Looking at a practical standpoint,
He can take away rights because he can send men with guns to your house to change the rules.
In the US, that would be hard for non-gun owners to do against gun owners.
Gunman opens fire at U.S. church, kills two
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Looking at a practical standpoint,
He can take away rights because he can send men with guns to your house to change the rules.
In the US, that would be hard for non-gun owners to do against gun owners.
Ffs, seriously come off it.... the laws for killing things generally cover the killing of other humans, not for the killing of food. Unless you plan on killing other humans and eating them as part of your religious practice, the laws still apply.
And I am not talking about hunting.... I'm talking about killing other humans.
And you're still going on the basis that I want all firearms banned, and removed completely, which I don't..... get it fk'n right will you? Your blakc and white mentality on this debate is seriously slowing it's progression, as I have to continually repeat crap which was already clarified.
That's the basic argument.... not very complicated.
They are designed to kill in general, what you kill with them is subjective.
People get background checks when they're applying for work that relates to the caring of children or the elderly to make sure they have low chances of abusing their authority. Issuing a weapon to someone is a level of issuing authority..... all I would like to see is that there is some form of regulating who gets that authority. And I'm not talking about a process that screens people based on their beliefs, which government they approve, or otherwise.... I'm talking about general risks to their fellow citizen if given a weapon.
And unless you plan on chopping everybody's hands and feet off, you can not regulate what someone knows how to do with their.... as they say, "God Given" body. Apparently people claim firearms are a "God Given" right to have..... yet God didn't make them.... other humans did. Defending yourself with what you were born with, is the basic rights (If there is such a thing) that every human, every animal, every living creature on this planet has which can not be taken away.
You're trying to compare knowlege and ability to the possesion of an inanimate object that is designed to kill.
Hand to hand combat and other fighting arts can be used against anything you wish.... the sucess rate of that ability depends on the situation at hand and your target.
Being someone who was jumped by 5 drunken teenaged punks a couple of years ago, I know what it means to "Wait for a Cop" However by your argument, I should have had a gun to shoot them all with before the police arrived, rather then doing what I did that got me out of the situation, got them arrested, charged, and in the end, they got busted up a lot worse then I did...... and I didn't even have my knife with me.... let alone a gun.
Oh, and everybody lived to see another day, life goes on..... guns are unecissary unless you're hunting food or in a war zone..... and I suppose based on the number of dead each day from gun related crimes in the US.... it is a war zone down there.
Martial Arts is knowlege of what you can do with your body to defend yourself against whatever may come your way..... a gun, a knife, a bomb, a tank, a missle, are all weapons which are extensions beyond the human mind and body.... they can be removed from the access of the body..... unless you wish to start cutting off limbs of people and becoming thought police to make sure people can learn new things that they can do with what they were born with, then there is no logic in banning martial arts, or any other hand to hand combat training.
Sure I can.
For one thing, I created the topic. Secondly, I started the topic with "Seems like there's almost one mass shooting per week down in the US these days." Which I was using to direct the debate into the gun control argument. People are free to debate the article which was originally used, or they can debate about the concept of gun control.... which was the whole point to begin with.
When you create a thread and start a topic, I will stick to what you wish to follow, that's how it works. There's no point in creating a topic to debate if nobody is going to stick to it.
Cars have some use for some of the public. Firearms have some use for some of the public. Get over it.
See previous post explaining.
Good, then ban cars. I don't have one, so I couldn't care less..... moving on.
Good then that's the way it should be. If people are willing to ban/restrict guns so long as vehicle usage is banned/restricted, then that seems fair.
Yeah.... Don'cha just love these control for control battles? Fits the theme perfectly because the shooter wanted to write the rules too....
#1 - "A firework is classified as a low explosive pyrotechnic device used primarily for aesthetic and entertainment purposes."
#2 - Jeeps and Hummers are not the things directly causing death and are still being used by their intended purposes.... transportation. My position still stands.
#3 - The debate can't be steered, because you can't seem to focus on more then one thing and easily distracted by petty, irrelevent side arguments.
#4 - I'm still right.
As seen in many other countries.... or anywhere for that matter, if a weapon is needed, there is a method of obtaining that weapon.
And in case of an emergency, such as oppression or an invasion of your country, I don't see why the right to bear arms can't be allowed, as that would be an extreme case of it's requirement and justification. Perhaps I could even agree to citizens being allowed to own firearms while your nation has declaired war..... but all other times, I see no practical reason for the right to bear arms to be available, when the majority use and abuse that right to terrorize their fellow citizens.
As mentioned before, I'm not for a total outright ban..... just some form of control to reduce the chances of death and violence.
Use your brain will you? You can't debate a paticular topic if you're going to run off on retarded debates of banning other things which don't matter to the original topic, plain and simple. Before you know it, you're on several pages of debating nothing that the debate was originally about. I don't have an issue with going off the beaten path to argue one or two things, so long as it goes back to the original topic.
Excuse me all to hell for not liking hi-jacked threads.
1. ) Oppression: Why would an oppressive regime lift a ban on guns?
In fairness, the right to bear arms is about opposing the domestic, not a foreign, government. Thats how the US rolls since day 1, I don't see why they would change it now.
2.) the Majority: Its a tiny minority. Tiny, Tiny minority. Fewer legal gun owners use a gun to kill a person, than legal car owners use their car to kill a person.
There is this false image of people running around the US inner cities firing their guns in the air like a wedding in Afghanistan all day long.
Its not there.
Then why are you debating gun ownership in a thread about a church tragedy?
The sentiment is nice, but you kinda lose the moral high ground when your debating the topic that originally hi-jacked the thread.
umm.... the thread is about a person who shot because he didn't like how the church was doing things. If you really believe you maintain ownership of a thread simply because you are the poster who originated it, then go start your own site.
Congratulations, JERK.... You hijacked your "own" thread....
#1 - Fireworks: your comment confirmed my explination, therefore I was still right.
#2 - Jeeps and Hummers: your comment confirmed my explination, therefore I was still right.
#3 - You're lack of concentration and keeping topics on track: Your above comment I just quoted to create this post confirms my above statement and your lack of ability to stay on track.....
Hince, I'm still right.
Keep playing the game why don't you. You can keep on trying to side track the argument, you can keep trying to throw petty insults and comments about my own posting in this thread, but none of it helps your side of the argument, and your lack of ability to do so only proves my point more so.
I'm so terribly sorry that I haven't been able to help fuel your long straw examples that don't relate to the original topic at hand.... since that's the typical response from anybody who defends the right to bear arms.....
You start to argue your side of the argument, and then when it gets tough, you try and side track the argument to avoid the issues at hand.... then when that doesn't work you complain the debate is being controlled.
I'd certainly hate to see how half of you would handle yourselves at the old forums I used to goto, which was a lot more strict on how far off topic you were allowed to go.
Why don't you just go back to those "old forums" ... or did they tell you to screw off too?
Here, I'll make it a bit more simpler for you:
"While it's so easy to go off course when discussing something, we ask that you try to keep it to a minimum. While it's ok to make a quick remark that's off topic in the thread, we ask that you keep it as a secondary point to your reply post. Feel free to create a new thread if you want to discuss something else, but try to keep people's threads clean and ontopic."
.. Andem
My comments starting this thread wasn't about "Oh poor people getting shot" it was directly towards how often this sort of thing continually happens, why and how to prevent it. If you couldn't figure this out on your own in post #1, then you clearly haven't seen the slew of other threads I have started to do this to in older examples, only for it to be side-tracked to something totally different, very much like what you are trying to do.
The thread never began until I started it and I created it.... get your sh*t together will you.
And I'll direct your narrow minded ass to this as well:
"While it's so easy to go off course when discussing something, we ask that you try to keep it to a minimum. While it's ok to make a quick remark that's off topic in the thread, we ask that you keep it as a secondary point to your reply post. Feel free to create a new thread if you want to discuss something else, but try to keep people's threads clean and ontopic."
.. Andem
And if you want to start pushing things to the next level with petty insults by calling me a jerk, don't think I'll hessitate to follow.....