any house should have one when considering general self defense. The AR-15 is easy to aim and has a low kick, which means you don't need to practice a lot to be decent with it. Moreover, if you have multiple intruders coming at you (armed especially), a 6 shot revolver isn't going to cut it if they want you dead. You'll *need* something with a much larger capacity, especially since the vast majority of bullets miss when it comes to shooting. A lady recently in GA shot an intruder 5 times (6th shot missed) and drove him off as she was hiding in her closet with her kid. The guy lived btw. Had there been just one other baddy, she'd have been in trouble as she would have had to reload. With an AR-15, not so much. Tap tap tap. Move to /prep for the next target.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
[Reply]That is absolutely correct but for folks that bring emotion into the argue,net you have to try to show positive reasons(because all they see is the negative)
No. Sometimes it's reasonable to say that theyvmade up their minds, it is what it is, etc. I validate them - there is no "need." I agree.
But I also let it be known that "need" is not what I'm talking about. And perhaps if they quit confusing "needs" with "wants" they'd be a bit happier.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
lawrocket******[Reply]Why *would* any civilian need these?
Rights aren't about satisfying a person's need? It's like asking, "why do you need to ask this question?" You don't NEED to ask it. But you CAN. You WANTED to. And preventing a person from something because that person doesn't "need" it is a pretty dangerous thing.
Who "needs" to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Who "needs" to have the right to petition? Answer - NOBODY.
It's about a right. Not a need. Not a desire. A right.
To be sure I understand your position:
If there was no 2nd amendment, you would not hold this opinion?
No. My position is that the issue of "need" is irrelevant unless there is a dictator deciding what the "needs" are (I.e., Kim Jon I'll deciding that only the North Korean military "needs" food).
The queation is nonsensible. Think about it - who needs skydiving? Don't need it? Then let's not have it. Who needs pot? Nobody. Alcohol? Nobody needs it (short of those with chronic dependence but at a point in their lives they didn't need it). Who needs a motorcycle? A three bedroom house? A lawn. A backpack? A mobile phone? Access to the internet? An education? Air conditioning? A brassiere?
Human need only a few things. Food. Water. Shelter. Breathable air. Warmth. And a place to relieve oneself. Other than that, to suggest that something should not be available because it isn't "needed" is silly.
Who "needs" a blowjob? Nobody. And for a while there was a ban on the "infamous crime against nature." The "need" was limited to procreative sex and thherefore in missionary. There. Nothing else is "needed." We came to our senses and realized that it's not about "need." It's that people can do what they want.
The whole "needs" concept is extremist. Guns as a "need." No. A cop doesn't need a gun.
Unless it's a "need" then it's unnecessary? Who "needs" Piers Morgan? Nobody. So get rid of him, right?
No. Freedoms mean that we can meet our desires as well as our needs. If our desires harm others, then socety can lay down the hammer. Freedom has risks. Perhaps that's why people want to have guns.
TY for clarifying.
"If our desires harm others, then socety can lay down the hammer. Freedom has risks. Perhaps that's why people want to have guns."
No doubt.
That's why we have invented all sorts of horrible ways to kill each other. (bio/chem/nukes/electric chairs/injections/gassing etc etc). 'Laying the hammer down' as it were.
Pretty fucked up but I guess that's how freedom is meant to be.
Ill still live inside my narrow viewpoint of the world where I can get my food at Shop N Save, and no one has a "desire" to have a weapon capable of killing lots of little kids really fast. Just seems like a better version of freedom to me.
Rights aren't about satisfying a person's need? It's like asking, "why do you need to ask this question?" You don't NEED to ask it. But you CAN. You WANTED to. And preventing a person from something because that person doesn't "need" it is a pretty dangerous thing.
Who "needs" to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Who "needs" to have the right to petition? Answer - NOBODY.
It's about a right. Not a need. Not a desire. A right.
That is absolutely correct but for folks that bring emotion into the argue,net you have to try to show positive reasons(because all they see is the negative)
A right is a right. I never understand the argument.
I do understand the emotion.