Page 57 of 101 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 855 of 1510

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #841
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,961
    Total Rep Points
    25266
    Rep Adjustment Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by BabyPeterzz View Post
    That's all I'm saying. I fully support peoples right to own and openly carry guns. I just think those that choose to do so look retarded. Again, just my opinion.
    I think having a handgun holstered is fine. Having an AR-15 strapped to your back looks odd and is usually done to "make a point".
    #BelieveInLindsey

  2. #842
    Senior Member Scat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,439
    Total Rep Points
    6099
    Rep Adjustment Power
    37
    The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.
    ^^ This

  3. #843
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    791
    Total Rep Points
    705
    Rep Adjustment Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    ^^ This
    And this should never be updated? I mean at the time it was written duels were still a pretty common thing.

  4. #844
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,961
    Total Rep Points
    25266
    Rep Adjustment Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by HipHopAnonymous View Post
    And this should never be updated? I mean at the time it was written duels were still a pretty common thing.
    I saw a funny statement that touches on your comment.

    Along the lines of:

    Some say the second ammedment does not apply to assault rifles since the were not arround when the second ammendment was created.

    Well the first ammendment does not apply to CCN, Fox, MSNBC, Redstate, NPR, Huffington Post...since they were not around when the first ammendment was created.

    On a serious note. If it should be updated is worth a discussion but until it is then that is the law.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  5. #845
    Premium Member Gameface's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,967
    Total Rep Points
    2691
    Rep Adjustment Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HipHopAnonymous View Post
    And this should never be updated? I mean at the time it was written duels were still a pretty common thing.
    In my opinion it should be updated. However, I still think the right of an individual to defend their self and to have access to effective means of self defense still makes sense. I also think an armed populace is an effective deterrence to tyranny.

    Beyond that I see the right to keep and bear arms as one of the greatest tangible indications that this is a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Armed citizens can only happen when the interests of the government and the people are the same. It is an indication that we are all on the same team and we're all in this together.

    "Normal people" having access to firearms shows that we are all equal under the law. We are all effectively "normal people" when we are on the same playing field and all have the right to arms.

  6. #846
    Senior Member Scat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,439
    Total Rep Points
    6099
    Rep Adjustment Power
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by HipHopAnonymous View Post
    And this should never be updated? I mean at the time it was written duels were still a pretty common thing.
    Pay particular attention to the last nine words of the quote.

  7. #847
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    791
    Total Rep Points
    705
    Rep Adjustment Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    Pay particular attention to the last nine words of the quote.
    So if a tyrant is using a flamethrower, or fully automatic weapon people should have access to shoot back with the same thing?

  8. #848
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,961
    Total Rep Points
    25266
    Rep Adjustment Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by HipHopAnonymous View Post
    So if a tyrant is using a flamethrower, or fully automatic weapon people should have access to shoot back with the same thing?
    If a tyrant is using them on his populace then you bet your ass they should. Do I want to see a bunch of people owning flamethrowers? No. But you took it to the level of tyrants and not a government trying to represent the people.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  9. #849
    Premium Member Gameface's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,967
    Total Rep Points
    2691
    Rep Adjustment Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HipHopAnonymous View Post
    So if a tyrant is using a flamethrower, or fully automatic weapon people should have access to shoot back with the same thing?
    If people could buy a flame thrower would you expect them to become common amongst criminals?

    So what would you be afraid of? Why would someone having a flame thrower be a problem?

  10. #850
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    8,456
    Total Rep Points
    8094
    Rep Adjustment Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    They were reported to be threatening people with them and verbal abusing people from what I understand. Plus weren't they wearing badges/insignia and telling people they were from the NBPP (a hate group).

    That is what I am basing my arguement off of. Plus it is a federal offense to intimidate voters. It is not an offense to wear an assault rifle to JC Pennys. Even if it is stupid.
    What I recall is that they were reported to be perceived as threatening, an entirely different thing from actively threatening people. As for the badges, many people take going around armed as a sign of hate.

    I'm not particularly upset about the guy in JC Penney's. I'm in giggles over your attempt to say he's less threatening that a couple of guys that don't even have guns.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  11. #851
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    8,456
    Total Rep Points
    8094
    Rep Adjustment Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Gameface View Post
    If people could buy a flame thrower would you expect them to become common amongst criminals?
    Yes. Criminals will use whatever they can to gain an edge. For many people, being set on fire is scarier than being shot.

    If you don't let law-abiding citizens own flame-throwers, than only criminals will own flame-throwers.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  12. #852
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Total Rep Points
    1026
    Rep Adjustment Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    Yes. Criminals will use whatever they can to gain an edge. For many people, being set on fire is scarier than being shot.

    If you don't let law-abiding citizens own flame-throwers, than only criminals will own flame-throwers.
    That would absolutely be true if flame throwers had been legal and common for hundreds of years and then suddenly outlawed.

    It would also be true today if criminals cared about flame throwers.

  13. #853
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,961
    Total Rep Points
    25266
    Rep Adjustment Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    What I recall is that they were reported to be perceived as threatening, an entirely different thing from actively threatening people. As for the badges, many people take going around armed as a sign of hate.

    I'm not particularly upset about the guy in JC Penney's. I'm in giggles over your attempt to say he's less threatening that a couple of guys that don't even have guns.
    I recall them actively trying to intimidate people.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  14. #854
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,961
    Total Rep Points
    25266
    Rep Adjustment Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    Yes. Criminals will use whatever they can to gain an edge. For many people, being set on fire is scarier than being shot.

    If you don't let law-abiding citizens own flame-throwers, than only criminals will own flame-throwers.
    The problem with that scenario is that there is a much more plentiful, cheaper and more effecient weapon. The handgun.

    I do like how you tried to turn that around though.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  15. #855
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    8,456
    Total Rep Points
    8094
    Rep Adjustment Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    That would absolutely be true if flame throwers had been legal and common for hundreds of years and then suddenly outlawed.

    It would also be true today if criminals cared about flame throwers.
    So, criminals in England and Germany don't care about guns? Because both countries went from a period where gun controls were more lax to one where they were less lax. It's almost as if criminals only care about using whatever is handy to get an edge, which in a country where knives are legal and plentiful, while guns are scarce and therefore expensive, means a knife for most of them.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  16.  

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •