Your Personal Firearms

Langues: JP EN DE FR
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Chatterbox » Your personal firearms
Your personal firearms
First Page 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 9 10 11
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 19:42:06
Link | Citer | R
 
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »
charlo999 said: »
Guess what, guns rant needed in society though. If you get a thrill from shooting a gun bully for you. But ask yourself. Are you willing to give up that right if it helps to even save 1 child/person/family member?
I know I wouldn't think twice.

Would you give up the ease and accessibility of an automobile if it meant saving one life?

We have measures to prevent loss of life as much as possible on the roads whilst giving people the means to live. Guns don't offer anything in general living.
 Sylph.Cossack
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: sandman16
Posts: 525
By Sylph.Cossack 2012-12-27 19:42:07
Link | Citer | R
 
We're suppose to be able to own machine guns.
When they said "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state." They weren't worried about bears or foreigners, they were refering to our own government.
And I'm still amazed, disgusted at how utterly our post FDR governemnt has completely direguarded the "Shall not be infringed" clause in the same article.
[+]
 Fenrir.Skarwind
Offline
Serveur: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
user: Skarwind
Posts: 3279
By Fenrir.Skarwind 2012-12-27 19:42:31
Link | Citer | R
 
Cerberus.Tidis said: »
Never mentioned anything about the 2nd amendment being about hunting, anyway I'm really just commenting as well as I can on the subject which isn't helped by the fact I know very little about American laws and admittedly must be biased on the subject due to growing up in a country with tight gun regulation.

I'm intrigued to see where this thread goes but I imagine ***'s gonna go south overnight and will be gone by the time I wake up tomorrow.

Sorry I misread your comment. Growing up in a certain environment could be part of it.

I grew up in a house where fire-arms were viewed as bad. But once I received the training I realized they are no different than anything else that has some sort of risk to it.

Really looking at things logically, experiencing it first hand and having the right training can change things.

I think some people will get this thread closed by "bleating" like sheep, but honestly as much as they complain and whine nothing will get done. They aren't the ones donating money, writing politicians, and doing any sort of activism. Give it a month and most of these people will be too busy watching the biggest loser to give a damn, while people in support will still be on the front lines keeping watch.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 19:45:04
Link | Citer | R
 
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »
Cerberus.Tidis said: »
Tbh I can't understand why America doesn't have stricter gun legislation or this whole "Right to bear arms" nonsense but it's their laws and while in place regular people are going to be able justify ownership of a gun as a means of protection.

In my opinion though I can't understand how this extends past a simple revolver, why do people need fully automatic weapons, shotguns and rifles, for hunting? Yep chasing and killing an animal for sport is kind but that's another matter entirely I suppose.

There has already been a video shown of what Australia did after a mass shooting, tighter legislation and since then NO mass shootings, of course in times of recession it would probably be a lot less desirable but I suspect stricter rules on gun ownership will be coming soon,

For now let them enjoy showing off their toys, it's obvious they don't mean anything insulting by it with regards to the recent shootings but I will agree the timing is kinda bad.

I know a lot of foreigners think we have machine guns floating around (maybe it's a stereotype.) but they are heavily regulated and owning one without the right license is very illegal. I don't see gun legislation going anywhere, at least for now. We have the usual people beating war drums trying to get something passed that will fail.

Also the Second Amendment was not made for hunting. When it was written, if you didn't hunt.. you didn't eat.

Then why the hell is it still needed today. You all still hunting for your food?
 Fenrir.Skarwind
Offline
Serveur: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
user: Skarwind
Posts: 3279
By Fenrir.Skarwind 2012-12-27 19:48:26
Link | Citer | R
 
charlo999 said: »
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »
charlo999 said: »
Guess what, guns rant needed in society though. If you get a thrill from shooting a gun bully for you. But ask yourself. Are you willing to give up that right if it helps to even save 1 child/person/family member?
I know I wouldn't think twice.

Would you give up the ease and accessibility of an automobile if it meant saving one life?

We have measures to prevent loss of life as much as possible on the roads whilst giving people the means to live. Guns don't offer anything in general living.


Guns offer self defense, and equality. There is a lot of red tape law abiding citizens have to follow. So many rules and regulations on top of that, and in some cases licenses and state certification.
Tell me how else will a petite woman or senior citizen handle the "wolves" who prey on them?

The potential lives saved and freedom they ensure makes up for the lives lost. Just like the lives lost by ease of transportation are justifiable to the people who use vehicles.
[+]
 Sylph.Cossack
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: sandman16
Posts: 525
By Sylph.Cossack 2012-12-27 19:48:53
Link | Citer | R
 
charlo999 said: »
still hunting for your food?


The second amendment is part of our checks and balances. Its the best and honestly only real defense against the tyranny of our own elected officals.
[+]
 Fenrir.Skarwind
Offline
Serveur: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
user: Skarwind
Posts: 3279
By Fenrir.Skarwind 2012-12-27 19:51:52
Link | Citer | R
 
charlo999 said: »
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »
Cerberus.Tidis said: »
Tbh I can't understand why America doesn't have stricter gun legislation or this whole "Right to bear arms" nonsense but it's their laws and while in place regular people are going to be able justify ownership of a gun as a means of protection.

In my opinion though I can't understand how this extends past a simple revolver, why do people need fully automatic weapons, shotguns and rifles, for hunting? Yep chasing and killing an animal for sport is kind but that's another matter entirely I suppose.

There has already been a video shown of what Australia did after a mass shooting, tighter legislation and since then NO mass shootings, of course in times of recession it would probably be a lot less desirable but I suspect stricter rules on gun ownership will be coming soon,

For now let them enjoy showing off their toys, it's obvious they don't mean anything insulting by it with regards to the recent shootings but I will agree the timing is kinda bad.

I know a lot of foreigners think we have machine guns floating around (maybe it's a stereotype.) but they are heavily regulated and owning one without the right license is very illegal. I don't see gun legislation going anywhere, at least for now. We have the usual people beating war drums trying to get something passed that will fail.

Also the Second Amendment was not made for hunting. When it was written, if you didn't hunt.. you didn't eat.

Then why the hell is it still needed today. You all still hunting for your food?

It of all it gives the people the (Insert Creator here) given Right to self defense.

1. To prevent rule by a standing army;

2. To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

3. To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

4. The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 19:54:54
Link | Citer | R
 
The police are there to govern/protect the 'old lady' against the 'wolves' there isn't a need to take matters into your own hands.
And if that force isn't enough then the debate is to make that force faster and stronger not arm everyone.
 Fenrir.Skarwind
Offline
Serveur: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
user: Skarwind
Posts: 3279
By Fenrir.Skarwind 2012-12-27 19:57:36
Link | Citer | R
 
charlo999 said: »
The police are there to govern/protect the 'old lady' against the 'wolves' there isn't a need to take matters into your own hands.
And if that force isn't enough then the debate is to make that force faster and stronger not arm everyone.

The police take minutes to respond.
Getting killed can take seconds.

Increasing police to the size you are talking about would not work financially.
[+]
 Sylph.Cossack
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: sandman16
Posts: 525
By Sylph.Cossack 2012-12-27 19:58:14
Link | Citer | R
 
We're already living under unconstitutional laws. Our right to keep and bears arms has been severely infringed upon.
And I think the federal government has completely dismissed the tenth amendment.
I'm not sure how we'd define oppressive in federal terms, but I'm pretty sure the TSA is unconcerned.
[+]
 Sylph.Cossack
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: sandman16
Posts: 525
By Sylph.Cossack 2012-12-27 20:01:15
Link | Citer | R
 
charlo999 said: »
The police are there to govern/protect the 'old lady' against the 'wolves' there isn't a need to take matters into your own hands.
And if that force isn't enough then the debate is to make that force faster and stronger not arm everyone.
The police are just people. They're imperfect creatures just like you and I and all those other people you say are too incompetent to protect themselves. They're also just as proned to mistakes as we are too.
[+]
 Asura.Wyattdoc
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: wyattdoc1
Posts: 353
By Asura.Wyattdoc 2012-12-27 20:05:12
Link | Citer | R
 
[+]
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 20:06:13
Link | Citer | R
 
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »
charlo999 said: »
The police are there to govern/protect the 'old lady' against the 'wolves' there isn't a need to take matters into your own hands.
And if that force isn't enough then the debate is to make that force faster and stronger not arm everyone.

The police take minutes to respond.
Getting killed can take seconds.

Increasing police to the size you are talking about would not work financially.

Putting money from arms to policing would more than cover costs as arms deplete. Long term no guns surly needs less policing. And deaths will happen in the world, minimising them is the step forward.
 Cerberus.Tikal
Offline
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Tikal
Posts: 4945
By Cerberus.Tikal 2012-12-27 20:08:26
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Wyattdoc said: »
I'd break someones nose if they put that up in my neighborhood. I don't care who you are or what you believe, but that crosses lines, and said person ought to be brought down a few pegs.
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 20:08:45
Link | Citer | R
 
Sylph.Cossack said: »
charlo999 said: »
The police are there to govern/protect the 'old lady' against the 'wolves' there isn't a need to take matters into your own hands.
And if that force isn't enough then the debate is to make that force faster and stronger not arm everyone.
The police are just people. They're imperfect creatures just like you and I and all those other people you say are too incompetent to protect themselves. They're also just as proned to mistakes as we are too.
This doesn't make sense. The pro gunners spout on about needing the training is all that's needed to make guns safe, now your saying the people with said training are incompidant. MAke up your mind.
 Sylph.Cossack
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: sandman16
Posts: 525
By Sylph.Cossack 2012-12-27 20:10:18
Link | Citer | R
 
The above is public education struggling to rationalize.
Mathmatics... They're invented on the fly as suits the purpose of the user.
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 20:11:33
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Wyattdoc said: »

You make it sound like there's groups of people walking around fully armed, continually breaking into people's houses.
 Asura.Wyattdoc
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: wyattdoc1
Posts: 353
By Asura.Wyattdoc 2012-12-27 20:12:46
Link | Citer | R
 
charlo999 said: »
Asura.Wyattdoc said: »

You make it sound like there's groups of people walking around fully armed, continually breaking into people's houses.


Live in my neighbor hood then you can tell me what it looks like
[+]
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 20:17:27
Link | Citer | R
 
Surely you would rather nether side was armed and the cops put said people behind bars?
 Asura.Wyattdoc
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: wyattdoc1
Posts: 353
By Asura.Wyattdoc 2012-12-27 20:18:52
Link | Citer | R
 
charlo999 said: »
Surely you would rather nether side was armed and the cops put said people behind bars?



Do you seriously belive that making all guns illegal that criminals walking around wont have them. have you not seen our drug laws?
because thay are working real well
[+]
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 20:26:05
Link | Citer | R
 
That is a weak answer. Yes guns will be available. By no means should it prevent getting rid of them in time. And punishing those who still use and abuse them. It is not a quick fix. But long term means your kids, your kids kids (however far down the line)will be in a statistically safer environment. Fact points to other countries practicing these laws.
I have no doubt though it would be a long tough road for the US to take.
 Fenrir.Sylow
Offline
Serveur: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6862
By Fenrir.Sylow 2012-12-27 20:27:38
Link | Citer | R
 
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »

It of all it gives the people the (Insert Creator here) given Right to self defense.

1. To prevent rule by a standing army;

2. To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

3. To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

4. The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Good luck with that. I'm sure handguns and hun'in' rah'fulls are going to be a great defense against a military that outspends the next 20 biggest spenders combined.
 Asura.Wyattdoc
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: wyattdoc1
Posts: 353
By Asura.Wyattdoc 2012-12-27 20:29:13
Link | Citer | R
 
charlo999 said: »
That is a weak answer. Yes guns will be available. By no means should it prevent getting rid of them in time. And punishing those who still use and abuse them. It is not a quick fix. But long term means your kids, your kids kids (however far down the line)will be in a statistically safer environment. Fact points to other countries practicing these laws.
I have no doubt though it would be a long tough road for the US to take.


ok so how does banning my guns not make this happen in a country with gun control supposedly down to a science
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/3929015.stm
or this 1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4487208.stm
best yet good thing gun control is in place for this country
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/alarming-rise-in-knife-crime-3126470.html
[+]
 Fenrir.Skarwind
Offline
Serveur: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
user: Skarwind
Posts: 3279
By Fenrir.Skarwind 2012-12-27 20:33:28
Link | Citer | R
 
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »

It of all it gives the people the (Insert Creator here) given Right to self defense.

1. To prevent rule by a standing army;

2. To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

3. To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

4. The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Good luck with that. I'm sure handguns and hun'in' rah'fulls are going to be a great defense against a military that outspends the next 20 biggest spenders combined.

Tell that to the Vietnamese and Afghan Insurgents (Taliban fought Russian and U.S. forces... all it did was waste money and resources from both nations in the long run.)

I heavily doubt the U.S. Military as an all volunteer force would want to oppress it's own citizens let alone fire/bomb/roll tanks upon them. So there goes any argument about tanks and drones against armed citizens.

In that kind of situation the people would be in control.

The people in power would be foolish to even try having any kind of tyrannical government.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 20:33:49
Link | Citer | R
 
Hasn't it answered your own question? Single stab victims.
What if these kids had guns?
 Fenrir.Skarwind
Offline
Serveur: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
user: Skarwind
Posts: 3279
By Fenrir.Skarwind 2012-12-27 20:35:30
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Wyattdoc said: »
charlo999 said: »
That is a weak answer. Yes guns will be available. By no means should it prevent getting rid of them in time. And punishing those who still use and abuse them. It is not a quick fix. But long term means your kids, your kids kids (however far down the line)will be in a statistically safer environment. Fact points to other countries practicing these laws.
I have no doubt though it would be a long tough road for the US to take.


ok so how does banning my guns not make this happen in a country with gun control supposedly down to a science
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/3929015.stm
or this 1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4487208.stm
best yet good thing gun control is in place for this country
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/alarming-rise-in-knife-crime-3126470.html

Examples will do nothing to change the opinion of a gormless tosser who should have read the same stuff in 3 different threads..
[+]
 Asura.Wyattdoc
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: wyattdoc1
Posts: 353
By Asura.Wyattdoc 2012-12-27 20:35:36
Link | Citer | R
 
what if the person he went at had a gun????
sorry id rather protect myself from idiots like this instead of taking my chances of surrviving
[+]
 Sylph.Cossack
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: sandman16
Posts: 525
By Sylph.Cossack 2012-12-27 20:37:44
Link | Citer | R
 
Well put Skarwind.
[+]
 Asura.Wyattdoc
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: wyattdoc1
Posts: 353
By Asura.Wyattdoc 2012-12-27 20:38:23
Link | Citer | R
 
best 1 yet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/2012/apr/12/london-knife-crime
Offline
Posts: 595
By charlo999 2012-12-27 20:38:46
Link | Citer | R
 
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Fenrir.Skarwind said: »

It of all it gives the people the (Insert Creator here) given Right to self defense.

1. To prevent rule by a standing army;

2. To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

3. To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

4. The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Good luck with that. I'm sure handguns and hun'in' rah'fulls are going to be a great defense against a military that outspends the next 20 biggest spenders combined.

Tell that to the Vietnamese and Afghan Insurgents (fought Russian and U.S. forces.)

I heavily doubt the U.S. Military as an all volunteer force would want to oppress it's own citizens let alone fire/bomb/roll tanks upon them. So there goes any argument about tanks and drones against armed citizens.

In that kind of situation the people would be in control.

The people in power would be foolish to even try having any kind of tyrannical government.

Surely you've downplayed the need to have arms then against 1 to 4.
First Page 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 9 10 11
Log in to post.