Poll: is he ignorant or does he have a point

[lasergoose]

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?

Okay, then tell me what does? Why aren't we a complete police state right now?

 

[Jofrak]

Being good at hand-to-hand type encounters, I find no reason for a gun. Guns tend to make more problems than they solve.

Being good with a gun I find no reason for hand to hand techniques.
See what I did there!!

You could be a Grade A swashbuckling Ninja pirate for all I care, just because you're good with your fists and feet doesn't mean a gun is not a useful implement. Correlations between crime and gun ownership have been stated plenty in the past few pages so where exactly does your argu... statement come from?

 

[The-Jake]

The problem with the concept of not letting people own guns is that the only people who will listen to this law are the people who would never have caused a problem in the first place.

Thank you. That's the problem with fences: against the honest, you only needed a sign, and against the dishonest, they're ineffective.

It says security of the State, not security of the people or security of individuals.

"Security of the State" is used in the statement of context, yes, but the statement of policy uses "the right of the people".

First of all, the instant jump to communism was hilarious.

I know it is; that's why I threw it in as soon as I thought of it.

And cars, houses, voting? None of those were invented and designed to kill stuff.

Design is irrelevant. A car and a vote can both be used to kill a man. It is kind of hard to deliberately kill someone with a house, though. I'll give you that one. Even the whole Dorothy / Wicked Witch ordeal was really a freak one-time thing.

Stories about kids shooting themselves accidentally because their parents left guns around surface all the time. You want freedom, but you don't want to have to exercise responsibility with that freedom.

Stories about dogs biting their owners surface all the time. If someone agreed with the people advocating dog owners having to learn more about dog safety and opposed the people demanding all non-K9 dogs be put to sleep, would you accuse that person of "wanting freedom without responsibility"?

If you have the right to a rifle for shooting skeet, then I want the right to a live neutron bomb for a lawn chair.

A neutron bomb is impossible for you to use in a safe and sane manner, making it not analogous to a gun. Everyone please stop arguing as if unsafe/insane use of guns is the mean rather than the outlier.
Aside: live, no, but a defused neutron bomb would make a fucking sweet lawn chair. Now I want one!

I am a simpleton that can't keep up with all of your quotes, please explain what you want to say for yourself please.

Sorry about that. I tend to discuss in large bursts, you may have noticed. In that post, I was responding to multiple different people, so I don't think the post has only one main point. You're right that I don't want children to have guns.

if they can be trusted to accept those risks and take responsibility for what happens, then why on earth can people not make the same decisions with firearms?

"Guns do not keep people safe," yet many people in this thread actively support allowing only "law enforcement" to wield guns.

I want to have you guys' babies.

Guns do not keep people safe. They merely give you an oppurtunity to shoot someone else before they shoot you. That is not safety, that's just someone else dying.

Absurd reasoning. You've never heard, "The best defense is a good offense"? If I went back in time and killed those Columbine assholes the day before, do you not think their victims would still be alive today? (Assume Back to the Future rules) Killing can absolutely preserve life.

Every death is a waste.

Oh, that's a whole other debate.

the blade itself incites to violence.

I'm able to appreciate that there are people of whom this is completely true; people who, when exposed to weapons, suffer intrusive thoughts of committing violence with them. I understand your desire to see as few guns as possible, but please don't assume this applies to absolutely everyone.

No, I see no point in owning a weapon unless you need one for survival.

Should we use legal force to stop people learning a martial art that turns their body into a weapon if the state doesn't think they "need it to survive"? If they already know it, should we hobble them?

I keep seeing arguments on these sorts of topics for 'we need a right to defend ourselves'. And what exactly are the police for?

Even if we assume completely trustworthy teleporting police, you're still handing over control of your personal safety completely to the state. America has this cultural condition such that The Individual is a great whopping huge deal, making the issue more contentious than it would perhaps be elsewhere.

It might be self defense, but you're still a murderer.

That's... not actually how our legal system works.

If you have to have a gun to feel safe, you should see a psychiatrist.

I don't own any guns--never have--and I don't feel unsafe for it. I've never even touched a loaded gun. I don't argue in favor of civilian gun ownership because I'm whatever cartoon you're imagining that makes you call me mentally ill, I argue in favor of civilian gun ownership because out of all the social policies re: guns, it makes the most sense.

Maybe, but I'm not one to march on government conventions with loaded firearms as seemed to be the case with most 2nd amendment activists.

Those guys are the non-representative Loudmouthed Fucktard Minority; the kind of people you get in any group, who command attention disproportionate to their numbers and make the whole group look like loons.

Responsible parents wouldn't have divorced causing problems among the child.

Wooooow. Issuuuuues.
Divorce can happen for a lot of reasons, and "parental irresponsibility" does not blanket them all.

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

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa?
My mind, she is blown.

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

The definition of "sport" is not "athletic". Things are also sports which demand focus, or special training and practice. Being completely unathletic has nothing to do with whether something is a sport.

When push comes to shove, the government, whether you agree with yours or not, is on your side.

I would like to come live on your planet; it sounds utterly different to and better than mine.

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?

The thesis of citizen gun ownership is not, "If the government gets uppity, we're going to literally kill them all." It's about making the state understand that power is not something given from the state to the individual.

I CALL GODWIN'S LAW!

Goddammit! Thread over.

 

[Skarvig]

Okay, then tell me what does? Why aren't we a complete police state right now?

Because they don't need to turn their working system into something that failed in the past. There was a time where power hungry lords ruled their countries with a iron fist. Those guys where called kings. They took everything they wanted just for their own pleasure. It didn't worked out. In our times we learned from the past. And if a country in the west tries to oppress their masses, other countries would try to help and start get rid of the leader of that country. Besides they don't need to go and break into your house to get your stuff. You already give them stuff. This stuff is called taxes. Guns won't help you to not pay your taxes.

Besides there are countries where nearly no one owns a gun. Those countries tend to GIVE their people somehting like Health Care.
And I would say that it's pretty hard for a politician, who'd like to take everything you have, to gain power because that's why we have democracy. The people decide who's their leader.

 

[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.

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.

Well, you're assuming that people in a Democratic country would elect a Dictator who has no empathy or sympathy. And you're assuming that civilians with pistols and shotguns could overthrow a Military State. I don't know what fantasy world that is, but it's clearly not this one.

You don't elect a dictator. You elect a politician and they become a dictator.

And if the vast majority of the American public picked up simple fire arms they would over power the military.

But the point is that we must be willing to stand up to our government IF it gets to the point where our freedoms are being trampled on. IF. Just as many probably thought England would never become so tyrannical.

It just wouldn't be practical to become Dictator of America. They're just so gung-ho on Democracy that you wouldn't be able to establish a proper order. Let alone stop the UN forces from booting you out.

Plus, no they couldn't. The United States military is so well-equipped they would be able to put down any attempted revolution within days. It's pretty damn hard to be Fidel Castro when the other side has air support and you don't.

And furthermore, any Autocracy, regardless of how it is governed, is tyrannical. Tyrant is just another word for a Revolutionary leader. George Washington was a tyrant, as were Kim IlSung and Rhee Seungman . But by modern definition, the British Empire was always Tyrannical, as were all Monarchies.

And anyways, how many lives is your preparedness for a fictitious conflict worth? Do you even know the gun death statistics in America? Your argument is thinner than the line between freedom and irresponsibility.

Not if the military joins in with the people. It's hard to convince a man to shoot his own mother. Certainly it wouldn't be practical to be dictator, but it could happen. The main point being that if we don't have guns then we have less of a voice to politicians.

How many lives are worth giving for this fictitious conflict? Well, that's a pointless question. I'd say every consentual life is worth giving for freedom.

I don't know where you're getting these notions from, but you clearly have no idea how the military, dictatorships, or revolutions, work. In your magical land of hypothetical situations, you're still saying that gun crime is acceptable just so long as people have guns that are pretty much ineffectual when compared with any sort of contemporary military implement.

Either that, or you're Trolling.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

The definition of "sport" is not "athletic". Things are also sports which demand focus, or special training and practice. Being completely unathletic has nothing to do with whether something is a sport.

When push comes to shove, the government, whether you agree with yours or not, is on your side.

I would like to come live on your planet; it sounds utterly different to and better than mine.

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?

The thesis of citizen gun ownership is not, "If the government gets uppity, we're going to literally kill them all." It's about making the state understand that power is not something given from the state to the individual.

I CALL GODWIN'S LAW!

Goddammit! Thread over.

I know what the definition of sport is, and I said that if it isn't actually physically demanding, it shouldn't be a sport. Sport and athletics should be more closely related.

And what planet do you live on? Even the most iron-fisted and oppressive dictatorships in history have protected their people from foreign invaders, one way or another.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I have to side with your moms boyfriend. I might get flamed for this but, as a Brit, I do not believe in The Second Amendment. To me the bearing of arms is more of a responsibility than a right and guns should only be given to civilians as a form of home guard during war times (if you don't know what a home guard is here's a link to the wikipedia article (yes, I know) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_%28United_Kingdom%29

 

[Keanotix]

im 16 and i decided to get a rifle because i really like shooting and i told my moms boyfriend and he said he wouldn't live in this house if i got it and that "no good would come from that thing". hes acting like its a horrible omen like when i get it the world will end. am i wrong or is he just ignorant
p.s. my moms with him on it


edit: my dads an ex marine and has trained me to the best of his ability's. only problem he lives in new Hampshire

edit again: i want to get one for target shooting and i can get one with parents consent.

edit AGAIN: im sorry if i come off as if im begging to get a gun, i respect the house rules i just dont agree with them. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with them.

Has anyone actually read this?
When the hell did a rather simple question suddenly develop into a flame war on pros,cons and political bull on gun control?

Look, man just understand that if your mum wont allow it in her house then you should respect her wishes and either keep it at your dad's or at a range where you can shoot it in a controlled environment. Your views and level of professionalism with firearms, while respectable, mean nothing if your mum is against the idea. Why not keep one at your dad's instead since he seems cool with it?

As for the would-be politicians, "calm down dear, it's a commercial" - Michael Winner

 

[brunt32]

He might be ignorant or he could have a point all I know is, If your parents don't feel safe with you having a rifle then you shouldn't want to get one out of respect. (I'm calling your step dad and mother parents.)

 

[micky]

im 16 and i decided to get a rifle because i really like shooting and i told my moms boyfriend and he said he wouldn't live in this house if i got it and that "no good would come from that thing". hes acting like its a horrible omen like when i get it the world will end. am i wrong or is he just ignorant
p.s. my moms with him on it


edit: my dads an ex marine and has trained me to the best of his ability's. only problem he lives in new Hampshire

edit again: i want to get one for target shooting and i can get one with parents consent.

edit AGAIN: im sorry if i come off as if im begging to get a gun, i respect the house rules i just dont agree with them. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with them.

Has anyone actually read this?
When the hell did a rather simple question suddenly develop into a flame war on pros,cons and political bull on gun control?

Look, man just understand that if your mum wont allow it in her house then you should respect her wishes and either keep it at your dad's or at a range where you can shoot it in a controlled environment. Your views and level of professionalism with firearms, while respectable, mean nothing if your mum is against the idea. Why not keep one at your dad's instead since he seems cool with it?

As for the would-be politicians, "calm down dear, it's a commercial" - Michael Winner

wow i thought this thread died a long time ago, ya i understand so ive made the decision to buy a gun but keep it at my dads everyone wins!

 

[Keanotix]

wow i thought this thread died a long time ago, ya i understand so ive made the decision to buy a gun but keep it at my dads everyone wins!

Good call.

 

[finalguy]

short answer is just wait til ur 18 or whatever the age of accountabilty is, move out, then get ur gun(s). it was same with me when i was ur age. my dad was ex marine and had like 180 guns. he rlly wanted me to learn about then and them be a part of my life but i lived with my mom and stepdad. she was totally against guns. looking back, im glad we didnt have any in that house. i wouldnt have shot anyone but dollars to doughnuts my crazy bro or mom might have.

 

[Jackalb]

I'm sure it's already been suggested...but get the gun and shoot them.