Told Ya..DC will be right behind..
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=173508
Printed Date: 22 December 2025 at 10:24pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Told Ya..DC will be right behind..
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: Told Ya..DC will be right behind..
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 9:29am
|
Looking at the proposed Mississippi "Fat" law and now a proposed UK "smoking" permit http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm governments are going into taxing and controling your personal freedoms. Willing to make a bet, if a Dem gets into the White House, prepare for many laws simular to the "smoking permit". Nature of the beast. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 9:43am
|
I see OS continues to ignore and/or minimize the difference between "law" and "proposed law"... ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 10:08am
|
How does that have anything to do with political parties?
------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: hoginds24
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 10:30am
Or America? |
Bolt3 wrote:Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 10:49am
|
I do remmeber here in Nebraska when the smoking ban laws were proposed laws too, now they are reality.
In politics a party will latch onto an idea, the Democrat Party is more into personal control legislation. ie the Nebraska Smoking Ban Law. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 12:05pm
|
I've never seen anyone point a blame finger more than him. |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 12:20pm
|
Really? Flag burning? Gay marriage? Sodomy laws? Laws prohibiting the sale of sex toys? Laws permitting/expanding eavesdropping and indefinite retention?
------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 12:48pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 2:05pm
| actually D+ |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 2:37pm
|
They need to get rid of no Sunday liquor sales here.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 3:58pm
Agreed. They also need to get rid of the no liquor sales after midnight rule. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 4:12pm
|
Another fine example of those librals messing with our personal liberties. Same reason I can't buy a car on Sunday either (although, as it turns out, there is actually some benefit to that). Is pot legal yet? ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 4:35pm
That is different. God says pot is bad. |
Posted By: Tical2.0
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 4:43pm
 are there seriously Law against sex toys lol?------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 4:46pm
In some places yes. Heck Tical, in some places gaysecks is illegal, but animalsecks is totally fine.... |
Posted By: Tical2.0
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 4:52pm
|
I wonder what the penalty would be if you got caught with a flesh light or something.
-------------
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 4:56pm
depends... might just be a small possession ticket, if you have more than one thing, you may get charged with intent to sell. |
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 4:59pm
How many would it take to become a flesh light cartel? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tical2.0
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 5:02pm
We could get rich here boys. -------------
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 5:03pm
|
We need to pay off some dirty cops first. Dune! -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 5:33pm
|
ZOMG RIGHTS !!!!!!!
I'LL DIE BEFORE I GIVE UP ANY OF MY RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OOOHHHH THE AMMENDMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! RIGHTS SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY OVER THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Posted By: White o Light
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 6:40pm
hi ------------- 
|
Posted By: Roll Tide
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 7:11pm
Shut up. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> 
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 9:50pm
|
Now you all Play nice. I have a grown man PMing me crying about being Bullied and Moderators Drunk with Power Abusing the powers bestowed upon us with the Ben Parker Advise.
with great power... comes great responsability.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 9:54pm
I suppose we'll never find out who? |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 10:20pm
True that. Taking away rights is a slippery slope. I'd prefer to avoid heading the way of an Orwellian society... Freedom is more important to me personally than being safe from every possible thing (not possible anyways). Ever notice how the countries with the least freedoms are often the most violent? Hrm...  ------------- 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 16 February 2008 at 11:09pm
I'm more making a point to the idiots that say things like: "ZOMG Heroin and all other drugs should be legal cause I have the right to do what I want to myself!!!!! Keeping it illegal is one step closer to communism!!!!" Or the people who are like: "I'd rather die than lose my right to bear arms!!!" It seems to come up once in a while here and I laugh at the idiots who say it. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 1:17pm
|
"I'd rather die than lose my right to bear arms!!!"
... If someone tried to take my guns, "They can pry them from my cold dead fingers." I mean that. Would it be ridiculous to say you'd rather die than lose your right to free speech, or freedom of religion? -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 1:25pm
No, but the right to own a gun doesn't even compare to those rights. |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 1:39pm
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 1:42pm
| whats wrong with that? what if his great grandpa passed the guns down through the family? |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 1:45pm
The Constitution disagrees with you. All rights are of equal importance; without one, others collapse. What do you think originally earned us ('Mericans) those other freedoms? Had we not been allowed to own guns, the Revolutionary War never would have been fought/won. Guns are "the people's liberty's teeth" (or something like that). Regardless of how effective it may be, the right to bear arms was put in the Constitution so that, should our gov't ever trample our rights, we could revolt. It wouldn't hurt anything to have some lying around should we be invaded either. -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 1:49pm
|
MBD: If someone took away the freedom of press, would you feel that a worthy cause to die for?
I just see a lot of people these days who are all too willing to give up every right they have to try and make themselves "safe." I will go as far as to say that should ANY of our rights (guaranteed by the Bill of Rights) be infringed upon by the government, I would have no qualms fighting and/or dying defend them. Doesn't matter whether it's free speech or right to bear arms, they are all important in the grand scheme of things. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 2:00pm
Because it is dumb freeper rhetoric that makes it seem as if the outright banning/confiscation of firearms is an actual possibility in the least. It isn't. Very, very very few people actually support anything close to an outright ban. The "COLD DEAD HANDS" tripe from the NRA does nothing but brainwash its followers into thinking that someone is out to get their guns around every corner. Not to mention it is the reason that everyday people think that gun enthusiasts are whacko. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 2:04pm
Probably not. I have other English-speaking countries I can go to. The thing is, though, that outright taking away the freedom of the press simply will not happen, which is why I don't go around saying "YOU CAN TAKE MY STERNO PAD FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!" -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 2:11pm
if i'm not mistaken clinton moved to get bans on guns in my state. frankly i don't think she has the right to, call it ignorance but this isn't her state. secondly, i don't follow the nra at all and feel the same way. |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 2:15pm
What is your state, and what was this "ban on guns?" Also, to quote Rambino from an earlier thread. "There would be a very very very small number of nutcases, but 99.9999999999999999999% of gun owners would chose keeping their life over keeping their guns. All talk." -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 2:19pm
|
guess i'm a nutcase since i'd rather keep my guns, when i live in a neighborhood where a gun a very reasonable method of defense. so giving up my guns to save my life would ultimately potentially get me killed if someone broke in. i live in new york, and i did a paper on gun control a few years ago, she's in favor of some kind of ban on guns, i forget what it was. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 3:36pm
|
Some kind of ban on guns =/= taking guns away from everyone. |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 3:56pm
|
So if I tied you down, put a gun to your head, and said "give me your guns or I will kill you" - you would tell me to go ahead and kill you, because you would rather die than give up your guns? Oh please. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 4:20pm
|
dune- you're right. but some bans aren't necessary. for example, a collapsable stock on an M-4 is illegal. why? i have no idea. susan-going to need a better example, because that's a crappy example. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 5:46pm
The right to bear arms is hardly a human right.
Actually, not it isin't. How would it be?
The right to bear arms isin't even comparable to the right to free speech. This is my personal opinion and I know almost none of the americans will support me but... Having a major part of the consitiution promising guns to everyone is just silly. Basically, you are providing people with the means and right to kill others. (as basically per the origional purpose I beleive) |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 6:01pm
|
its a bad example because its unrealistic. when am i ever going to be bound up and told to give my guns up or die? its not even a good hypothetical. if someone broke in and wanted them they'd kill me and take them, not give me an option. besides, people put value on worldly possessions over their own life all the time, i guarantee you some people died in natural disasters because they tried saving their stuff |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 7:15pm
Those people wouldn't have if they knew 100% that they were going to die if they tried. |
Posted By: Ilford Rule
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 7:28pm
|
As one of the few to agree with Carl thus far, I'd like to point out: It seems that it's us Canadians against the right to bear arms. The sole purpose of the firearm, as an invention, is to serve as a faster and easier way of killing another person. I believe the right to live outweighs the right to have a weapon (correct me if I'm wrong). Most people with guns are safe and responsible. Some are not. I think it is fair to say that the loss of the right to live is a bit more substantial than the right to bear arms even if the number of people who will die is as low as it is compared to those who would lose their right to a weapon. "Life liberty and pursuit of happiness". Whoops. I don't associate firearms with liberty, or pursuit of happiness (if you really need a gun to be happy...) in there. The liberty I think was implied was more referring to the whole not-being-enslaved thing, the ability to make your own choices. A gun should not be one of those choices. As its sole purpose is to kill. Target shooting, hunting, etc are all other uses. But a gun's purpose is to kill. ------------- CPro (w/ polished internals) 14" Bigshot BT SBS Various Rails NcSTAR D4B Macro AA 68/45 
CCI Phantom 45 Grips |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:21pm
The outright banning of guns will only be impossible for as long as there are people like me and some NRA member who would fight to keep them. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned/confiscated. Frankly, I don't care if someone thinks I'm "whacko" because I'd be willing to protect my rights. I think anyone who wouldn't doesn't deserve them. -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:22pm
|
Of course it is unrealistic. It matches your unrealistic statement. You said you would rather die than surrender your guns, so that was the exact hypothetical I invented. If you meant what you said, then death should be an easy choice in my silly hypo. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:30pm
It's rather different to "fight back" than to be tied down and forced. If the government told me that they'd be coming around to confiscate my weapons, I'd have them all locked and loaded. Chances are I'd die, but we all die someday, at least it would be for a cause. Unfortunately, we have to many people in this country these days who favor life over liberty. Not worth the carbon they're made of, IMO. -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:35pm
|
This Heinleinian logic is too simple. Life is a binary situation - liberty is not. Liberty is not a simple yes or no switch. Many of the people who shout out "live free or die" proceed to immediately support liberty-restricting laws (is there any other kind?) ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:38pm
Then you quite obviously have no grasp on history. Maybe you should read a few books on the subject and tell me how many freedoms we'd have without guns. While guns may be used to kill other people, that is not their sole purpose. Hunting, personal protection (anything from humans to bears), target shooting, collecting, etc. are all perfectly legitimate reasons for owning a gun. People have killed each other since the dawn of time using all means and methods available to them. Why should the gun take the blame? If it wasn't there, people would just find another way to kill others. -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:39pm
better yet what happens when someone hide their gun and everyone elses are gone? that opens up a nice opportunity to go kill defensless people. you have to be willing to die for the rights you want to keep. that's how they work |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:42pm
I support your basic laws such as banning murder, rape, and other violent crimes. I cannot think of a single liberty-restricting law that I would agree with, other than ones that go so far as to restricting someone else's freedom (IE: murder). Me owning a gun steps on the rights of NO ONE. Kinda like me smoking weed, steps on the rights of NO ONE, but that's a whole different argument. -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:47pm
|
I can't speak for you. You said "many people", and I am also speaking of "many people." Many hardcore NRA members, for instance, support limitations/prohibitions on homosexual behavior, and nearly (I suspect) support prohibitions on polygamy. Pretty darn liberty-restricting. Just not liberties that THEY care about. The thing about most liberty-hogs is that they are only willing to sacrifice for the particular liberties that THEY want. Liberties that they don't care about, they are all too willing (and often eager) to surrender.
Really? Thing is, when you are dead you pretty much have no rights at all. Isn't it better to keep some of these rights than to die and lose all of them? I can think of many things worth dying for - "rights" are not on my list. Heck, I barely even know what "rights" are. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:52pm
correct me if im wrong, but didnt the constitution come AFTER the revolutionary war? ------------- 
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:59pm
if we are providing people with the right to kill whoever, then why would we bother with homicide laws? Also, do you really think that without guns people would stop killing? theyd just revert to knives, clubs, or other simpler means. another thing, it doesnt promise guns to everyone, it just promises not to take them away. HUGE difference. -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 9:10pm
Yeah... but the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution because they recognized that without guns, England would have continued trampling their rights. They saw a gun-owning populace as a necessary check on the government's power. It becomes harder to take away other rights (such as the freedom of speech), when the people you'd be taking it from are armed. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 11:14pm
HAHA Seriosuly. I serously can't believe you consider your guns more important than your life. Would you give your life not to have a system like Canada's gun laws where there are still guns but you are not guranteed the right to own one?
Hunting is not the main purpose of the gun nor the reason that right was made or continues to exist in the US.
Wait to twist my words. People are being provided with the MEANS to kill peoople. That's essentially what it is; the right to own a gun for the purpose of shpooting people. So a question: Does a murderer convicted of shooting someone ever get their guns taken away in your country? So anyone else think that bunkered is a giant forum troll that is really good at hiding it? He seems to lay low for a while then every few weeks starts an argument that astounds me how dumb it is and always ends up at least 5 pages. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 11:21pm
yes, i know what "MEANS" means. what i was saying, as i thought i maid abundantly clear is that guns arent the only MEANS of killing. without guns, people would still kill, theyd just use a different tool. And yes, they do. anyone convicted of a felony: "Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault" title="Assault - aggravated assault and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28crime%29" title="Battery crime - battery , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson" title="Arson - arson , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary" title="Burglary - burglary , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embezzlement" title="Embezzlement - embezzlement , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_theft" title="Grand theft - grand theft , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason" title="Treason - treason , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage" title="Espionage - espionage , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering" class="mw-redirect" title="Racketeering - racketeering , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery" title="Robbery - robbery , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder" title="Murder - murder , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape" title="Rape - rape , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping" title="Kidnapping - kidnapping and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud" title="Fraud - fraud ." is banned from ever purchasing, owning, or possessing a firearm for the rest of their life. so what's your point? -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 11:33pm
You apparently didn't know what I meant:
is not the same as:
Your second point: "without guns, people would still kill, theyd just use a different tool." is irrelevant to mine. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 17 February 2008 at 11:52pm
it is entirely relevant. you are arguing against guns because they give people the means to kill. what i am saying is that taking away guns isnt going to take away the means to kill people because they will have other means. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 12:04am
No, you still don't understand at all. I am not against guns at all. I love guns. I am against a part of a constitution that promises people the means to kill. (aka owning guns for the purpose of killing) I would be also against an ammendment that promises people the right to own knives to kill people. That is why your point is irrelevant. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 12:49am
We certainly couldn't stop a tyrannical government by asking them nicely. -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 12:50am
|
As for guns being in the constitution... even if that right were not protected, criminals could still buy guns illegally...
------------- 
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 12:53am
-------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 1:11am
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 7:20am
|
Ha, yeah, I'm a troll Carl.
More like I actually get out and do something IRL, and therefore am rarely here unless a debate piques my interest. It's funny that you call my arguments stupid, because that's exactly how I feel about yours. The main question behind all of this debate is a fundamental difference of viewpoints. You ask, "Why should we have guns," whereas I ask, "Why not have guns?" I think the gubment should tell us what to do as little as possible, and that includes issues with firearms. If it was up to me, you could own a tank if you could afford it and pass a background check. The whole point is to be able to resist the government should they become to repressive. Maybe the Canadians just don't understand since they were granted their sovereignty (largely because Britain didn't want to fight another colonial war) rather than having to take it forcibly. Anyone who thinks guns are not essential to maintaining liberty should probably brush up on their world history. The idea that dying is more terrible than living in tyranny is laughable, as is the idea that killing is wrong in all circumstances. -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 9:44am
I find it relevant. You're saying the constitution shouldn't protect our right to own firearms because it provides us with a means to kill people... I am saying it provided a means to protect us from those who would kill us. -------------
|
Posted By: Ilford Rule
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 10:13am
When was the last time a firearm was used for a revolution in the US? It doesn't seem to have come up lately. I know that they used to be critical to your development as a "free" nation. They no longer are. And while all of those purposes are reasons to own a gun, they are not the reason behind the gun's existence in the first place. The gun should take the blame because it is the only means that makes killing a person psychologically easier to do. Don't get me wrong, it's still hardly easy, but when killing someone entails pulling a trigger and watching them fall down as opposed to beating someone to death, the fact that the gun allows a less "ugly" death means that some will be less inhibited to kill with a gun than otherwise. Finally, when I initially said I don't associate guns with liberty, I meant that guns were not the liberty they were talking about. As I said in the post. I'm not saying guns have never ensured said liberty. But these days they don't seem to.
Two things wrong here: The government is pretty damn repressive right now. A certain Patriot Act comes to mind. If the ability to detain people for extended periods of time without charging them isn't repressive, I don't want to know what is. What about Guantanamo? No armed revolutions going on there either. Secondly: You have a problem with people who got sovereignty peacefully?  ------------- CPro (w/ polished internals) 14" Bigshot BT SBS Various Rails NcSTAR D4B Macro AA 68/45
CCI Phantom 45 Grips |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 10:42am
|
What does a canuck know about the US?
-------------
|
Posted By: obnoxious
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 11:04am
Imagine a bunch of people, maybe even upwards to 100, bring out their guns and start killing government officials and the like. You know how easy this is to quell? How easy it is to brand these people as psychopaths? For a revolution a large number of the population must be aware of their rights being stripped, and unfortunately the incredible apathy in this country doesn't allow for that. That is why people allow Gitmo and the PATRIOT Act to go, or in the name of "security." No matter how you put it, peaceable revolution or not, there must be wide-scaled awareness. Guns are, by the way, a last resort. No one wants to use them to combat a repressive government, but hell it could get A LOT worse before we have to break those out. The easiest way for a government to control is population is to strip them of their firearms, plain and simple. ------------- 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 12:27pm
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 12:29pm
Well, definately. But isin't that the same as providing a means to kill people? |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 1:11pm
|
Point out where I said that drunk driving, in general, is OK, or that the mentally ill are mentally ill at their own fault. The drunk driving argument I remember and know that you are skewing my words; the mentally ill thing I'm confused about... Me saying that the guy who threw his baby off a bridge should have sought help, and should be punished for killing a baby is a bit different than saying people are mentally ill because of their own fault.
You either intentionally refuse to see the points that I've made, or you spin them specifically to make me "look bad." Taking things out of context only makes you look like a toolbag. Your argument is that we shouldn't have the "right" to own a gun, but that it should be a priveledge. It's just a stupid argument, since even the US takes away someone's right to own firearms due to certain conditions (committing a felony is an example, as is being mentally ill). It is not an indefinite right like some others are. It's not that you are guaranteed tyranny because you don't have a gun, it's just that the likelihood increases. Just ask NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, or Communist China. In every thread about guns you seem to be so worried about the "probability" of needing to use one... I've stated time and again that it's better to be prepared for all eventualities than to just hope for the best. Maybe you trust your government not to stomp on your rights... I have no such faith, and if history is any teacher, chances are that I'm right. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't, and the Founding Fathers wouldn't have given us the Second Amendment for no reason. You're just the kind of person who would surrender all of your rights if the gov't said so, because nothing is worth the violence or bloodshed... Sheep. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 1:20pm
|
Funny you should accuse me of spinning points, you have done it at least twice in this thread alone.
That's still not my argument but you are close. Keep trying. "You're just the kind of person who would surrender all of your rights if the gov't said so, because nothing is worth the violence or bloodshed" No actually, I wouldn't. I would definately fight for important rights but the right to own a gun comes nowhere close to anything that would be worth dying for (to me at least). |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 1:34pm
You never said that it was okay in general, only that it was okay for you because you knew the road you were driving on and there weren't much people... That was when that thread really started to go downhill. The proof comes more from a culmination of posts rather than one specific post that can be quoted. it starts here: http://tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=171843&KW=drunk+driving&PN=0&TPN=5 - http://tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=171843& KW=drunk+driving&PN=0&TPN=5 ----------------------------------------------------
Maybe not exactly but what you ended up saying was even worse than I thought when I looked it up. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 1:39pm
Meh, I'll debate that more when I get out of work. I'm already late. 
Regardless, this has no relation to the topic at hand and equates to mudslinging. I personally don't think that was that out of line, even though I can see how it riled you up. Throwing a baby off a bridge IS inexcusable, and if the mental illness caused it, that doesn't change a thing. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 1:43pm
Sure... whatever. I would definately like to fight that but I won't. Back on topic now... |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 1:44pm
I don't really think so. If someone wants to get a gun to kill people, they don't have to go through a gun shop or something. If they are going to break one law, why not buy an illegal weapon anyway? -------------
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 2:40pm
|
See, this is my biggest argument against gun control. All the regulations are ever going to do is limit the ability for law abiding citizens to obtain fire-arms. It will barely be an obstacle for the ones who actually murder and steal, who get their firearms via completely different (underground) means. I was just talking about this today with my history professor. I argue that if you are a college student, and of legal age to purchase a handgun and legally obtained a concealed weapons license, you should be able to carry said weapon on campus. CCW's aren't exactly handed out, and anyone willing to go through the money and legal hurdles to protect themselves aren't going to shoot up the campus. ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell" 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 18 February 2008 at 2:56pm
Well, yes though. Providing people with the right to own guns for the purpose of shooting people (even in self defense) is giving them the means to kill people. That's the only thing I find wrong about the CCW, it is giving guns for the sole purpose of killing others. In Canada, buying guns for the sole purpose of self defense is discouraged (allthough if you happen to have a gun, and use it in self defense that is usually fine). Buying a gun to kill people includes self defense. The problem with that is often people shoot when it isin't necessary at all and there would be a clear, better option. These people, (often in the US and especially in texas) often get in no trouble at all. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 7:16am
|
And what, pray tell, is wrong with killing someone who would have otherwise killed you? -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 10:49am
. . . and all Canadians say "eh" three or four times a sentence. Stereotype much? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 10:50am
|
If someone is going to try to kill me, I'm going to try to take him down first. Being a lover of firearms, I have other uses as well, but if someone were to say... break into my home, I would have no problem shooting at them. Also, I don't think you SHOULD get in trouble for defending yourself from an attacker, that is stupid. -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 10:51am
|
Let's see... The Nazis were elected democratically and were pretty popular for most of their reign. The Bolsheviks and Mao both were armed dissidents that overthrew the installed governments (which had plenty of guns themselves). The Nazis were arguably a historical inevitability (and had nothing to do with guns), and the CCCP/PRC arguably came about specifically BECAUSE the general populace had access to weaponry (although in Mao's case, those weapons were mostly sticks and pitchforks). Not terribly good examples. Which is strange, since history is full of examples of arms control used by the rulers to maintain the status quo. Like pretty much the entire medieval period, both in Europe and Asia. Of course, it's not like we don't have arms control, and lots of it, in this country today. Try to walk into your local hardware store to buy a bunch of C4, or an RPG launcher. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 4:06pm
It's not a stereotype at all. Many places in the US (specifically texas) are light on people who take "self-defense" way too far. Like being able to shoot someone who breaks into your house even if they don't have intent to kill you.
Not what I said at all. You should however get in trouble for using excessive force against an attacker. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 5:31pm
It's fairly reasonable to expect that anyone who is illegally in your house late at night is armed. He may not have a gun, but probably at least a knife, still a deadly weapon. Just because he didn't brandish it doesn't mean he wasn't a threat, it just means his butt got popped before he had a chance to use it. If there's any question that my life is in jeapardy while inside my home, I'd have no problem using lethal force. My life and my rights > the life and rights of the criminal who is robbing me. The reason that you are allowed to shoot people in your home is as much a detterrant as anything else. Some people will think twice about robbing someone if there's a good chance they're going to get shot at. And you still made no answer to this:
-------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 5:49pm
Can you give quantitative measurements as to what "too far" is? Or can you tell me how to determine the intent of someone breaking in, in the dark, before examining the situation adequately? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 6:06pm
|
I seem to recall an incident in Texas a few years back where some guy shot and killed a would-be intruder through his screen door in the middle of the night. Turns out the intruder was the exchange student from next door, who in his drunken stupor got the wrong house. I suspect Carl's house may have something to do with overzealous application of "self-defense" by defending oneself when it isn't really necessary, and a little closer examination would avoid violence. It seems a little generalizing to conclude that anybody in your kitchen at midnight is a fair target. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 10:30pm
And if he has a knife, and tells you he has no intent to use it as long as you sit down and let him steal things? How would it not be wrong then? Why is a robbery grounds to kill someone? It should be self defense or nothing. Giving the ability to shoot someone for a robbery is an idiotic deterrant. That would be like offering the death penalty for dealing drugs.
Nothing, why? Did i indicate otherwise or are you just trying to twist my words again?
No, and why would I offer quantitative measuremants? Most things in criminal law aren't up to qualatative measurements. What if you discover someone robbing your house with a knife. He tells you that he will leave you alone if you don't try and stop him. It is ethically wrong to shoot him, and it should be legally. (it is in my country) |
Posted By: obnoxious
Date Posted: 19 February 2008 at 11:53pm
|
The whole self-defense thing is arbitrary at best. There's a reason we have a court system in the United States, so there isn't absolutism and every case can be judged thoroughly, in detail. The issue is not clear cut, whether initiation of force was necessary is for the court system and ultimately a jury to decide. There are laws already in place, with degrees of severity. -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 20 February 2008 at 2:50am
| basically what it comes down to is where you put value into different areas of your life. some people value their life more than anything, and some people value rights or possessions more than anything. it's not a question of right or wrong, it just depends what you put more value on. personally i put a lot of value into being allowed to own the means to protect and defend myself. |