Poll: is he ignorant or does he have a point

[lasergoose]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

I'm loyal to and trust the state.

Then you are unwise. Sorry.

This isn't just directed at you, but to reiterate a point that has come up a couple times:
Gun ownership is quite literally the only thing that keeps a country's gov't from saying, "You know what? We'll take whatever the f___ we want, whenever the f___ we want it, and while we're at it - we're keeping our offices for life."

Think about it. What possible other reason could there be for the fact that clearly power-hungry individuals have decided to NOT take literally everything they could possibly want? Or pass laws based on absolute whims? Or raid the homes of political opponents? Or execute dissidents?

I'm not crazy. I'm not even a gun-owner. I'm a rational American who understands the reasoning behind that second amendment.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

Yes, because Barack Obama is such an iron-fisted brute, what with his Health Care and his diplomacy.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

I'm loyal to and trust the state.

Then you are unwise. Sorry.

This isn't just directed at you, but to reiterate a point that has come up a couple times:
Gun ownership is quite literally the only thing that keeps a country's gov't from saying, "You know what? We'll take whatever the f___ we want, whenever the f___ we want it, and while we're at it - we're keeping our offices for life."

Think about it. What possible other reason could there be for the fact that clearly power-hungry individuals have decided to NOT take literally everything they could possibly want? Or pass laws based on absolute whims? Or raid the homes of political opponents? Or execute dissidents?

I'm not crazy. I'm not even a gun-owner. I'm a rational American who understands the reasoning behind that second amendment.

Really? Because I thought it was written hundreds of years ago by militia men who just fought off THE world power, and wanted to ensure that everybody who could defend against a re-invasion, did.

 

[magnuslion]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

while I agree that op's mom and stepdad have a right not to have a gun in their house, are you saying you are willing to give up the right to bare arms and let the government be the only ones who have weapons? do you really believe that any governmental force will always act in its citizens best interests?

Here's some news for you:
The United States of America is not the only country in the world.

LOLS.

I am roman and jewish. the right I am talking about should belong to all people everywhere. and it is likely in my mind that your opinion in this issue is based upon the unrest in your own country as opposed to what is fair and right and equitable to all people, everywhere.

Oooohhhh.
We have a liberal do we?
I'm a fascist, so I'm pretty much your political opposite.

As a matter of fact:
Ireland is a very safe country, very little gun related murders or robbery and guess what?
Guns are not legal, even our police force (An Garda Síochána) do not carry guns, our gardaí only carry metal batons and mace.
With that in mind consider how low our country's crime rate is compared to other countries where guns are easier to get.

the presumption of my being a liberal says more about your mind than it does about me. I am a libertarian.

What is the difference?

do all the heroin you want and leave what is mine alone.

What?

as far as you being a fascist:no one cares.

I stated my political position for the sake of the context of the arguement.

in answer to your crime rate being low: Yes, when the people are terrified of the government, their neighbors, and the world in general, crime rates due tend to drop. after all, the official "Crime rates" during nazi germany were pretty damn low, considering that most crimes were punishable by death.

So you forsake safety in the name of personal freedoms?
You are selfish, people like you only care about what you can get from the world, people like you do not care about humanity as a whole!

But I will not give up my freedoms so that cowards can have their illusion of safety. because that is all it is. the government cannot and will not keep you safe from anything.

So you call everyone that understands the threat of fire arms a coward do you?

above all: you have hostility issues. you should get some counseling, because it is unlikely the rest of the world is going to adopt your policies and beliefs so that you can feel like you are right.

Another user has stated that in a far less hostile manner, however I do not see it.

Of course you don't see it. you do not want to, it would inconvenience you and the little world you have built for yourself.

in an argument about selfishness, it would be just as valid for me to say that you selfishly want your illusion of safety so much that you are willing to take my rights from me.

libertarian does not equal a liberal. look it up, I do not have any more time to waste arguing with you.

 

[Smagmuck_]

Guns, no. The DO NOT kill people. The idiot USING them does. Now, it's all based on maturity. Take me fore example, I act like a complete idiodic jackass 90% of the time. But, you throw a firearm in my hands I make my dad look childish. If you know proper trigger control, saftey and cleaning then go ahead...

 

[Dracovec]

i have been using a gun since i was 5,my dad and family trained me to use it,hunt with it,and protect myself while teaching me guns are dangerous
if your an idiot then no guns are not for you,but if you are a responsible,educated person then yes there is no problem with it

 

[Cliff_m85]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

Yes, because Barack Obama is such an iron-fisted brute, what with his Health Care and his diplomacy.

Oh, drats. My mistake. I didn't notice I put down "this week" or "this year" in my response. I ask your forgiveness. *reads my response again* Oh wait, I didn't imply that THIS ADMINISTRATION would be the one to step over the line. Well, you know what happens when you assume....you make an idiot outta yerself.

 

[RelexCryo]

Gun laws in the U.S. are stupid as hell. SO many people die due to guns compared to other countries.

So no, I don't think you should get a gun.

I recommend watching that Columbine documentary from Michael Moore, gun laws are not the problem.

The movie from Michael Moore said that guns kill a lot of people, and that we should ban guns because they kill a lot of people. He didn't actually examine the effectiveness of Gun bans. He just sort of assumed the result would be lower crime.

Eh? No, have you actually seen the movie or you just made that up? If that's what you understood from the film then watch it again or something...

He examined the number of people murdered in the U.S. with guns, then compared the amount to gun homicides in other countries. He ran a piece of a Southpark episode, then proceeded to say "A nation this hyped up on fear can't have guns." He never, at any point in time, actually examined the effect of gun bans. He admitted a few times that some countries with more guns (such as Canada) had a lower rate of crime, but he never, at any point in time, examined the before and after effect of a gun ban and used it to support his assertion that a gun ban would result in less crime. He effecctively implied that while countries with good social conditions can have guns, countries with bad social conditions can't be allowed to have them, but he never actually examined the before and after effect of gun bans.

So to repeat what I said earlier: he listed the gun homicides in a bunch of countries, but he never actually examined the effectiveness of gun bans. He just sort of assumed that gun bans would result in less crime.

 

[ultrachicken]

I don't understand why you need a rifle.

SNIP
I do not have any more time to waste arguing with you.

Sorry to butt in, but this is a forum, which is about discussion. If you don't have time for arguments, then don't partake in any.

 

[pumuckl]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

I love this point of view... it completley disregards the fact our county won our independance because of a bunch of hillbilly farmers had the cheepest shittiest rifles known to man but could still hit a target a few football fields away in a strong wind

gun ownership is a necessesity based soley (butchered spelling?) on history, and the fact even though we think we're safe now, it's inevitable there will one day be a hostile takeover attempt of sum sort and we'll all be saved (or if we're unlucky liberated some years later) by some miltia men who were waiting to shoot somebody legally for years...

From my imperialistic point of view:
North America was an English colony and y'all are a bunch of traitors for fighting that war.

good point, though every country on this planet more or less has a story of it's people rising up with the little weapons they owned to fight against the ruling class, every society has a revolution and without the right to own them, and without those who go out and get a weapon, most countries would be pretty bum fucked outta luck... plus zombies...

when z-day hits only those with useful skills will be saved, so start shootin'.

 

[bam13302]

I understand your point of view, and that is the idea, a gun is never safe until you understand that guns are never safe. I know, that is a bit confusing, but thats just how it is. Always take care, and dont do anything stupid with the gun, and nothing bad will happen. Store, transport, and fire them properly, and they are, for all intents and purposes, safe.

Yeh, that would be the point that needs to be made, guns are at their safest when you know they aren't safe. I've seen too many people do absolutely retarded things with guns that it tickles me when people call them safe, apologies.

bullet size and powder load, i would assume this happened over a short distance so depreciating velocity shouldnt really factor in
i assume it was just a normal solid round, any other round seems like it would be counter productive

High Velocity? Rim fire, centre fire? Armour Penetrating? (That is assuming you can get them in .22, never actually seen them)
Is this perchance a rumour or did you read it somewhere?

lol, Escapist failed, that second statement was not mine

 

[AlphaOmega]

You are a moron, 16 year olds should not have guns because nobody should have guns (military excluded)

 

[Voodoomancer]

A possible compromise: Get a bow!

 

[Jonatron]

If it's a case of "not under my roof" why not have the gun stored at the range? Isn't that common practice?

 

[Skarvig]

Well, you know what happens when you assume....you make an idiot outta yerself.

Oh the irony. The one who assumes, calls someone a idiot for his assumption.

This isn't just directed at you, but to reiterate a point that has come up a couple times:
Gun ownership is quite literally the only thing that keeps a country's gov't from saying, "You know what? We'll take whatever the f___ we want, whenever the f___ we want it, and while we're at it - we're keeping our offices for life."

Think about it. What possible other reason could there be for the fact that clearly power-hungry individuals have decided to NOT take literally everything they could possibly want? Or pass laws based on absolute whims? Or raid the homes of political opponents? Or execute dissidents?

I never read something this paranoid. Your government has tanks, jets, helicopters and is able to carpet bomb the shit out of you, and you think a rifle keeps your senator out of your bedroom?

 

[Soxafloppin]

I'm just gonna be honest and i say i'd feel the same way as your mum's Partner.

 

[PayneTrayne]

I'm pretty happy with strict gun control, although it sucks seeing as I live across the river from what I believe to be a pretty crime ridden place. My town has only had one cop killed in the past 60 or so years, I'm happy with the peace.

OT: I don't think you need the gun, but then if you had a gun pointed at me my opinion would change. Just listen to the parents for now.

 

[Seatownstriker]

Yeah just wait till you move out, Then you can have all the guns you can afford. Its their place just abide by the rules a few more years. And if you still want one after you move out, then go get one. And go take a gun safety class as well.