I will never understand arguments that equate deaths from devices that are misused with deaths caused by devices that are used as intended. It is blatantly obvious to me that there is a substantial difference.Some might say that video games can lead to death.
Is people's right to play video games really worth the lives that have been lost.
I bet there are a lot of heartless people on here that will go on and continue to play video games despite the harm it does to others. How can you look at yourselves in the mirror?
So you're claiming that video games are NOT intended to be played for long periods of time, and are specifically designed to not do that? Yeah, okay. You don't happen to live in Washington or Colorado do you, because maybe you'd like to share.
And you are claiming that the specific purpose of guns is to shoot down schools of unarmed children. Hmm, I guess that tells a lot about your thinking on this issue.
|
Well part of it is the feeling that their rights should not be infringed due to the horrible behavior of someone else.It lacks much in poetic ability, but not in agreeing with your side of the gun debateMethinks your disagreement with the message is colouring your view of it.
But I find it thought provoking that many on the pro-gun side are also very keen on the whole "morality" issue - yet they don't seem to find it morally wrong that their "need" (I should say want instead) for having guns outweighs the desire of others to not get shot by those guns.It's a privilege set up by an outdated law, horribly misinterpreted and very much due to be revised based on the current society and technological advancements.
And what about people's rights to Life? I.e. not being shot by said weapons?
What is "easiest" to do without? Guns or your life?
No one should need a handgun or a semi-automatic weapon in Western society.Some may view the right to religion as an outdated privilege. Certainly religion is used for oppression and violence of others, and the removal of it could arguable make life more peaceful.
In my country if enough people believe that something is no longer a right, they can take measures to change it. That it is extremely difficult to do so (and should be, rights should not be removed merely because people are upset for a day or a week or month) shouldn't be an excuse not to do it. It can be done.
As for technology changes, well it is a good thing that the people that wrote that law weren't familiar with technological advancement. I mean, yeah, they could have looked back and saw that societies had moved from slings and spears to arrows to crossbows to muskets. I mean it is clear they didn't think that it would ever advance further, that is why they put in the phrase, "...right to bear a musket..."
Right to life? Oh no, are we going to have an abortion debate now....
The anti gun folks think it is your responsibility to have the funds to move if you feel any danger and to live close enough to the police for them to show up in time. and too bad for you if the family is raped and killed, small price to pay for their piece of mind that you cannot hurt others.....
The anti gun folks think it is your responsibility to have the funds to move if you feel any danger and to live close enough to the police for them to show up in time. and too bad for you if the family is raped and killed, small price to pay for their piece of mind that you cannot hurt others.....
I've got an idea...why don't you let the "anti-gun folks" speak for themselves? Maybe you could explain your position, which you (hopefully) understand, instead of trying to explain theirs?
And since you've kindly defined me as one of these folks, I'll tell you what I think: I think amending the Constitution is hard. Really hard. And I also think that imposing meaningful limitations on gun rights would require doing just that. Any laws passed in defiance of the 2nd amendment should (and likely would) be tossed.
|
|
Go big-game hunting with handguns often, do you?Handguns are weapons, period. They exist to harm or kill people.People or animals. and picking the wrong target is misuse. you anti gun folks are smarter than this, i know you are
Many rural folks carry a large caliber handgun so it can be kept holstered but always at hand, especially in areas with wolves, bear and coyote problems. Life doesn't end at your city limits guy
|
|
The anti gun folks think it is your responsibility to have the funds to move if you feel any danger and to live close enough to the police for them to show up in time. and too bad for you if the family is raped and killed, small price to pay for their piece of mind that you cannot hurt others.....I've got an idea...why don't you let the "anti-gun folks" speak for themselves? Maybe you could explain your position, which you (hopefully) understand, instead of trying to explain theirs?
That is exactly what you ARE saying by wanting to take the guns. and some have flat out said it, better for the innocent to be raped and murdered than armed.
That is exactly what you ARE saying by wanting to take the guns. and some have flat out said it, better for the innocent to be raped and murdered than armed.The anti gun folks think it is your responsibility to have the funds to move if you feel any danger and to live close enough to the police for them to show up in time. and too bad for you if the family is raped and killed, small price to pay for their piece of mind that you cannot hurt others.....I've got an idea...why don't you let the "anti-gun folks" speak for themselves? Maybe you could explain your position, which you (hopefully) understand, instead of trying to explain theirs?
Now, now, Andrew, that is not what they are saying.
They are saying you should have a stick to defend yourself. Also teach people to be nice to each other and that will fix everything. There might have also been something about rainbows and unicorns, but I'm not exactly sure about that part so don't hold me to it.
|
|
That is exactly what you ARE saying by wanting to take the guns. and some have flat out said it, better for the innocent to be raped and murdered than armed.The anti gun folks think it is your responsibility to have the funds to move if you feel any danger and to live close enough to the police for them to show up in time. and too bad for you if the family is raped and killed, small price to pay for their piece of mind that you cannot hurt others.....I've got an idea...why don't you let the "anti-gun folks" speak for themselves? Maybe you could explain your position, which you (hopefully) understand, instead of trying to explain theirs?
Now, now, Andrew, that is not what they are saying.
They are saying you should have a stick to defend yourself. Also teach people to be nice to each other and that will fix everything. There might have also been something about rainbows and unicorns, but I'm not exactly sure about that part so don't hold me to it.
Only until they get the guns, then they will come for my stick
|
the 2nd Amendment hasn't changed even though the definition of what a gun is has changed.
None of the Bill of Rights has been changed or repealed... In fact, only one Amendment to the Constitution has ever been repealed, and that was the 18th Amendment...
At any rate, many of those first 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights could be considered outdated as written, so it should not matter that the founding fathers did not think about how firearm technology would progress (because they did not think about any of our modern conveniences), which makes it pretty irrelevant to the core meaning of the 2nd Amendment - and we can go round and round as to what that core meaning actually is, but that too is irrelevant when speaking about what the founding fathers did and did not envision 236 years ago...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, now, Andrew, that is not what they are saying.
They are saying you should have a stick to defend yourself. Also teach people to be nice to each other and that will fix everything. There might have also been something about rainbows and unicorns, but I'm not exactly sure about that part so don't hold me to it.
People, the data is out there. The spike in violent crime you imagine simply hasn't happened in countries which have much tighter controls on gun ownership that we have.
If it makes you feel better to paint me as a naive, unintelligent, borderline psychopath because I agree that it is time to have a serious conversation about gun control, have at it.
Freedom of the Press obviously can't be used with respect to the internet. They are not "pressing" anything, and the founders had no idea of anything like the internet occurring. Give there there were double barrel blunderbusses around the idea of multiple shot weapons was much more likely than sending messages with these magical spirits.
the 2nd Amendment hasn't changed even though the definition of what a gun is has changed.None of the Bill of Rights has been changed or repealed... In fact, only one Amendment to the Constitution has ever been repealed, and that was the 18th Amendment...
At any rate, many of those first 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights could be considered outdated as written, so it should not matter that the founding fathers did not think about how firearm technology would progress (because they did not think about any of our modern conveniences), which makes it pretty irrelevant to the core meaning of the 2nd Amendment - and we can go round and round as to what that core meaning actually is, but that too is irrelevant when speaking about what the founding fathers did and did not envision 236 years ago...
Debating the intent of the 2nd amendment is a trap. It's clearly worded. If you want to seriously restrict gun ownership, you must repeal the amendment...period.
I don't particularly like it, but that's the situation.
|
|
Now, now, Andrew, that is not what they are saying.
They are saying you should have a stick to defend yourself. Also teach people to be nice to each other and that will fix everything. There might have also been something about rainbows and unicorns, but I'm not exactly sure about that part so don't hold me to it.
People, the data is out there. The spike in violent crime you imagine simply hasn't happened in countries which have much tighter controls on gun ownership that we have.
If it makes you feel better to paint me as a naive, unintelligent, borderline psychopath because I agree that it is time to have a serious conversation about gun control, have at it.
You so need to be left in alaska unarmed, if you survive you might learn
I'm just waiting for the claims that the killings were carried out by presidential decree, in order to increase public support for gun control.
It will happen.
Maybe it was flagged and removed but someone already did upthread. SuperSlayer.
Alaska=/=Connecticut
Herp the derp.
You so need to be left in alaska unarmed, if you survive you might learn
I would think it would be rather obvious that I would succumb to exposure long before succumbing to...well, whatever it is you imagine me needing a gun to avoid. Nevertheless, I will consider procuring a firearm for use in case of sudden teleportation to the Alaskan wilderness.
Maybe Connecticut should secede from the Union. The only way to be safe from these dangerous laws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alaska=/=Connecticut
Herp the derp.
So only some states need constitutional rights?
Only the ones you want?
Yes, Andrew. Clearly that is exactly what he meant.
*wanders off to see if there is ice cream in the fridge.*
*Unarmed.*
|
I will never understand arguments that equate deaths from devices that are misused with deaths caused by devices that are used as intended. It is blatantly obvious to me that there is a substantial difference.Some might say that video games can lead to death.
Is people's right to play video games really worth the lives that have been lost.
I bet there are a lot of heartless people on here that will go on and continue to play video games despite the harm it does to others. How can you look at yourselves in the mirror?
So you're claiming that video games are NOT intended to be played for long periods of time, and are specifically designed to not do that? Yeah, okay. You don't happen to live in Washington or Colorado do you, because maybe you'd like to share.
And you are claiming that the specific purpose of guns is to shoot down schools of unarmed children. Hmm, I guess that tells a lot about your thinking on this issue.
Video games aren't meant to be played for 52 hours straight without sleep, food, and water. Obviously.
The specific purpose of certain guns are for killing people. Nobody hunts with a .45 with hollow point bullets and an extended magazine (well not seriously). A combat style AR-15 with an extended magazine is not meant for hunting (though some have started using them for that purpose - they aren't needed for that purpose).
|
|
Debating the intent of the 2nd amendment is a trap. It's clearly worded. If you want to seriously restrict gun ownership, you must repeal the amendment...period.
What I meant was, that some read it as only pertaining to a well armed militia, and others read it as pertaining to an individual’s rights militia or no...
|
|
Be careful! Clearly you don't understand city slicker.Alaska=/=Connecticut
Herp the derp.
So only some states need constitutional rights?
Only the ones you want?Yes, Andrew. Clearly that is exactly what he meant.
*wanders off to see if there is ice cream in the fridge.*
*Unarmed.*
it is painfully clear that neither of you do or even will understand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alaska=/=Connecticut
Herp the derp.
So only some states need constitutional rights?
Only the ones you want?
You need a handgun for what exactly in Alaska? If you shoot a Kodiak bear with most handguns he is just going to beat the crap out of you...maybe later he dies from his wounds after he has turned you into a human punching bag. It is rare that a bear attack is stopped with a handgun. It has happened but it is rare. Also, you would pretty much have to have a high caliber handgun and would have to fire several times. It would be irresponsible to do so. You could fire it in the air to scare it away...but you could do that with a shotgun or a regular hunting rifle.
It makes sense that while hunting, or working, or living in areas with animals that can cause death or severe injury one should be able to keep a rifle or shotgun at the ready (meaning loaded without one in the chamber) on their person or vehicle. There can be licenses for that and it would only affect a small portion of the population.
Suggestions for stricter gun regulations:
- No sale of "long clips" (any type of non-standard clips for e.g. hand guns holding more rounds than the clip usually supplied with the weapon).
- No sale of semi-automatic weapons and up.
- Full background check of buyer (including mental health check and ineligibility of members of the household where the weapon is stored - any change to these circumstances must be reported immediately and may make you ineligible to own or store weapons in your house (you might still be permitted to store weapons at e.g. a gun range, say if it's a family member who is the problem)) - if you fail this test (when buying new weapons or at the yearly re-registration) you are able to sell the weapons you have through a licensed dealer (but they must be handed over immediately to be stored at the dealer); alternatively you can turn them in to be destroyed for free.
- No concealed carry permits issued (if you buy a gun for home protection, you have no need to carry it concealed with you elsewhere).
- Full federal database of all purchased weapons. If a gun goes missing it should be reported immediately and you get a "mark" in the database for not storing it properly.
- All private sales must happen through a licensed middleman (a gun store in most cases) to ensure proper background check and transition.
- When buying a new weapon through a licensed dealer, there is a 6 month waiting period before you can pick up the weapon.
- Owner liability. If a weapon registered to you is used in a crime, you are partly responsible (penalty can depend on the nature of the crime).
- Liability insurance. You have to take out insurance on your weapons. This will also ensure that the insurance company holds you accountable for passing all checks when buying a weapon.
- Mandatory weapon safety course with every purchase.
- Yearly re-registration of your weapon license, including a mandatory weapon safety course and psych evaluation.
I'm sure I've forgotten a thing or two...
None of these things infringe on your 2nd amendment rights. It ensures that gun owners are extra careful with storing their weapons safely. It, hopefully, ensures that weapons are less likely to end up in the hands of those who shouldn't have access to them.
If you are really gung-ho about getting a firearm, you should be willing to go through the hoops to get one.
|
|
it is painfully clear that neither of you do or even will understand.Be careful! Clearly you don't understand city slicker.Alaska=/=Connecticut
Herp the derp.
So only some states need constitutional rights?
Only the ones you want?Yes, Andrew. Clearly that is exactly what he meant.
*wanders off to see if there is ice cream in the fridge.*
*Unarmed.*
I was born in the country, lived in a cabin in the hills of West Virginia for a good time. I come from a reformed bunch of moonshiners and outlaws. I have also lived in big cities. I recognize the need to own some firearms. Low caliber handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are fine with me. I had them when I used them. I had a shotgun to scare the black bears out of my trash cans (never fired at them don't worry). They are tools that do fulfill a role. However, unless a horde of people are laying siege to my home, I can't for the life of me understand why an assault rifle is needed. I certainly can't protect myself from the government with it at this point - they could blow up my house before I even knew they were coming for me. The only people I ever saw hunt with an assault rifle were gun nuts from the city.
I didn't know there were so many NRA members on the Paizo forums.
They picked up some camouflage clothing with the gun?
We're good up to here...Suggestions for stricter gun regulations:
No sale of "long clips" (any type of non-standard clips for e.g. hand guns holding more rounds than the clip usually supplied with the weapon).
No sale of semi-automatic weapons and up.
Full background check of buyer (including mental health check and ineligibility of members of the household where the weapon is stored - any change to these circumstances must be reported immediately and may make you ineligible to own or store weapons in your house (you might still be permitted to store weapons at e.g. a gun range, say if it's a family member who is the problem)) - if you fail this test (when buying new weapons or at the yearly re-registration) you are able to sell the weapons you have through a licensed dealer (but they must be handed over immediately to be stored at the dealer); alternatively you can turn them in to be destroyed for free.
No concealed carry permits issued (if you buy a gun for home protection, you have no need to carry it concealed with you elsewhere).
Full federal database of all purchased weapons. If a gun goes missing it should be reported immediately and you get a "mark" in the database for not storing it properly.
All private sales must happen through a licensed middleman (a gun store in most cases) to ensure proper background check and transition.
When buying a new weapon through a licensed dealer, there is a 6 month waiting period before you can pick up the weapon.
Owner liability. If a weapon registered to you is used in a crime, you are partly responsible (penalty can depend on the nature of the crime).
Liability insurance. You have to take out insurance on your weapons. This will also ensure that the insurance company holds you accountable for passing all checks when buying a weapon.
Mandatory weapon safety course with every purchase.
Yearly re-registration of your weapon license, including a mandatory weapon safety course and psych evaluation.
...but some of those strikes me as making ownership so onerous as to constitute a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Whatever you position on the issue, I think most of us can all agree that we should try to minimize court challenges.
|
|
A combat style AR-15 with an extended magazine is not meant for hunting (though some have started using them for that purpose - they aren't needed for that purpose).
Eugene Stoner may have originally designed the platform for military use, but today's "hunting rifles" were originally designed for war as well, and like most other things in life that start out with one purpose, the original use has grown to include other things...
Since the AR platform rifle is the most popular style of rifle in the United States (that is to say the whole family of AR style rifles, from AR-10s to AR-15s and everything in between), it is only natural that people would adopt it for other purposes. It is the platform's ability to be endlessly customized by the user that makes them so popular (especially among hunters and competition shooters). But you're right, to use an AR configured for combat to hunt with would be silly...
...but some of those strikes me as making ownership so onerous as to constitute a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Whatever you position on the issue, I think most of us can all agree that we should try to minimize court challenges.
How so? Most of the same rules apply to other things, like having a driver's license and owning a car.
The restrictions you specifically singled out are rather varied, so would you do a point by point description of what exactly you think are wrong with them?It should be onerous to own a weapon/"tool" designed for killing.
Like with so many other things, it's a question of priorities and planning. If you really, really want to own a weapon, you should be willing to "work hard" for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to disagree is to say they have no problem with people being killed or being forced to live just like them. So pro suffering or anti freedom
Statement like that are a big part of why you aren't taken seriously.
...but some of those strikes me as making ownership so onerous as to constitute a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Whatever you position on the issue, I think most of us can all agree that we should try to minimize court challenges.
How so? Most of the same rules apply to other things, like having a driver's license and owning a car.
The restrictions you specifically singled out are rather varied, so would you do a point by point description of what exactly you think are wrong with them?
It should be onerous to own a weapon/"tool" designed for killing.
Like with so many other things, it's a question of priorities and planning. If you really, really want to own a weapon, you should be willing to "work hard" for it.
I didn't attach a value statement ("right" or "wrong"). I said I thought they made gun ownership onerous, and that doing that would lead to legal challenges. You seem to disagree, but then go on to say that you think that we should erect legal barriers to make gun ownership more difficult.
I guess I don't understand what you're asking me.
Or that they understand and disagree.And to disagree is to say they have no problem with people being killed or being forced to live just like them. So pro suffering or anti freedom
Not really. To disagree is to look at the facts and still manage to reach a different conclusion. Very little in this world is black or white.
...but some of those strikes me as making ownership so onerous as to constitute a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Whatever you position on the issue, I think most of us can all agree that we should try to minimize court challenges.
How so? Most of the same rules apply to other things, like having a driver's license and owning a car.
The restrictions you specifically singled out are rather varied, so would you do a point by point description of what exactly you think are wrong with them?
It should be onerous to own a weapon/"tool" designed for killing.
Like with so many other things, it's a question of priorities and planning. If you really, really want to own a weapon, you should be willing to "work hard" for it.I didn't attach a value statement ("right" or "wrong"). I said I thought they made gun ownership onerous, and that doing that would lead to legal challenges. You seem to disagree, but then go on to say that you think that we should erect legal barriers to make gun ownership more difficult.
I guess I don't understand what you're asking me.
I would classify "onerous" as a "negative" indicator, meaning that you think it's unnecessarily restrictive. Thus I'm curious as to why and if there are any of the mentioned points you think are especially troublesome.
Yes, the liability issue can be contested in courts, but so can current liability rules concerning e.g. cars too.|
|
Not really. To disagree is to look at the facts and still manage to reach a different conclusion. Very little in this world is black or white.Or that they understand and disagree.And to disagree is to say they have no problem with people being killed or being forced to live just like them. So pro suffering or anti freedom
It is very black and white that in some areas guns are a needed part of life
I would classify "onerous" as a "negative" indicator, meaning that you think it's unnecessarily restrictive. Thus I'm curious as to why and if there are any of the mentioned points you think are especially troublesome.
Yes, the liability issue can be contested in courts, but so can current liability rules concerning e.g. cars too.
Hmm. Let me restate. Take the six-month waiting period. Such a long period seems like an nothing more than attempt to make exercising the right to bear arms difficult. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm under the impression that the judiciary tends to take a dim view of trying to do what amounts to an end-run around legally guaranteed rights. Therefore, withholding any value judgment about such a long waiting period, I think attempting to impose such a period in the context of the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment would be a mistake.
|
|
You need a handgun for what exactly in Alaska?
Depends on what part of Alaska you're in. It's not all tundra and wilderness up there after all. It has some pretty densely populated cities with just as much crime as anywhere else in the United States...
If you shoot a Kodiak bear with most handguns he is just going to beat the crap out of you...
Good thing Kodiaks are all on one small island chain of the coast of southern Alaska with the only way on or off them by plane or ferry! ;-)
It's pretty universally accepted among hunters that a .44 magnum or better will handle a grisly or Kodiak (without having to totally unload on the thing), with the .454 Casull or .460 being preferred choices...
Cavemen used fire hardened wooden spears and were able to deal with bears and such. Are you dumber than cavemen?
Im not taken seriously because im not parroting liberal talking points.And to disagree is to say they have no problem with people being killed or being forced to live just like them. So pro suffering or anti freedomStatement like that are a big part of why you aren't taken seriously.
No, that's not it.
Are you dumber than cavemen?
Let's not do that please.
Good thing Kodiaks are all on one small island chain of the coast of southern Alaska with the only way on or off them by plane or ferry! ;-)
You can ask it if its a brown bear or a kodiak while passing through its digestive tract...
It's pretty universally accepted among hunters that a .44 magnum or better will handle a grisly or Kodiak (without having to totally unload on the thing), with the .454 Casull or .460 being preferred choices...
and if you can't hit it with the first 6 bullets you ain't gonna hit it with the next 94.
Hmm. Let me restate. Take the six-month waiting period. Such a long period seems like an nothing more than attempt to make exercising the right to bear arms difficult. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm under the impression that the judiciary tends to take a dim view of trying to do what amounts to an end-run around legally guaranteed rights. Therefore, withholding any value judgment about such a long waiting period, I think attempting to impose such a period in the context of the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment would be a mistake.I would classify "onerous" as a "negative" indicator, meaning that you think it's unnecessarily restrictive. Thus I'm curious as to why and if there are any of the mentioned points you think are especially troublesome.
Yes, the liability issue can be contested in courts, but so can current liability rules concerning e.g. cars too.
It's just a sufficiently long enough time to ensure hot headed purchasers cool down. And it's also meant more as a symbolic time frame. It could be 3 months or something else. Just more than the current immediate or 2 weeks wait time.
And as I said before, it's a question of planning and prioritizing.Again, you can still get your coveted firearm, you just can't get it now, now, NOW (GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!).
In the waiting period you can take the required tests and get all your paperwork in order.
Are you dumber than cavemen?Let's not do that please.
Fire-hardened spears, so simple a caveman can do it.
Better?
Fire-hardened spears, so simple a caveman can do it.
Better?
I think a better question is whether claims pertaining to bear defense merit any response at all.