The Great Gun Debate.

Pharmaceutical companies are a good example of caring more about money than people.

Oh we have a new drug that it's better than the old one? We'll release it in 10 years cause for now only we can sell the old one and it's making us bucks.

Not always the case, but yeah that is a thing.

Mostly the dragons.

do your worst

/cigar chomp

Quoting The Seven Samurai? Good taste.

However, you're still hopelessly off track. All business isn't good and you've yet to prove otherwise.

Defense contractors profit on misery and death. Claiming through a link that they also protect American interests doesn't change they still are an industry that profits from...misery and death.

Funny, you're all about being fiscally minded but you'd give an unlimited purse to companies that want endless contracts (and thus conflicts) from their employers? Because they're the samurai that protect me, the hapless villager? Ok.

Wow, if that's not a "Bullets vs. Baby Bottles" argument I haven't heard of for so long.

These companies exist to make money. They could be selling their products to drug lords in Mexico, but I rather they sell to the US government. At least they have some scruples towards using said products.

Do you even know how many of these companies are actually publicly owned? A handful at best. But certainly not the majority of the defense contractors out there. Most of which are single-shop businesses who do not make as much of a margin you think they do.

I didn't say all, I said nearly all. Way to take my argument out of context.

Yes, there are a very small (almost microscopic) portion of businesses that do more harm than good. If you were to list the names of every company on a spreadsheet, you might find one once every 6-7 months of continuously searching each name.

Name them. Seriously, name such bad companies, instead of assuming that there are. Give out these names. Actual, legal names, not something you come up with.

You are making way too many blanket statements without actually providing any argument other than your feelings towards businesses.

Let me ask you this: Do you tell your boss that he is a piece of ***for hiring you?

Better idea:

Define what a "bad business" is. Make sure that you include everything that makes a "bad business" and not what most sane people would consider to be "bad business practices."

Actually define the term, and then name a company and use that company to reference the term itself.

Another question: Out of all the businesses in the world, how many (in percentage) of them do you consider to be a "bad business" (as you defined above)? Hell, you could just do America, since that's the only aspect of business you may have a notion of (but no real understanding).

You might be surprised how so few businesses, as you define as a "bad business," fits your description when you actually, you know, think about it.

Yeah. That lets the government resell them to the Mexican cartels at a markup!

Blame the administration for doing that then.

Or, if you are a liberal/democrat, blame Bush instead!

Interesting, as I distinctly recall arguing the opposite.


The right to self defense is a natural right, the right to bear arms (not just guns) is an extension of that right. What's reasonable (more of a philosophy really) is that dealing with the issues of an armed society is better than dealing with the issues of an unarmed society.

What's gotten out of hand is our culture of creating criminals and trying to impose fascism instead of actually solving real problems.

As for the world, it really hasn't changed that much, and we're still dealing with a lot of the same issues.

and!?

what's your point? and what does it have to do with a gun debate?

Oh please.

Pretty sure every administration since at least Kennedy has funded our hush operations with sold weapons and other contraband.

I was making a joke.

Sorry, forgot about that question...

Like I've said before, under the wording of the 2nd amendment all regulation on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional.


Not the point.

Why do people feel the need to draw tentacle hentai? It's irrelevant.

Please do not think the following question conveys my personal beliefs on any of the implied topics, for it doesn't necessarily, but I do feel compelled to ask as something to think about because I don't know that it's fair to have a stance on the subject if you haven't considered it:

If the government feels compelled to keep high-powered arsenals -- up to and including nuclear arms and any other state-of-the-arts weapons -- for our protection from threats foreign and domestic, does it not stand to reason that one could/should be allowed the option of possessing the same devices for protection, even against the government if it becomes necessary?

If they're planning to commit a crime then it should be reported and they should be arrested. Thing is, nobody will know that unless they're dumb enough to tell anyone anyway, so your rhetorical question is rather silly in the first place.

Yet it isn't the point, and like I stated at the beginning I don't believe you'll be able to comprehend it.


Not going to get into the nuclear arsenal debate today.

so... Spicyryan for Minister of what caliber weapon people should be allowed to purchase and how many bullets their clips should hold because he knows what's best for everyone....

well minister, I for one am looking forward to wiping my *** with all of your legislation proposals...



I'm curious.... who you think would obey any gun legislation...

a mass shooter goes into a school and guns down fifty kids has kind of already disregarded a lot of more strongly worded legislation than hand gun caliber or clip size....

there are already a lot of laws against killing anyone with anything that person has ignored

Nik we already know the purpose of "gun control" isn't to prevent any mass murders but to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens (those "reasonable" people).

You're falling into a trap of arguing with reason against opinion and emotions. Evident in the nonsensical hentai response. Let alone the total ignorance of the word "regulated" and its context within the second amendment.

We already have legal precedents that indicate that the citizen should have access to the same weaponry as the government in order to combat it, if ever needed (the true meaning of the second amendment). However, due to capitalism there is in fact a gatekeeper, a regulator if you will. That would obviously be money. The average citizen let alone the average modern day yahoo militia group or a coalition thereof, can not leverage the coin to match our governments war chest.

We live in a day and age where the second amendment is an anachronism that is mere lip service to appease the angry and the delusional. To truly exercise said right will lead to ones own swift death.

In fairness, and to contrast my question of Floppy.

While you may not agree with the action, and even consider it against the principles upon which our nation is founded, is it so hard for you to accept that even if it's the wrong action, it's being done from a position of good faith, wanting to protect people?

Everyone always frames gun legislation in a hostile way. "They're coming for our guns! They're going to oppress us!"

...it could be. Or maybe they just honest-to-goodness think it will make everyone safer.

Again, whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant to the question.

Any attempt at "gun control" made by the government will be counterproductive, as it doesn't address any of the issues at hand, but also creates new issues not intended.

Like pretty much anything the federal government does when it tries to do anything besides it's basic functions.

I realize that some people see it that way, but I realize the fascists really want to oppress people. Whether or not the poor persons who get caught up in the "for the children" argument realize it or not.

We could make a lot of logical and sound arguments to butcher a lot of rights (in fact over the years we've done that very thing), it doesn't mean that it should be followed through.

Personally I'd prefer to not see history repeat itself.

The irony if you stating that anyone else is ignorant is purely brilliant.

I don't think it's unfair to say that militias in this country are not, in fact, particularly well-regulated.

Or regulated at all, really, to a degree that would make the anything less than a simmering threat-in-waiting to anyone who doesn't agree with their mindset(s).

But that's just the militias of whom I've seen and heard. There could be others out there that are great.

Criminals have never and will never be stopped by any legislation.

Once you have chosen to live outside the laws, that of course includes all of the well intentioned ones. honest to goodness or otherwise.

http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/

(It has citations and ***).

Now one could make the argument that they're not in good working order, or well armed, etc. However that statement isn't meant to be a requirement, the 2nd part is.

Thats the question, who regulates them and how?
Its funny listening to people act like the 2nd amendment is unlimited and without regulation when historical precedence says otherwise.

It's funny when people don't know how to read.

These words get thrown around entirely too lazily on this forum.

We have an entire branch of government dedicated to interpreting and enforcing the intricacies of the Constitution and Constitutional law. And the judges within that branch are never even in complete agreement with each other.

Yet somehow, someone (not Jet specifically, I'm speaking in generalities) with nary a single lick of experience in Constitutional Law -- let alone the thousands of hours researching the history of interpretations by previous generations of lawmakers -- can give the original documents a quick read in their seventh grade American History class and tell you exactly how it should be applied at every level.

There's absolutely no way two people could read the same, vaguely-worded document and interpret it differently. Clearly one of them is an idiot who can't read, and both are going to say the same of the other.

I mean, yeah, I get it. "lulz welcome to the internet."

But maybe let's be less lazy about our arguments for a single day.