Author Topic: The Suprising History Of Gun Control  (Read 4141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wayupnorth

  • Courtney Lee
  • Posts: 185
  • Tommy Points: 26
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2013, 02:05:20 PM »
I also have shot BB guns and I do find it kind of fun.  I have gone target shooting before and I agree it is enjoyable and more fun than BB guns.  I'm sure shooting things with missiles would be even more enjoyable too...

The point here is that while enjoyment is great, there's a certain cutoff where increasing personal enjoyment also crosses into the border of increasing murders.  If these weapons are not used to kill things (like deer) then we shouldn't need them.  If you want to kill deer, that's fine and I understand there are many good reasons to do so, but I just don't see why we need weapons out there capable of killing things if that's not their intention of use.  Guns' purpose are to kill.  If not and you own/use a gun for not killing, then why not do everyone a favor and use something that doesn't kill?  Or hell, why not shoot for the stars and demand that you can fire missiles for personal enjoyment?  A difference, sure, but the point still is the same.

As for #2, your statement makes me think you've read the 2nd amendment, but I don't think you understand the 2nd amendment.  Or you're just trying to play with words to make it seem like you're following it when you know you're not.

I do not own a firearm.  When I become a home owner, I likely will.  The purpose of that would be for personal protection (not related to the second amendment) or I suppose for protection of our freedom if it really came down to it.  You can see, the purpose would be to kill.  If I wanted something with the specific plan not to kill with it, that something would not be a gun.  Because I think that's unneccessary and dangerous.

Then I would think we agree more than we disagree on the subject. I, while not by any means convinced either way, think a healthy discussion of whether "assault weapons" (basically anything with a large magazine/ammo capacity) are needed, would be a good thing.

Yes the main reasons guns were created was to kill things, and it is what they are often used for, many people really enjoy simply shooting different guns.

As for the second amendment, we will disagree on what the meaning of the word "well-regulated" refer to. I believe that if the only militias that are allowed are run by the feds, (directly or indirectly) then what good are the militias? I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26067
  • Tommy Points: 1878
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2013, 02:19:30 PM »
I'd think the woman who just stopped a home invasion recently with her handgun would disagree with some of you here. I wonder what the criminal who broke into her home would have done with her, and her kids had she not had an equalizer....
So because of that one very recent home invasion stopped because a woman had a gun we need to put up with the hundreds and hundreds of murders of citizens and neighbors and family and friends and police officers and fire fighters that have also recently occurred due to guns.

Doesn't seem like a very fair trade off in my book. Every once in a while a gun protects someone so we need to put up with the hundreds to thousands of murders that occur because of guns.

Hmmmmm.....something seems awfully wrong with this.
DKC Brooklyn Nets
Pick 2 New Orleans Pelicans
PG: George Hill/Jameer Nelson
SG: Victor Oladipo/Mario Chalmers/Kobe Bryant
SF: Chandler Parsons/P.J. Tucker
PF: Anthony Davis/Brandon Bass/Mike Scott
C: DeAndre Jordan/Enes Kanter

Offline angryguy77

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4001
  • Tommy Points: 352
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2013, 02:26:56 PM »
I'd think the woman who just stopped a home invasion recently with her handgun would disagree with some of you here. I wonder what the criminal who broke into her home would have done with her, and her kids had she not had an equalizer....
So because of that one very recent home invasion stopped because a woman had a gun we need to put up with the hundreds and hundreds of murders of citizens and neighbors and family and friends and police officers and fire fighters that have also recently occurred due to guns.

Doesn't seem like a very fair trade off in my book. Every once in a while a gun protects someone so we need to put up with the hundreds to thousands of murders that occur because of guns.

Hmmmmm.....something seems awfully wrong with this.

A simple google search will show you that it happens much more than you think.

But if you want to use the argument that only a few are helped at the expense of the masses, then I think the need for quite a few social programs and other laws need to be revisited using your criteria.

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26067
  • Tommy Points: 1878
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2013, 02:29:23 PM »
I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.
Fight back against what?

Tell you what, you get a group of your buddies together and form a militia in North Dakota. When the US government decides it wants to oppress their people you take yourself and your buds in the North Dakota militia and put them against the combined strength of the Grand Forks, Minot, and Ellsworth Air Force Bases and the Camp Ridley Army Base.

Good luck fighting back.
DKC Brooklyn Nets
Pick 2 New Orleans Pelicans
PG: George Hill/Jameer Nelson
SG: Victor Oladipo/Mario Chalmers/Kobe Bryant
SF: Chandler Parsons/P.J. Tucker
PF: Anthony Davis/Brandon Bass/Mike Scott
C: DeAndre Jordan/Enes Kanter

Offline angryguy77

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4001
  • Tommy Points: 352
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2013, 02:41:30 PM »
I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.
Fight back against what?

Tell you what, you get a group of your buddies together and form a militia in North Dakota. When the US government decides it wants to oppress their people you take yourself and your buds in the North Dakota militia and put them against the combined strength of the Grand Forks, Minot, and Ellsworth Air Force Bases and the Camp Ridley Army Base.

Good luck fighting back.

We've had this discussion before. I'd like for you to tell us exactly how you know who would side with who during an armed revolution. Do you know for a fact that every single state would turn on it's own? Do you know for a fact that each and every battalion would follow orders from DC?

I rather die fighting an oppressive government than just lay down and take it because the odds are not on my side.

What we do know is an unarmed populace stands no chance to reorganize their government. At least with an armed citizenry, there is a chance. No people, no matter how long they've been free are immune from losing their liberty at some point.

I'll agree with a gun ban when you can make a guarantee to all people that they can walk down the street and have a 100% chance of not being killed or beaten. Further, if you can guarantee our government will  adhere to the rights protected in the Constitution till the end of time, then by all means, take the guns away.

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26067
  • Tommy Points: 1878
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2013, 02:53:40 PM »
I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.
Fight back against what?

Tell you what, you get a group of your buddies together and form a militia in North Dakota. When the US government decides it wants to oppress their people you take yourself and your buds in the North Dakota militia and put them against the combined strength of the Grand Forks, Minot, and Ellsworth Air Force Bases and the Camp Ridley Army Base.

Good luck fighting back.

We've had this discussion before. I'd like for you to tell us exactly how you know who would side with who during an armed revolution. Do you know for a fact that every single state would turn on it's own? Do you know for a fact that each and every battalion would follow orders from DC?

I rather die fighting an oppressive government than just lay down and take it because the odds are not on my side.

What we do know is an unarmed populace stands no chance to reorganize their government. At least with an armed citizenry, there is a chance. No people, no matter how long they've been free are immune from losing their liberty at some point.

I'll agree with a gun ban when you can make a guarantee to all people that they can walk down the street and have a 100% chance of not being killed or beaten. Further, if you can guarantee our government will  adhere to the rights protected in the Constitution till the end of time, then by all means, take the guns away.
If I don't but a ticket to win Powerball my chances of winning Powerball are zero. If I buy a ticket my chances increase to exactly 1 in 175,000,000. In other words my chances are so remote to essentially be zero.

The chances of an armed militia fighting back and forcing their government to do what they want even though they would have to fight the US Armed Forces? Much much much much less than winning Powerball.

So fool yourself with your false bravado and take on the US Armed Forces with your guns when the government decides to oppress you. Good luck with that suicide mission.

This whole attitude proves that guns should not be in the hands of people. They get this false sense of power because they own a gun and suddenly think they can use that gun to fight off an oppressive military or fight against law enforcement if they come to get those guns if guns are ever outlawed. That's suicide and shows a mental instability which should preclude those people from owning a gun in the first place.

Sorry people. Red Dawn was a make believe movie that could never occur.
DKC Brooklyn Nets
Pick 2 New Orleans Pelicans
PG: George Hill/Jameer Nelson
SG: Victor Oladipo/Mario Chalmers/Kobe Bryant
SF: Chandler Parsons/P.J. Tucker
PF: Anthony Davis/Brandon Bass/Mike Scott
C: DeAndre Jordan/Enes Kanter

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26067
  • Tommy Points: 1878
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2013, 02:55:46 PM »
I'd think the woman who just stopped a home invasion recently with her handgun would disagree with some of you here. I wonder what the criminal who broke into her home would have done with her, and her kids had she not had an equalizer....
So because of that one very recent home invasion stopped because a woman had a gun we need to put up with the hundreds and hundreds of murders of citizens and neighbors and family and friends and police officers and fire fighters that have also recently occurred due to guns.

Doesn't seem like a very fair trade off in my book. Every once in a while a gun protects someone so we need to put up with the hundreds to thousands of murders that occur because of guns.

Hmmmmm.....something seems awfully wrong with this.

A simple google search will show you that it happens much more than you think.

But if you want to use the argument that only a few are helped at the expense of the masses, then I think the need for quite a few social programs and other laws need to be revisited using your criteria.
Only a few are helped at the expense of the DEATH of the masses, not because the masses had to pay a little extra money. Pretty huge difference there.
DKC Brooklyn Nets
Pick 2 New Orleans Pelicans
PG: George Hill/Jameer Nelson
SG: Victor Oladipo/Mario Chalmers/Kobe Bryant
SF: Chandler Parsons/P.J. Tucker
PF: Anthony Davis/Brandon Bass/Mike Scott
C: DeAndre Jordan/Enes Kanter

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1957
  • Tommy Points: 220
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2013, 03:28:32 PM »
What we do know is an unarmed populace stands no chance to reorganize their government. At least with an armed citizenry, there is a chance. No people, no matter how long they've been free are immune from losing their liberty at some point.
Members of the armed forces are citizens.

Offline wayupnorth

  • Courtney Lee
  • Posts: 185
  • Tommy Points: 26
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2013, 04:39:30 PM »
I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.
Fight back against what?

Tell you what, you get a group of your buddies together and form a militia in North Dakota. When the US government decides it wants to oppress their people you take yourself and your buds in the North Dakota militia and put them against the combined strength of the Grand Forks, Minot, and Ellsworth Air Force Bases and the Camp Ridley Army Base.

Good luck fighting back.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars sure were easy and went no problem then, right?

The point is that why should I not have the right to protect my private property with lethal force? The president does it, movie starts do it, athletes do it. Are you saying that only the people who can afford protection with firearms deserve it? My family is just as important to me as the president is.

Offline kozlodoev

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8779
  • Tommy Points: 469
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2013, 04:43:17 PM »
I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.
Fight back against what?

Tell you what, you get a group of your buddies together and form a militia in North Dakota. When the US government decides it wants to oppress their people you take yourself and your buds in the North Dakota militia and put them against the combined strength of the Grand Forks, Minot, and Ellsworth Air Force Bases and the Camp Ridley Army Base.

Good luck fighting back.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars sure were easy and went no problem then, right?

The point is that why should I not have the right to protect my private property with lethal force? The president does it, movie starts do it, athletes do it. Are you saying that only the people who can afford protection with firearms deserve it? My family is just as important to me as the president is.
Excuse me, but this isn't making any sense.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Offline angryguy77

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4001
  • Tommy Points: 352
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2013, 04:55:21 PM »
I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.
Fight back against what?

Tell you what, you get a group of your buddies together and form a militia in North Dakota. When the US government decides it wants to oppress their people you take yourself and your buds in the North Dakota militia and put them against the combined strength of the Grand Forks, Minot, and Ellsworth Air Force Bases and the Camp Ridley Army Base.

Good luck fighting back.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars sure were easy and went no problem then, right?

The point is that why should I not have the right to protect my private property with lethal force? The president does it, movie starts do it, athletes do it. Are you saying that only the people who can afford protection with firearms deserve it? My family is just as important to me as the president is.
Excuse me, but this isn't making any sense.

He's saying the elites will be the only ones unaffected from a gun ban. We can't all afford having bodyguards or a secret service detachment.

Offline wayupnorth

  • Courtney Lee
  • Posts: 185
  • Tommy Points: 26
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #41 on: January 08, 2013, 04:58:36 PM »
I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.
Fight back against what?

Tell you what, you get a group of your buddies together and form a militia in North Dakota. When the US government decides it wants to oppress their people you take yourself and your buds in the North Dakota militia and put them against the combined strength of the Grand Forks, Minot, and Ellsworth Air Force Bases and the Camp Ridley Army Base.

Good luck fighting back.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars sure were easy and went no problem then, right?

The point is that why should I not have the right to protect my private property with lethal force? The president does it, movie starts do it, athletes do it. Are you saying that only the people who can afford protection with firearms deserve it? My family is just as important to me as the president is.
Excuse me, but this isn't making any sense.

If it were do easy to rid an area of armed combatants why were those two wars such failures. It is not easy to occupy a country without committing mass murder of innocent people, and are you down with that?

I do not like the idea of unarmed citizenry. You can disagree, and that is fine. I just know I am surrounded by people who own multiple firearms all the time, and I have never felt threatened.



Again, why should I not be allowed to protect my private property? Why do our politicians get ARMED bodyguards, but I shouldn't be allowed to protect myself with a firearm? (Speaking directly to those who are trying to push extremely restrictive and regulations)

Offline kozlodoev

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8779
  • Tommy Points: 469
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #42 on: January 08, 2013, 04:59:11 PM »
He's saying the elites will be the only ones unaffected from a gun ban. We can't all afford having bodyguards or a secret service detachment.
Yes, which doesn't make any sense. We can't afford many things in this respect that the so-called elites can right now, guns or no guns.

And the "secret service detachment" protects the institution, it's not somethign the elite can "afford".
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Offline wayupnorth

  • Courtney Lee
  • Posts: 185
  • Tommy Points: 26
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2013, 04:59:16 PM »
I feel that it was much more about guaranteeing that "the people" will always have a way to fight back.
Fight back against what?

Tell you what, you get a group of your buddies together and form a militia in North Dakota. When the US government decides it wants to oppress their people you take yourself and your buds in the North Dakota militia and put them against the combined strength of the Grand Forks, Minot, and Ellsworth Air Force Bases and the Camp Ridley Army Base.

Good luck fighting back.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars sure were easy and went no problem then, right?

The point is that why should I not have the right to protect my private property with lethal force? The president does it, movie starts do it, athletes do it. Are you saying that only the people who can afford protection with firearms deserve it? My family is just as important to me as the president is.
Excuse me, but this isn't making any sense.

He's saying the elites will be the only ones unaffected from a gun ban. We can't all afford having bodyguards or a secret service detachment.

Thank you.

Offline kozlodoev

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8779
  • Tommy Points: 469
Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2013, 05:13:42 PM »
If it were do easy to rid an area of armed combatants why were those two wars such failures. It is not easy to occupy a country without committing mass murder of innocent people, and are you down with that?
I guess you support equipping the general population with Molotovs, landmines, and plastic explosives. Because handguns and hunting rifles surely ain't stopping a foreign invasion. Or government oppression for that matter. This is not hthe 18th century anymore.

I do not like the idea of unarmed citizenry. You can disagree, and that is fine. I just know I am surrounded by people who own multiple firearms all the time, and I have never felt threatened.
I don't feel threatened by the people I am surrounded by. I feel threatened of the loonie next door waving an semiautomatic.

Again, why should I not be allowed to protect my private property? Why do our politicians get ARMED bodyguards, but I shouldn't be allowed to protect myself with a firearm? (Speaking directly to those who are trying to push extremely restrictive and regulations)
For starters, because politicians face increased risks by virtue of being public figures. Ask the Kennedies.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com