Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Internet Links
Topic: Second Amendment poll
started by: Leisher

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 06 2009,07:45

< Link. >

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,09:19

Um... ok?

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 06 2009,11:24

I didn't comment earlier as I had no time and just wanted to get the link up.

It's a US Today poll with over 3 million responses, yet it's 97% in favor of the second amendment giving the people the right to bear arms.

I thought that was significant enough to point it out.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,12:48

I think that's the easy part though. It's pretty open to interpretation.

"arms" when used in the general sense, is pretty open.

I assume they didn't mean, that we have a god given right to mount an M60 right next to our Peepholes to scare off solicitors.

All that gray area in the middle, that's where right wing conspiracy theories are born. Damn right I believe everyone can have hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns. That seems to match up as closely as the Founding Fathers decreed at the time(Security/Food/)

Do I want them giving out fully automatic AK47s to crazy people who see the world as an epic battle between the "non crazy people?" and the "God hating liberals living in big cities with all them negroes"? (me)

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,12:54

Gah, I hate not being able to edit out spelling and punctuation errors.

Also, I hate proofreading, they are related.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2009,13:00

I see few surefire ways to prevent assault rifles from getting into the hands of loonies.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2009,13:34

There are none. There should be no limitations, because limitations never work anyway. All it does it keep those who would use whatever the thing is properly from having it. Those who are more likely to use it in improper ways are the same ones likely to not give a crap about those laws making it illegal to have it.

Instead we should have laws against using firearms to commit acts such as murder or theft or assorted other undesirable activities that cause harm to others.

Oh, wait, we do.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,15:20

(TPRJones @ Oct. 06 2009,13:34)

QUOTE

Tomorrow, I am going to decide that I want to go fucking crazy.

I want a fully automatic machine gun, and I want it now!

What are the chances I can get one without alerting some type of government organization and end up in jail?

Just because a bunch of crazy people know where to find guns, doesn't mean the all do.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,15:27

A more off base argument.

So some people have illegal weapons, that means everyone should have illegal weapons? What are you some guy of dirty hippy communist liberal?

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2009,15:34

Gun laws seem to be like speed limits -- they're only laws that are enforced when someone w\ a bigger gun or faster car is around.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Oct. 06 2009,16:28

(Troy @ Oct. 06 2009,08:20)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Oct. 06 2009,13:34)

QUOTE

That's just because you don't know the right people. People that want to commit crimes often know other criminals that can, and are willing to help them.

Normal people who just decide to go crazy and commit a crime end up asking the ex-crack addict selling magazines if he knows someone that can help him commit a crime. Then they get caught.

So, a real criminal would be able to get the AK with few blips on the law enforcement radar. You, would make all kinds of dumb mistakes cause you haven't grown up learning from that element. I think.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2009,16:36

Troy, you seem intelligent. I'm sure if you wanted to get such a weapon, you would figure it out. It's not that hard. Do I want everyone to have illegal weapons? No. I just acknowledge that laws to make weapons illegal are worse than useless because they only stop those least likely to use them improperly.

Gun laws are a way to jail someone for a crime they haven't committed yet, by assuming that if someone wants that weapon they're going to try to kill everyone. If that's the sort of pro-active law enforcement you want, perhaps it would be more efficient to have psychologists evaluate everyone, and then throw anyone in jail that they think might some day commit a crime.

Yes, I know that's absurd. My point is that gun laws are very much "victimless crimes" and I despise all such laws. They go against everything I believe in.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,16:55

(TPRJones @ Oct. 06 2009,16:36)

QUOTE

I understand what your saying, but I just don't have enough "goodwill" towards my fellow man, to assume that if everyone had easy access, it would in anyway lead to less gun related deaths.

We are talking about the same people who get in fights over Toys are Walmart, and who get into fistfights on the Highway over rear end collisions.

Get rid of all the gun laws you seem to hate, concealed carry, automatic weapons, schools? You can't actually believe that will somehow "work itself out". (see... Africa)

@Cake

If I tried to buy from him, I would probably end up with 40 copies of Vibe magazine.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,17:02

I really really wish I would at least have the courtesy to spell check.

But, I'm an asshole.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2009,17:05

(Troy @ Oct. 06 2009,20:02)

QUOTE

I really really wish I would at least have the courtesy to spell check.

But, I'm an asshole.

Google Toolbar has a spellcheck function for web pages.

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 06 2009,17:14

FireFox auto-spellchecks.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2009,17:21

(Troy @ Oct. 06 2009,18:55)

QUOTE

You can't actually believe that will somehow "work itself out".

Oh, but I do believe that. We could seriously use some thinning of the herd, and letting the ignorant and ill-mannered kill each other off would be an excellent start.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2009,17:32

(TheCatt @ Oct. 06 2009,20:14)

QUOTE

FireFox auto-spellchecks.

I forgot about that. I was attributing the red-wavy "this word is spelled wrong" lines to google toolbar, which I use.

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 06 2009,17:40

As it happens, Raleigh is home to the < ultimate argument against gun control >.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,18:19

(TPRJones @ Oct. 06 2009,17:21)

QUOTE

(Troy @ Oct. 06 2009,18:55)

QUOTE

You can't actually believe that will somehow "work itself out".

Oh, but I do believe that. We could seriously use some thinning of the herd, and letting the ignorant and ill-mannered kill each other off would be an excellent start.

Which is totally cool, until the cheap thin wall of that McDonalds gives way to a burst from whatever automatic rifle, and hit you, driving along on your way back from work. But fuck, you're just another lemming in the herd, right? (Or anyone you care about)

Totally overblown and far fetched, but you get the point, it's a great idea if that kind of shit doesn't spill out and affect the rest of us. < I just totally make this shit up, and it didn't just happen like, last month, a mile from where my GF works. >

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2009,18:21

All true. But I can still dream, can't I?

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2009,18:25

(Troy @ Oct. 06 2009,21:19)

QUOTE

Totally overblown and far fetched, but you get the point, it's a great idea if that kind of shit doesn't spill out and affect the rest of us. < I just totally make this shit up, and it didn't just happen like, last month, a mile from where my GF works. >

Soooo...... you post about how gun control doesn't do anything but disarm people who may have been able to stop that crazed wacko?

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,18:31

Right, because we both know how that's gonna play out...
some untrained idiot who saw too much Texas Ranger thinks he can shoot a full clip at some gang member with a gun, and doesn't think about silly things like what bullets actually do after they hit people (go through them). Let's just keep racking up that body count, ya'll.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2009,18:37

But think of what a better world it would be later on, eh?

Yeah, I know, it's absurd. But if we don't get off this planet and spread out, the way we are going it may eventually be inevitable anyway. Better to get it over with early when it would hurt a whole lot less.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2009,18:46

(Troy @ Oct. 06 2009,21:31)

QUOTE

I'd carry a fully loaded M-16A2 at all times, if I could, and I am a very good shot.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Oct. 06 2009,18:56

Ya, but take away my gun, and that girl still dies because that criminal still had his gun. So, who wins with gun control?

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2009,19:05

That was my point, but I think there will always be the element of "regular people just can't be trusted so disarm them for everyone's safety." I don't accept that, but other otherwise intelligent people can, so for me this is something not even worth getting frothy over. Like the subject of religion.

If the government does actually manage to disarm the public like England has, I will be getting the fuck out. As fast as I can.

If the government ever mandates a religion, I'm getting out even faster. For example.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2009,19:10

Also, when we play Supreme Commander I am going to require Troy to stick with his convictions and not use guns.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2009,19:19

(GORDON @ Oct. 06 2009,21:05)

QUOTE

If the government does actually manage to disarm the public like England has, I will be getting the fuck out. As fast as I can.

If the government ever mandates a religion, I'm getting out even faster. For example.

To where?

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2009,19:22

(Troy @ Oct. 06 2009,18:55)

QUOTE

Get rid of all the gun laws you seem to hate, concealed carry, automatic weapons, schools? You can't actually believe that will somehow "work itself out". (see... Africa)

Africa's its own special little fucked up place. You can't be blaming all that continent's shit on its gun laws.

< How 'bout this place >?

Posted by Troy on Oct. 06 2009,19:25

(GORDON @ Oct. 06 2009,19:10)

QUOTE

Also, when we play Supreme Commander I am going to require Troy to stick with his convictions and not use guns.

You act like I'm this crazy peace-nik.

For the record, I own a handgun, and have grown up around guns, some of my best father-son memories involve Weims and shotguns. I can shoot a mean round of clays.

None of this means I want to see more guns on the street, or less restrictions. I love that you have to jump through hoops to get a concealed carry, and that (most) states require a background check to buy a handgun. NONE of this has stopped me from loving them.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Oct. 06 2009,21:01

Speaking of concealed carry. . . I was never more frightened by guns than after seeing the people who went through that class, and can now carry guns. They shouldn't be walking around with a sharpened pencil, let alone a loaded pistol.

You may have to jump through hoops. . . but there is NOT an IQ test.

I was amazed at the number of people who couldn't hit the silouette at 20 feet and/or couldn't figure out the simple mechanics of a gun.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2009,21:04

(Cakedaddy @ Oct. 06 2009,23:01)

QUOTE

I was amazed at the number of people who couldn't hit the silouette at 20 feet and/or couldn't figure out the simple mechanics of a gun.

The sole fundamental mechanic of a gun is figuring out which end you point at the thing you want dead. Everything else is technically bonus.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 06 2009,21:27

Wasn't it Denmark that banned guns and had knife murders increase by 300%?

Didn't a Japanese guy go nuts recently and stab a bunch of people, killing several before being stopped?

Let's ban knives too.

And how about the Oklahoma City bombing? Let's ban manure.

And let's not forget 9/11. Ban airplanes!

People will find a way to kill if they have decided to kill. You cannot stop them.

I'm not saying you should be able to pick up an AK-47 at your local 7-11 while you are out getting milk, but to completely ban guns is the opposite extreme. The extreme side of any debate is usually wrong.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 07 2009,06:14

(Leisher @ Oct. 06 2009,21:27)

QUOTE

Devils advocate on this one.

300% increase in knives deaths is probably acceptable as long as there is a dramatic overall decrease in murders, brought about by a sharp decrease in gun usage.

Also, whenever this issue is raised, that's always the response, YOU WANT TO BAN ER GUNS. But really, who says that? It's only legitimately said by people trying to scare their base into action. It's like a bizarre game of connect the dots, take one type away, YOUR GOING TO TAKE THEM ALL!!! Never mind that the one type is a military grade automatic weapon, while the rest have legitimate uses.

There isn't anything I can do to an intruder with an AK47, besides spray bullets through the walls of my apartment, that I can't do with my Glock 17.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2009,06:23

(Troy @ Oct. 07 2009,08:14)

QUOTE

There isn't anything I can do to an intruder with an AK47, besides spray bullets through the walls of my apartment, that I can't do with my Glock 17.

When the feds start their wholesale slaughter of citizenry, I'd rather have the AK-47.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 07 2009,06:34

(TPRJones @ Oct. 07 2009,06:23)

QUOTE

(Troy @ Oct. 07 2009,08:14)

QUOTE

There isn't anything I can do to an intruder with an AK47, besides spray bullets through the walls of my apartment, that I can't do with my Glock 17.

When the feds start their wholesale slaughter of citizenry, I'd rather have the AK-47.

I will admit that on the outset of a general uprising/anarchy/government extermination I am going to be severely undergunned and in trouble.

That said, I don't think I'm going to lose sleep over it.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2009,07:29

That's the only reason for this amendment anymore, though. The original intent seemed to be two-fold: to provide for an army of the citizenry to be available in the case of foriegn invasion, and to guard against domestic usurpations of power by rulers. The former is no longer required, as we have spent far more of the money stolen from our citizens on the military than the founding fathers would have ever imagined possible. That just leaves being ready to defend yourself against a corrupt government as the only remaining purpose of this amendment.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 07 2009,10:53

QUOTE

Devils advocate on this one.

300% increase in knives deaths is probably acceptable as long as there is a dramatic overall decrease in murders, brought about by a sharp decrease in gun usage.

Let's not assume the murder count dropped as well.

In Australia, when they passed their gun ban, home invasions skyrocketed. I'm sure that's acceptable though to offset the really high number of accidental shooting victims.

In Japan, as I stated, people use knives to murder (and do so efficiently to take out multiple people, not just one), and they bomb their subways with sarin gas.

I point out Japan again because you are completely dodging my point about banning everything that can easily kill a number of people.

Considering the intent of the 2nd amendment, as TPR points out, banning all guns is a hell of a lot scarier than the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of a stray bullet coming through your house and killing someone.

QUOTE

Also, whenever this issue is raised, that's always the response, YOU WANT TO BAN ER GUNS. But really, who says that? It's only legitimately said by people trying to scare their base into action. It's like a bizarre game of connect the dots, take one type away, YOUR GOING TO TAKE THEM ALL!!! Never mind that the one type is a military grade automatic weapon, while the rest have legitimate uses.

Actually, you're completely wrong here. Seriously. If you think the gun control lobby is just trying to ban "this type" of gun or ammo, then you're deluding yourself. They don't even hide the fact that they want ALL guns banned. That's why I'm sort of surprised that you believe such a thing. (Check out some anti-gun websites or, even better, watch the < Penn & Teller Bullshit episode covering the topic >. They talk directly to leading figures in the gun control crowd, and they say ON CAMERA that they want ALL guns banned.)

QUOTE

There isn't anything I can do to an intruder with an AK47, besides spray bullets through the walls of my apartment, that I can't do with my Glock 17.

Your Glock can't shoot through your walls? Your Glock can't shoot through your window and kill a kid outside?

And again, if we're banning things based on them being able to kill multiple people easily, let's ban cars, trucks, boats, planes, manure, etc.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 07 2009,11:22

I think I ignored that point because I addressed how ridiculous the tactic is, and is used in the same method you are using it right now.

Ban this? BAN EVERYTHING, NO WAIT, BAN THINGS THAT KILL PEOPLE!! It's like, I can't think of a good reason not to ban automatic weapons, so I'm going to drag you down into this silly connect the dots that ends with banning manure. When you type that argument/statement out, does it even sound logical to you? Seriously?

Yes, congratulations, you can find websites of people from TEH INTERNET, and other cooks who want to ban them entirely. I've put together my arguments against it and my feelings concerning personal firearms. Can we continue discussing issues instead of bringing up random arguments that I haven't ONCE posted in this thread?

It's like you have practiced this stuff in defense of a super Liberal Anti Gun nut, and are having trouble applying it to a Southern Democrat with stances that aren't entirely polarized.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Oct. 07 2009,12:39

But you start the argument down that path when you say "Because it will save lives". So will a lot of things. You might not know of a good reason for me to own an AK, and I can't think of a good reason for you to own . . . a motorcycle. I don't ride them, wouldn't miss them. But, they kill people. I can't think of any reason why someone would want one when cars are safer, drier, etc. So, they can be banned too.

That is the logic you are using. "I don't need it, so, no big deal if it's banned." If someone likes to go to a range and waste a bunch of money going full auto into the side of a hill. . . they should be allowed to. Just like people are allowed to drive around town looking like a gorilla hanging from a tree branch on those stupid motorcycles with the really high handlebars. . . . with no mufflers.

But, if we are going to ban AKs, even though some people like owning them and have fun with them, because it will "save lives", then, you can apply that logic to say. . . . manure.

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 07 2009,13:13

I think this debate can only be solved with a duel.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2009,13:57

Who's fit to judge who is & isn't a danger w\ a weapon? If you're arguing a middle ground, where's the line drawn?

In order for me to go drinking in certain neighbourhoods in this country by myself, yeah, an automatic weapon might be the only thing that keeps me from getting jumped by groups of 20+ people. I shit you not. When I was 16, I used to have to drink in groups of two dozen or more just to be sure I had a decent chance to avoid getting jumped whilst walking downtown at 1am.

Has technology increased to the point where one man has 1000x the firepower & killing potential of a dude in 1794? Yeah. Did the founding fathers even fathom the population density & social factors of modern urban gang warfare & what appears to be the general stupification of the country that we're looking at today? Probably not.

So let's even concede we need some type of control from the gov't. I don't see ATF agents on every corner of every block. Or cops, for that matter. What's a more effective deterrent to abuse of firearms (regardless of their lethality -- if you can got the $$$ to buy it, you'll probably find a fucking way) : (i) federal/state/local laws enforced by officers who aren't guaranteed to be present or (ii) the potential that any one given concerned citizen within one mile has a weapon capable of mowing you down in half a second from hundreds of feet away?

Granted, this assumes society is bright enough not to self-exterminate. If you think we're all going to kill each other, though, we'd all've been fucked when the A-bomb was invented.

There've been a scant few socieities that have truly ingrained military service into the population -- the Spartans, the Mongolians, the Huns, & some others. But NO ONE fucked w\ them. You want to cut down school shootings? Make every public high school a military high school. You want to cut down crime? Give the entire populous mandatory training as a secondary police force.

Shit, tens of MILLIONS of people are trusted w\ multi-ton killing machines every single fucking day. You know them as cars.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 07 2009,13:59

I know my response here is going to be a bit long Troy, but you asked for discussion, so here you go. I'm detailing what my argument is, why the "ban everything" tactic isn't "ridiculous", where OUR (yes, "our") position on gun control is logically flawed, and why it's the exact same argument as the "ban everything" tactic that you call ridiculous. So please don't skim. I think this is the first time in months I've been interested in a debate enough to post something like this...

P.S. Did you mean for your last post to come off so condescending?

QUOTE

I think I ignored that point because I addressed how ridiculous the tactic is, and is used in the same method you are using it right now.

Just because you think something is ridiculous, doesn't make it so. Hear out the argument before you just assume it's wrong. The "ban everything" argument isn't my position on gun control, but it's a means to an end to prove my argument regarding gun control that I stated earlier:

QUOTE

People will find a way to kill if they have decided to kill. You cannot stop them.

Back to your statements...

QUOTE

Ban this? BAN EVERYTHING, NO WAIT, BAN THINGS THAT KILL PEOPLE!! It's like, I can't think of a good reason not to ban automatic weapons, so I'm going to drag you down into this silly connect the dots that ends with banning manure. When you type that argument/statement out, does it even sound logical to you? Seriously?

First of all, it's not "connect the dots", as I'll shortly establish.

Secondly, before you ask me if "my" argument even sounds logical while I'm typing it out, I'd double check your own.

See, I'm on your side. No, really! Only I know where that position (OUR position) fails. Hang on a second...I'll get there...

I totally and completely support background checks, training classes, and waiting periods. I 100% agree that most folks probably don't need M-50s to hunt rabbits. They also don't need to buy an M-16 with armor piercing rounds to keep squirrels off their bird feeders.

However, after that I'm torn, and this is where we differ.

They may not need those weapons to defend their homes against a burglar or to keep moles out of their yard, but they DO need them to keep the government out of their homes. THAT'S WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS!!! It doesn't say "the right to own handguns for self-protection and shotguns/rifles for hunting". It says "the right to bear arms". This document was written by guys who needed to rely on foreign powers for weapons and ammo, so they could fight for their independence from tyranny and oppression. When they wrote the Constitution, do you think the second amendment was honestly written in for anything other than ensuring that the people of this country could defend their freedom?

So go ahead, debate that. Debate that despite all evidence to the contrary based on what they just went through and exactly what the rest of that "meaningless little document" says, how it says it, and why it says it. Tell us how the framers actually meant to add a line about only owning small caliber, non-automatic weapons because someone might accidentally get shot or because it's easier for some loony to kill multiple people with a gun that shoots faster.

And there's your connection to the "ban everything" argument. Follow me...

WHY do we need to ban military grade assault weapons from being sold to law abiding citizens who have gone through the proper background checks, training classes, and waiting periods?

Because these types of weapons can enable a nut job or cold blooded killer to murder multiple people with minimal effort in minimal time. Also, their rate of fire and less than pinpoint accuracy, combined with their kick increase the chances for an innocent bystander to get shot.

Right? Please stop me if I've gone away from your talking points here.

However, you do NOT want handguns, hunting rifles, and/or shotguns banned right? And why? Because it ISN'T as easy for a nut job or cold blooded killer to murder multiple people with minimal effort in minimal time. Also their rate of fire, increased accuracy, and smaller kick decrease the chances for an innocent bystander to get shot.

Right? Again, stop me if I'm not reflecting your views accurately.

Now, please read both of those statements again. Do you see the flaws in logic?

It all stems from these two important, important facts that are truly indisputable:
1. You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
2. Those lines are based on emotion, not logic.

Here's why:
1. You want military grade assault weapons banned, but forget the fact that in a trained hand, a handgun can be just as deadly, if not deadlier. Think about it:
-Less kick
-Less sound and easier to muffle
-Easier to aim and control during rapid firing
-Easier to conceal
-Easier to carry more ammo
-Easier to aim
-Easier to turn quickly and/or react with it
-Etc.
It's pretty tough for a guy to march through hallways with an M-50 and not be vulnerable to attacks from the sides, and the rear simply due to the gun's extreme weight and length (Yes, I know I'm using a ridiculously extreme example, and it's for effect only.). However, give that same man a handgun, or even two, and he becomes far less vulnerable, and far more capable of reacting to threats and/or targets. (And we are talking about urban and suburban civilian settings, not war zones.)

2. Most work place shootings have been carried out with handguns, not military grade assault weapons.

3. In fact, I challenge you to dig up the numbers that show assault weapons are responsible for more deaths than handguns in this country. (not to it's citizens, as I don't want Iraq or Afghanistan figures creeping in as they don't count) I guarantee you that handguns kill FAR more people each year.

3a. P.S. Anyone killed with an illegally obtained military grade assault weapon doesn't count towards your argument. Sorry. Anyone who thinks that just because they're illegal the criminals won't be able to get them is the highest level of moron. (And I know you don't as stated, so don't think I'm calling you one.) Prohibition of alcohol didn't do much to stop people from drinking, the war on drugs hasn't stopped drugs from being cheap and easily obtained, the current laws banning guns hasn't stopped criminals from getting their hands on them, etc.

4. I also guarantee that handguns kill far more people accidentally each year.

5. Drive byes became the poster child for accidental shootings. How many were committed with handguns, rather than semi-automatic weapons as depicted in movies? How many drive byes occur anymore?

6. How many legally purchased military grade assault rifles have been used in crimes? Before you ignore this question, isn't this an answer you should know before you continue your argument to ban them?

Point being is that your line in the sand about how handguns are safer than military grade assault weapons is completely made up. There's no logic to it whatsoever. It's based on an emotional response to the theory that a man armed with a military grade assault weapon could take out more people, faster, and potentially harm more people accidentally. (Although, is anyone "accidentally" hurt if the shooter doesn't care who he's shooting?)

Your argument for the ban of military grade assault weapons here is the basis for banning handguns in other countries.

It's also why your argument, as also pointed out by Cakedaddy, is exactly the same as the "ban everything" one, you call ridiculous. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You ask for a ban on assault weapons because of their capability to kill multiple people easily and quickly, yet don't support on handguns despite them being just as deadly and the preferred weapon of choice by nut jobs and criminals over the aforementioned assault weapons. Meanwhile, you state that any suggested similar ban on something simply because it has the same ability to kill multiple people easily and quickly is "ridiculous".

Where is the logic in that defense? How can it be logical to arbitrary ban one type of object over another with the same capabilities, yet call illogical the banning of other types of objects with the same capabilities as the object you want banned?

Where's the logic is banning something because of what it might be used for? How is logical to demand the banning of military grade assault weapons because they might be used to commit murder (despite facts and statistics showing they are the weapon of choice), yet it's illogical to demand the banning of other objects, like manure or planes, which have killed thousands of people?

And again Troy, I've ALWAYS been on your side of this debate. I've always felt that handguns should be ok, but military grade assault weapons should be banned. After writing this novel, I have to say, I no longer agree with that position. Not only because there's no logic to it, but also because I truly believe the founding fathers would not agree with gun control. (Plus, I think gun control does NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.)

QUOTE

Yes, congratulations, you can find websites of people from TEH INTERNET, and other cooks who want to ban them entirely. I've put together my arguments against it and my feelings concerning personal firearms. Can we continue discussing issues instead of bringing up random arguments that I haven't ONCE posted in this thread?

Actually, I simply posted those videos because I knew about that episode of the documentary style show hosted and written by two libertarians, whom I do not agree with on every issue. I figured it would be interesting to you to see actual gun control leaders, including the James Brady Foundation state their case, not only for the ban on assault weapons, but their stated goal of the ban of ALL guns period. Instead of going off to view a non-partisan look at the gun control debate, you responded with the equivalent of the Chris Rock "Oh, you got a masta's huh? Let me ask you this...can you kick my ass?" routine.

Why'd you do that? Because you didn't understand my earlier point. If you take the stance of banning military grade assault weapons because "they can kill multiple people quickly and easily" blah, blah, blah, then when they get banned, you WILL find yourself defending your right to own a handgun against those "cooks". That's what makes it a tough debate. That's what I was pointing out to you.

Thus, we were on topic and debating the issues, you just didn't see it. Note, that Cake points that fact out as well. (So it's not just me.)

QUOTE

It's like you have practiced this stuff in defense of a super Liberal Anti Gun nut, and are having trouble applying it to a Southern Democrat with stances that aren't entirely polarized.

Just as an FYI...nope. You couldn't be more off base here. I know you absolutely, positively will not believe it, but I honestly had pretty much the same beliefs as you before typing up this novel today. I've never really gotten in depth in any gun debates before as any forum member will tell you. This is Thib's territory. I'm honestly now struggling with the concept of me supporting the second amendment, but not wanting my neighbor to own an RPG. Help?

Sorry for how long this is, I had no idea I had this much to say on the topic. If you read the whole thing...thanks. Seriously. I look forward to it being shredded by you or even Thib if I got some pro-gun arguments wrong (I don't think I did...).

Posted by Troy on Oct. 07 2009,14:03

I totally get that the give an inch, end up losing it all philosophy.

Where do you guys feel we should draw the line? I'm sure there are plenty of people in your camp who see weapons grade explosives the same way. Sarin Gas? Tanks? Mortars?

What differentiates those things from a military issue rifle, or teflon coated tungsten rounds?

Edit: Oh god wall of text appeared while i was typing up a tiny post.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Oct. 07 2009,14:15

Ya. HUGE wall!

I want to add that guns are illegal in England, but owning a tank is not. There was a show about a couple in England that bought old WWII tanks and they have races with them on their property. So ya, we should be allowed to own tanks.

And the second amendment talks about guns. Not Sarin gas, etc.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2009,14:18

(Troy @ Oct. 07 2009,16:03)

QUOTE

It's 100% possible to make thermite & napalm from ingredients you can buy legally. It merely takes the chemical knowledge (which isn't nothing -- but isn't fucking rocket science, either) & the will to do so. I'm not advocating banning chemistry books or burning them, either.

Posted by Troy on Oct. 07 2009,14:34

Heh, You were like third on the list of people I guessed would make the "We could build homemade explosives" comment.

@ Cake. It says Arms.

Back then, didn't arms consist of a rifle, and a good deal of gunpowder?

Edit: I promise I will read and comment on the wall o text when I get home and don't have to worry about looking like i'm posting in internet forums for an hour

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2009,15:19

(Troy @ Oct. 07 2009,16:34)

QUOTE

Back then, didn't arms consist of a rifle, and a good deal of gunpowder?

That was the most prevelant, but the term also included swords, knives, cannons, battleships, and etc. It's a general term that means "deadly weaponry". The rifle you describe just happened to be the most commonly held by individuals. But plenty of traders owned merchant ships that could double as warships, and they didn't stop them from owning them. Based on their phrasings and the politics and customs of the day, I do think they would - if they had written it today - meant to include things like C-4, detonation cord, sarin gas, and nuclear weaponry.

At the time they had no limitations on what you could own. Instead they focused on punishing you for actual misdeeds instead. They seemed to believe that attempting to limit the possibility of a crime by limiting the actions of free citizens would be counter to their entire basis for which they formed the nation.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2009,17:24

(Malcolm @ Oct. 06 2009,22:19)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Oct. 06 2009,21:05)

QUOTE

To where?

Mexico.

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 07 2009,17:34

In many ways, Mexico really is more American than America.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2009,17:47

(Troy @ Oct. 07 2009,09:14)

QUOTE

There isn't anything I can do to an intruder with an AK47, besides spray bullets through the walls of my apartment, that I can't do with my Glock 17.

If you're on full auto and "spraying," then you're sloppy.

There isn't anything I can do on 3-round burst that I can't do on semi-auto.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2009,17:52

(Malcolm @ Oct. 07 2009,16:57)

QUOTE

There've been a scant few socieities that have truly ingrained military service into the population -- the Spartans, the Mongolians, the Huns, & some others. But NO ONE fucked w\ them. You want to cut down school shootings? Make every public high school a military high school. You want to cut down crime? Give the entire populous mandatory training as a secondary police force.

Israel does all these things in the present day. I have personally seen kindergarten teachers take their classes to the park, and the teacher has an uzi slung over her shoulder. I made out with a chick who had a 9mm in her purse.

I felt quite comfortable in Israel.

Someone look up violent crime rates in Israel not related to the neighbors lobbing mortars into their neighborhoods.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 07 2009,19:53

(Troy @ Oct. 07 2009,17:34)

QUOTE

Edit: I promise I will read and comment on the wall o text when I get home and don't have to worry about looking like i'm posting in internet forums for an hour

Please take your time. I'm fighting the flu or food poisoning and have NO energy to discuss anything at the moment.

Still, when you read it, just keep in mind that I was trying to be as detailed as possible in explaining where I was coming from and as I indicate at the end of the wall of text, I'm still not 100% sure.