I <3 Irony.

Status
Not open for further replies.
that's not a great defence for keeping any guns, cali. you do not need assault shotguns or fully automatic weapons. there isnt a rational argument. and since you cant hunt cows or chickens or sheep, maybe you dont need the ability to hunt for your meat after all? :O
 
Alex Mason said:
tumblr_mgfs3i8xQk1qin3heo1_400.png
Click to expand...

So you're advocating that we have no laws at all?
 
You can buy turkey and deer from shops now. You can buy rabbit and kangaroo and any meat you want and there is almost always an organic alternative so there are no perservatives or green/pink slime in them.

Anyway, I think all guns should be banned except for guns for police and stuff but I doubt that would happen in america, so what I think they should do is ban ridiculous guns but allow people to have a handgun ONLY if they pass a VERY extensive psychological test. Same with farmers who need a bigger gun to 'hunt for food' or protect their flock.

ONLY people who pass these tests and go through training should be allowed to own any kind of gun. Not just anyone off the street who suddenly decides they need a gun for whatever reason.
 
a cow is the only animal you will get beef from. you can buy meat from a butcher and it wont be loaded with pink slime. whatever that is.

find me an assault shotgun that's the same as a hunting shotgun. defend the need for a fully automatic weapon. and the fact still stands that your right to hunt for your own meat is allowing people to infringe on other peoples' right to life. is that acceptable? is your right to hunt for meat or defend your home more important than anyone else's right to live? :hmmm:
 
Why not at the very least limit ammo capacity. No land animal in the United States requires the hunter to unload a 30 bullet magazine into it for it to die.
 
Alex Mason said:
Are you advocating that we should have too many laws? :hal: (oh btw totally besides the point)
Click to expand...

You said that criminals will break gun laws, therefore we should not create gun laws.

By that logic, criminals will break tax laws, so we should not create tax laws.

Criminals will break drug laws, so we should not create drug laws.

Criminals will break laws, so we should not create laws.

So you're advocating lawlessness. It's fine if you do, I just think you should own it instead of dancing around it.
 
youre getting the hang of it (y)

pointing out other issues doesn't solve the issue of guns, however. please feel free and totally unobliged to answer the question though. is it more important?
 
How would putting a cap on the amount of ammo stop criminals from still killing people if putting a ban on certain guns wont do anything? :hmmm:
 
Alex Mason said:
That's at least logical. :hmmm:


Also, again--people may not trust the meat they can get at a butchers. you can't force them to eat something they don't want to. it's their right to decide what they consume.


Is the right to drink more important than the someone being killed in a drunken-crash? Is the right to smoke more important than someone getting sick or dying from second-hand smoke?
Click to expand...

Right but surely you should encourage butchers to stop selling whatever this pink slime is and not telling people to find a gun and shoot their dinner? The smoking thing has been addressed here you're not allowed to smoke in public areas I'm not sure if it's the same over there.
 
Alex Mason said:
I'm not coming up with this logic. It's yours. Tell me, can I throw the little piece of paper that says the criminal can't own a gun at the person trying to rape or kill me? will it do 999999999999999 damage to them? will i get a super duper-serge of power and get a limit break and go all super-man on their ass?

what will this magical law do when a criminal obtains a gun through illegal means and uses it to harm me or my family? :ohoho: what are the magical words that i should chant when i am stripped of my gun because big-brother said it's "safer this way and I am faced with someone aiming a .44 at me? :ohoho: tell me o mighty knower!
Click to expand...

Why would you be stripped of your gun? I don't remember saying nobody could ever have a gun. But that's a deflection anyway. Why are we not allowed to regulate guns when the 2nd Amendment clearly states that it wants a "well-regulated militia"?
 
have you ever been raped, or has your house ever been robbed? has anyone ever tried to kill you? do you personally know anyone who this has happened to? are you suggesting that the gun is insurance? and do you think it's ok to shoot and kill someone who is trying to rape or kill you or rob your house?

as a christian should you not be avoiding murder?
 
Squidward said:
How would putting a cap on the amount of ammo stop criminals from still killing people if putting a ban on certain guns wont do anything? :hmmm:
Click to expand...

Putting a cap on ammo would outlaw most if not all the rifles and sub machine guns designed specifically for warfare which in turn would make such massacres much harder to pull off.
 
makes more logic than what? smaller mags just mean that someone can kill less people before reloading.

less guns means less deaths (at least by guns anyway).
 
You know, with all these gun debates, I think it's way too easy to forget why people who have been brought up by traditionalists cling to their guns like it's their pacemakers: America was founded by colonists who first felt oppressed (religiously) in their home countries, and then felt oppressed by the British Empire by getting taxed without representation, then very recently (historically speaking) needing to not only fight their former rulers but also each other in order to keep the country glued together. Once they got their freedom and constitution written, obviously the Founding Fathers didn't want the people to ever be oppressed again, so the constitution got amended to say that the people should have the right to form an organised militia in the event the government ever tried to instigate a dictatorship or in some other way subvert the democracy.

Over time, the "militia" part kinda faded out of common understanding, and now the second amendment is being held up as if it only says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" where in fact the full line says "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."

Personally, I think they ballsed up when they wrote that line. To put things into perspective; the most amount of work lawmakers in Norway currently have is clarifying (read: closing loop holes in) old laws that were written during times of great national unity, when the whole nation stood with one voice and one mind. Over time, people form their own opinions and agendas, and will exploit loop holes in the law in order to further their agendas. As they say, put 3 humans in a room and give them a topic of discussion then check in an hour later, you'll have 6 different opinions.

The way I choose to interpret the second amendment is that in the event that a militia needs to be formed to counteract a coup by the government, it will be illegal for the government to say "unless you plan to fight our army with pitch forks and brooms, you might as well sit the fuck down." because guns would be illegal for a militia.
The way a lot of Americans unfortunately choose to interpret the second amendment is that each individual has the right to be armed to the teeth wherever they go.

I'm not entirely sure why that is, if I'm honest. Nowhere in the second amendment is self-defence even mentioned. The second amendment was created to ensure that if enough people come together and form a civilian army (A.K.A. a militia), it is not illegal for them to arm themselves in such a way that they are able to fight their would-be oppressors. Sure, some states wrote it into their constitution that "the right to bear arms" also applied outside a well-regulated militia, but that is not present in the second amendment to the constitution of the country itself.

It's rather unfortunate that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the "well-regulated militia" part is actually optional. One could argue that that ruling was unconstitutional, but that's another debate for another time / thread :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top