Gun Control

[SWedd523]

I scanned over the first 5 or so pages of this thread and I see the same misleading usual arguments. The guns for teachers, bus drivers, air plane pilots blah blah is one of the stupidest most reckless ideas ever. Why do people assume that if everyone is armed that mass shooting won't end the way they usually end.

That's the same inane response every ignorant and/or anti-gun advocate makes.

Giving them the right to decide for themselves if they want to conceal carry is the supported position. NOT shoving a gun into each and every single one of the employees whether they like it or not. Repeat after me: "More guns does not equal everybody is armed"


And I find it ironic you make that statement days after the Atlanta school shooting was stopped by somebody with a gun and the article I linked to earlier gave the example of a coach potentially saving his and two young girls lives by having a gun.

Like the movie theater shooting. One of my co workers said if he had been there with his gun that guy wouldn't have shot as many people.

No guns for defensive purposes = 0% chance
Guns available for defensive purposes = greater than 0% chance.

If it's my life on the line, I want a chance, no matter how small it is. It's incredible how hard that is for some people to understand.

Really so in a smoke filled room with people running and screaming you can fire and only hit the gun man? What happens when the police show up, Think they wont shoot you too?

I'd rather take that chance than cower on the ground on top waiting for some deranged lunatic to end my life with no chance to stop him other than my pocket knife or the hope that his gun jams or he didn't bring enough ammo. And I'm sorry but I had to LOL at that second statement.

If you have a right to "bare arms" why not a tank? Why not nerve gas or biological weapons? Are you going hunting with a 50 caliber rifle? Why do we as citizens need armor shredding bullets? What do you need a 30 round banana clip for? The second amendment was put in place for no other reason then to protect the citizens from being invaded by another country or government not so you can have a M-16. We have an army for that now

So much ignorance I really don't where to start, or even if I should. That's just... I mean... wow. I'll try though.

The right to "bear" arms is directly related to that of a militia. If you took the time to read the Constitution, as much would be obvious. The militia is any able bodied man (usually over the age of 17), capable of fighting. The goal was to have the citizenry armed in a similar fashion to that of the typical solider (infantryman). At that time, the common soldiers used muskets or long rifles. The citizens? muskets and long rifles. At this point in time, the common soldier uses a fully automatic m4/m16/equivalent. The citizens? don't have access to that weaponry other than ones which "look" similar.

Why not tanks? They're expensive for one and the common soldier doesn't have access to them. You can buy them though.

Why not nerve gas or biological weapons? You're obviously trying to be difficult/inflammatory here, but because that is a government power, not common military power.

Are you going hunting with a .50 cal? Not personally, but it certainly isn't unheard of, especially for black powder rifle hunters. Really doesn't matter either way though since the 2A has nothing to do with hunting.

Why do we as citizens need armor shredding bullets? Sorry, but another LOL to this one. Please clue me in on these readily available armor shredding bullets you refer to.

30 round banana clip? I really can't help it, another LOL. banana clip? please stop getting your gun education from movies and video games. Anyway, It's none of the government's business how many rounds my magazines hold and they certainly don't have the legal basis to tell me how many I do or do not "need".

You really should read the Constitution because you seem to have a warped interpretation from somewhere. I'll repeat again, you can't go to the local gun shop and buy an M16, because fully automatic rifles are illegal...................... And the army is supposed to protect us from foreign forces. Posse Comitatus prevents the army from being commanded on American soil. The Second Amendment is "necessary to the security of a free State" which quite literally means that it is meant to protect us from OUR OWN government.

Plainly stated more guns means more death

Plainly stated, you're wrong. One needs only to look at various murder rates around the country to see as such. But you seem to be so far gone that any discourse is pointless so I probably shouldn't waste my time.

[Adam42R]

Posse Comitatus prevents the army from being commanded on American soil.

The act does not prevent the NG from being activated by a Governor (or neighboring NG unit if invited by a Governor). It has no bearing on the use of the Coast Guard on American shores/ports. Further, the President can employ active duty military to restore order in event of a natural (or other) disaster.

[Bogg]

Plainly stated, you're wrong. One needs only to look at various murder rates around the country to see as such.

Well, localized gun bans don't do anything because you can just drive a half hour and buy a weapon there. Any meaningful attempt at reducing criminal access to weapons has to happen that the national level.

[Ghost Kat]

Dear Rambo Swedd,

Thank you for trying to give me a googled reprimand about what the constitution says. But you should probably try reading the whole thing and not just the parts you think sound right to you. You danced around my questions and LOL'd but sad thing is there is nothing funny at all about guns or tanks or any weapon. And sad day for you but the constitution doesn't say you have a right to own a weapon, an assault weapon, purely meant for destruction or as many as you decide. But I had to LOL at your imagined idea that you need whatever gun you want in order to protect your rights.
What militia do you belong to?
Who's in charge there, just you? Is it a one man militia Rambo, or do you have other Rambos with you?
Who are you going to fight?
It's funny you kept telling me to read the constitution, but cut & paste where that document says you have the right to any of the guns or other items congress is trying to ban.
I will wait.
See the point of most of you guns nuts is to claim the government want to take all of your guns that you think you have a right to own. Thats not true, most common sense thinking people know that. If you want to talk about stats 90 % of all deaths by gun are done with a handgun. But no one is trying to ban hand guns. You got sand in your vagina cuz i called it a banana clip? Ha Ha, Not every one reading this has your high military training Rambo. And I used it because at this point everyone knows what a banana clip is, so someone else trying to read over it doesn't have to be a Rambo just like you. But you think the Gov't doesn't have a right to tell you how many bullets you can have in your mag? Well why is that? I never heard a reason back up by any law or legal statement so,Why doesn't the Gov't get to tell you that? Might as well let people own bio-weapons and why not let people carry guns into pee wee football games. Never know when there might be a mass shooting there.... or more likely a drunken fight between two Dads that goes to far. But oh well they should have the right to carry that gun anywhere they want....right?

Thats crazy nonsense that doesn't work in a society ment to be governed by laws thats some old wild west I need protection for everyone at anytime paranoid bullshit. Paranoid you keep a arsenal to keep the government from doing whatever you might assume they may do one day.What would case you to raise up with the rest of your militia? Would Gay rights? Higher taxes? freedom for blacks? Womens rights? Voting rights for minorities?Drug laws? Gun laws? Prohibition? The election of Obama? All reason given by other militia to succeed and raise up against the government.

But lets talk about those rights and what the constitution actually says.
The 2nd Amendment gives states the right to form their own militia which would take the place of a standing army since back then we couldn't afford to keep a fulltime army in times of supposed peace. It gave the right to every man, not slaves cuz of course the constitution writers didn't see them as people, it's gives every man the right to own a guns. Again because if called up they would need one to fight, and again we just couldn't afford it. But Again the wording is very clear and I will ask again what militia do you belong to that you have the right to amass any type of arsenal you want and who is you enemy?
Please show me one case where a person outside of combat defended them self using an assault rifle.
Please show me one person or animal or rock that was saved by using any of the items congress is trying to ban.
Again....I will wait.
This nonsense pro gun battle is built around the silly idea that the government is going to over throw it's citizens one day. You and others are claiming the 2nd amendment gives the authority for individual citizens to arm themselves and maintain personal arsenals of weapons in order to be on call to resist the gov't. This is what leg you stand on to claim you have a right? Thats paranoid thinking and reading between the lines of what a document actually says. The 2nd amendment doesn't authorize one man militias Rambo Swedd. And that constitution that you kept saying I need to read also prohibits the taking of arms up against the government. The same constitution you claim to know so well is what protects people from the government not you and your little gun. This is a nation of checks & balances, run by some good people and some bad. But at no point with the nation the size that it has become do we need to worry about the Government slaving us or whatever you think the 2nd gives you the right to own anything. You said I was wrong, but you did a piss poor job of proving it
But thanks anyway

Kat

[Ghost Kat]

Giving them the right to decide for themselves if they want to conceal carry is the supported position.

Ok...I went on a small rant but this is the heart of your misguided opinion. People should have the right to have a gun any where they feel is necessary for protection, Correct?
Thats not in the constitution, it's not trying to be banned by congress, no one is trying to take that "right" from away from anyone and conceal carry is already legal almost every where as long as you have a license and permit and what not. So......LOL?

[Chef]

Dear Rambo Swedd,

Thank you for trying to give me a googled reprimand about what the constitution says. But you should probably try reading the whole thing and not just the parts you think sound right to you. You danced around my questions and LOL'd but sad thing is there is nothing funny at all about guns or tanks or any weapon. And sad day for you but the constitution doesn't say you have a right to own a weapon, an assault weapon, purely meant for destruction or as many as you decide. But I had to LOL at your imagined idea that you need whatever gun you want in order to protect your rights.
What militia do you belong to?
Who's in charge there, just you? Is it a one man militia Rambo, or do you have other Rambos with you?
Who are you going to fight?
It's funny you kept telling me to read the constitution, but cut & paste where that document says you have the right to any of the guns or other items congress is trying to ban.
I will wait.
See the point of most of you guns nuts is to claim the government want to take all of your guns that you think you have a right to own. Thats not true, most common sense thinking people know that. If you want to talk about stats 90 % of all deaths by gun are done with a handgun. But no one is trying to ban hand guns. You got sand in your vagina cuz i called it a banana clip? Ha Ha, Not every one reading this has your high military training Rambo. And I used it because at this point everyone knows what a banana clip is, so someone else trying to read over it doesn't have to be a Rambo just like you. But you think the Gov't doesn't have a right to tell you how many bullets you can have in your mag? Well why is that? I never heard a reason back up by any law or legal statement so,Why doesn't the Gov't get to tell you that? Might as well let people own bio-weapons and why not let people carry guns into pee wee football games. Never know when there might be a mass shooting there.... or more likely a drunken fight between two Dads that goes to far. But oh well they should have the right to carry that gun anywhere they want....right?

Thats crazy nonsense that doesn't work in a society ment to be governed by laws thats some old wild west I need protection for everyone at anytime paranoid bullshit. Paranoid you keep a arsenal to keep the government from doing whatever you might assume they may do one day.What would case you to raise up with the rest of your militia? Would Gay rights? Higher taxes? freedom for blacks? Womens rights? Voting rights for minorities?Drug laws? Gun laws? Prohibition? The election of Obama? All reason given by other militia to succeed and raise up against the government.

But lets talk about those rights and what the constitution actually says.
The 2nd Amendment gives states the right to form their own militia which would take the place of a standing army since back then we couldn't afford to keep a fulltime army in times of supposed peace. It gave the right to every man, not slaves cuz of course the constitution writers didn't see them as people, it's gives every man the right to own a guns. Again because if called up they would need one to fight, and again we just couldn't afford it. But Again the wording is very clear and I will ask again what militia do you belong to that you have the right to amass any type of arsenal you want and who is you enemy?
Please show me one case where a person outside of combat defended them self using an assault rifle.
Please show me one person or animal or rock that was saved by using any of the items congress is trying to ban.
Again....I will wait.
This nonsense pro gun battle is built around the silly idea that the government is going to over throw it's citizens one day. You and others are claiming the 2nd amendment gives the authority for individual citizens to arm themselves and maintain personal arsenals of weapons in order to be on call to resist the gov't. This is what leg you stand on to claim you have a right? Thats paranoid thinking and reading between the lines of what a document actually says. The 2nd amendment doesn't authorize one man militias Rambo Swedd. And that constitution that you kept saying I need to read also prohibits the taking of arms up against the government. The same constitution you claim to know so well is what protects people from the government not you and your little gun. This is a nation of checks & balances, run by some good people and some bad. But at no point with the nation the size that it has become do we need to worry about the Government slaving us or whatever you think the 2nd gives you the right to own anything. You said I was wrong, but you did a piss poor job of proving it
But thanks anyway

Kat

and with this post this thread has devolved past the point of discussion

[Ghost Kat]

and with this post this thread has devolved past the point of discussion

I disagree, there's always room for discussion. But I usally do end these kinda conversations

[CampNightmare8]

I disagree, there's always room for discussion. But I usally do end these kinda conversations

Whoops you did it again!

[QC Thundercats]

With all due respect, this is the kind of inane back and forth I wanted to avoid here. Once it gets to name calling, nothing will ever change - not the understanding, not the culture, not any kind of compromise (not just talking about this board, but American society in general).

I was trying to keep emotion out of the debate and argue rationally and logically on certain points that I think get mischaracterized, whether on purpose or accidentally. I know I wrote a mini-novel a page back or so, and I don't expect anyone to tackle it in one sitting, but I honestly would like to hear some further discussion, even if its only a point here or there.

The main reason I'm concerned is because I'm all for people enjoying their freedoms, but I also feel that there is a huge growing problem that may not have existed in previous decades, but is a reality now and can't be brushed under the rug or accepted as just a part of life in the US. I'm not saying we'll solve the problems here, but any positive dialogue started anywhere can grow and spread out to affect some kind of positive change, even if it is small scale.

So instead of getting sucked back into further bickerings, lets try to continue at a logical, more enlightened level, if anyone's still game.

[SWedd523]

So instead of getting sucked back into further bickerings, lets try to continue at a logical, more enlightened level, if anyone's still game.

I'm personally not willing to waste my time on any such endeavors where people are obviously too willfully ignorant of the topic of discussion and resort to sarcastic quips in order to "win" an argument. It shows a weak mind and a weak character



But you seem to be willing to talk it over without the sensationalist hyperbole so if you personally want to continue the discussion with me in particular, feel free to shoot me a PM