Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 14. (Read 36631 times)
Really.
....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...
if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...
- the choice to not carry
- the choice to stay alive.
Really?
I mean, really?
....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...
if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...
- the choice to not carry
- the choice to stay alive.
What do you think should be done about assault weapons? Do you support them or not?
Today will be a great day for Colorado....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6HafQUIItE
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/colorado-democrat-government-not-guns-will-keep-you-safe/
The Democrat statist Colorado House Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst believes the 2nd amendment argument that guns can be used as a form of self-defense is ridiculous. According to Hullinghorst, it’s government that keeps you safe—not guns. Never mind all the evidence to reveal the horrific results of gun-control polices found in this warning from the UK and a list of massacres that followed the disarmament of the citizenry.
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
But wait, there’s more, Hullinghorst also feels gun-control—a.k.a. people-control—will keep the children safer. Uh, yeah… cause that works soooo well for Chicago citizens and their children (even the police aren’t safe in Chicago).
- See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/colorado-democrat-government-not-guns-will-keep-you-safe/#sthash.6ifxgNjW.dpuf
Control is all criminals are interested in. Controlling our ability to defend ourselves against them out of existence, controlling our righteously angry speech against their civil rights violations resulting in countless murders, rapes, and maimings of legally disarmed and defenseless innocents, like at the cinema in Aurora, CO where the viewers were subsequently massacred, utterly predictably, with impunity. Disgusting.
It seems to me like if you take a principled view from individual and constitutional rights, then WE want the ability to prevent an event like Aurora. That's the WE, with OUR GUNS.
It also seems to me like if you take a practical view, then you know the time lag before police arrive, and again you want the personal ability to make a difference in said situation.
On the contrary, if you were a principled person - say Zwanzig20 - seeking a happy world, and you sought to ban guns, then you are responsible for Aurora.
If you are a practical person seeking a happy world, and you sought to ban guns, then, again, you acknowledge somehow that the greater good must allow for the slaughter during the time of police response, you are responsible for events such as Aurora.
I am oversimplifying. But I do feel that blame and/or responsibility needs to be put squarely on the people who seek to take away OTHERS' right to self defense. And going at it from this point of view, we don't need statistics, we don't need much argument at all.
We just need anti-gun people to take an adult attitude, and admit that they have responsibility for these tragedies.
I'm willing to accept the opposite, that is: I accept that in having a moderately strong pro gun position, this means some accidents and tragedies will result, and yes, my position may be considered part of the cause of such things.
assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility
Don't project.
Uhm don't you read or watch the news? Don't you think those incidents are enough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
You linked to ignorance instead of "those incidents". Don't pretend to be ignorant that all massacres (>3 victims) occur in "gun free zones". Yes, 1 "gun free zone" massacre is one too many. Arm all innocent victims, fuck any criminal who constantly spams "victims can't handle the responsibility of defending themselves" and fuck "gun free zones" - the only perfect stages for mass murderers. You are now ignored.
Control your anger, this is why guns in general should not be given to the public. What kind of world would we live in if we were so paranoid that we need to bring a gun to the cinema.
Hmm. A world full of godless selfish power hungry control freaks? ie, what we have today? We've seen multiple times what happens in "gun free zones". I'll give you a clue, the word starts with 'm' and it involves a lot of death and maiming.
Feel free to go gunless. That's your right. Just don't try to force your beliefs on others.
M
Control is all criminals are interested in. Controlling our ability to defend ourselves against them out of existence, controlling our righteously angry speech against their civil rights violations resulting in countless murders, rapes, and maimings of legally disarmed and defenseless innocents, like at the cinema in Aurora, CO where the viewers were subsequently massacred, utterly predictably, with impunity. Disgusting.
Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?
Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.And windows you can't throw a chair or brick through
Exactly. Physical home security is mostly an illusion. The knowledge that the inhabitants are probably armed is a significant deterrent.
M
Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?
Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.And windows you can't throw a chair or brick through
Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?
Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.And windows you can't throw a chair or brick through
Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?
Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.Why would you keep scoped rifle under your bed?
if i had a rifel, it would be where i would put it. its long and fit-under-bed sized. Why would you keep scoped rifle under your bed? In case if some moose decides to rob your house?
so it doesn't get stolen? quickly accessible?
why does it matter?
M
Why would you keep scoped rifle under your bed? In case if some moose decides to rob your house?
No, the point of a gun is to shoot someone. If someone breaks into your house, do you honestly believe that person has only the best intentions for you?
no i believe that the person is smart enough to do it when im a sleep, or otherwise surprise me.So you are pro-shooting-people-person.
it must be really nice to live in a NAP based world, having gun races with one's neighbors like it was the cold war, or spending all time when you are awake at the gun range, so that your shooting skills is not average but slightly above, and not sleeping at night in case you neighbor decides that mutual destruction is the only way to 'win'. And after that getting cancer from all the pollution and shit put in the air, which you are perfectly fine with, the air is owned by no one right? and then not have money to pay for your really expensive hospital trip, because you felt some sense of guilt of using(stealing!!!!) someone else's money that he is too rich to be able to spend himself.
Yeah, i really wanna live there.
I watched the colbert report last week and steven and the audience were just as shocked by the paranoia as me. This is going way to far, why does anyone wants to be in constant fear of being robbed and ready to pull the gun?
Who put you in a position to say it's way too far? If they have the money, why not? If I had 10 cars, would you say the same thing?
M
Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?
Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.
M
Depends on where you are. If you are in north or south pole, you won't need it.
it must be really nice to live in a NAP based world, having gun races with one's neighbors like it was the cold war, or spending all time when you are awake at the gun range, so that your shooting skills is not average but slightly above, and not sleeping at night in case you neighbor decides that mutual destruction is the only way to 'win'. And after that getting cancer from all the pollution and shit put in the air, which you are perfectly fine with, the air is owned by no one right? and then not have money to pay for your really expensive hospital trip, because you felt some sense of guilt of using(stealing!!!!) someone else's money that he is too rich to be able to spend himself.
Yeah, i really wanna live there.
Yeah, i really wanna live there.
Not gonna lie; I have no fucking clue what you're on about
But if that's the world you want, by God, go for it, kokjo.I feel it's necessary to say, I'm not a gun-person. In fact, I spend most of my free time writing, painting, on the piano and playing video games--and on this forum, too. Simply because I know how to handle a weapon does not mean I actively go forth and seek people to shoot and kill; the last thing I ever want to happen to me is to be in a position to use a weapon against a person, but on the gigantic list of priorities I keep, being alive outranks not shooting my attacker.
no i believe that the person is smart enough to do it when im a sleep, or otherwise surprise me.
So you are pro-shooting-people-person.
So you are pro-shooting-people-person.
That's ideal. But murderers aren't necessarily the brightest bunch, otherwise they'd figure out how to take from you without having to kill you (unless it's your life they want, in which case, good luck either way.) And no, I'd rather not shoot a person unless I have to, but I'm not going to wait until the moment after I'll say, "Damn, I should've shot earlier!" Lets just agree that you not enter my home uninvited, and I'll not enter yours; do you not prefer peace over violence? The gun is just a promise of violence if violence is used against me; as mdude points out, the more this promise is made, the less violence ensues. The less this promise is made, the easier it is for violence to happen; nobody wants to attack the armed man, but the criminal flocks to a disarmed people.
It is a weapon intended to kill. And gun related murders are relatively much higher in the US that in Germany. Like I said maybe you are able to handle guns resposible, but what if your neighbour isnt?
Per 100.000
Germany 1.24 (2010)
United States 10.3 (2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Per 100.000
Germany 1.24 (2010)
United States 10.3 (2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
That's a neat statistic. Problem is, it's just a statistic and doesn't mean anything. Stats can be used to support any argument.
The lawless and governments (forgive the redundancy) will always have weapons. The lawful must always have access to the equivalent weapons to defend themselves from said lawless, else they will be trampled upon. If guns didn't exist, this discussion would be about swords, because swords are designed to kill.
Guns also serve another purpose regularly overlooked by the anti-gun crowd. They are an effective deterrent against crime. Using the Bob and George scenario, if Bob knew George was armed, he'd think twice about coming over. If he still decided he was going to go "visit" George, the sound of George's 12-gauge cocking might deter him still. If that still wasn't enough, seeing the said 12-gauge pointed at him might change his mind. George's chances of survival are significantly improved by him being able to legally and lawfully own and use a gun.
The same can be said if all Bob was interested in was George's bitcoins. Aside from an encrypted wallet, without a gun, all George could do when facing Bob and his illegal gun is beg and plead to please not take his hard mined bitcoins.
Guns are not the problem. The lawless are. The solution is to correct the lawlessness. Then the day would come that guns are not needed for self defense and would only be used for recreation.
M
Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?
No, the point of a gun is to shoot someone. If someone breaks into your house, do you honestly believe that person has only the best intentions for you?
no i believe that the person is smart enough to do it when im a sleep, or otherwise surprise me.So you are pro-shooting-people-person.
it must be really nice to live in a NAP based world, having gun races with one's neighbors like it was the cold war, or spending all time when you are awake at the gun range, so that your shooting skills is not average but slightly above, and not sleeping at night in case you neighbor decides that mutual destruction is the only way to 'win'. And after that getting cancer from all the pollution and shit put in the air, which you are perfectly fine with, the air is owned by no one right? and then not have money to pay for your really expensive hospital trip, because you felt some sense of guilt of using(stealing!!!!) someone else's money that he is too rich to be able to spend himself.
Yeah, i really wanna live there.
I watched the colbert report last week and steven and the audience were just as shocked by the paranoia as me. This is going way to far, why does anyone wants to be in constant fear of being robbed and ready to pull the gun?
it must be really nice to live in a NAP based world, having gun races with one's neighbors like it was the cold war, or spending all time when you are awake at the gun range, so that your shooting skills is not average but slightly above, and not sleeping at night in case you neighbor decides that mutual destruction is the only way to 'win'. And after that getting cancer from all the pollution and shit put in the air, which you are perfectly fine with, the air is owned by no one right? and then not have money to pay for your really expensive hospital trip, because you felt some sense of guilt of using(stealing!!!!) someone else's money that he is too rich to be able to spend himself.
Yeah, i really wanna live there.
Yeah, i really wanna live there.
Not gonna lie; I have no fucking clue what you're on about
But if that's the world you want, by God, go for it, kokjo.I feel it's necessary to say, I'm not a gun-person. In fact, I spend most of my free time writing, painting, on the piano and playing video games--and on this forum, too. Simply because I know how to handle a weapon does not mean I actively go forth and seek people to shoot and kill; the last thing I ever want to happen to me is to be in a position to use a weapon against a person, but on the gigantic list of priorities I keep, being alive outranks not shooting my attacker.
no i believe that the person is smart enough to do it when im a sleep, or otherwise surprise me.
So you are pro-shooting-people-person.
So you are pro-shooting-people-person.
That's ideal. But murderers aren't necessarily the brightest bunch, otherwise they'd figure out how to take from you without having to kill you (unless it's your life they want, in which case, good luck either way.) And no, I'd rather not shoot a person unless I have to, but I'm not going to wait until the moment after I'll say, "Damn, I should've shot earlier!" Lets just agree that you not enter my home uninvited, and I'll not enter yours; do you not prefer peace over violence? The gun is just a promise of violence if violence is used against me; as mdude points out, the more this promise is made, the less violence ensues. The less this promise is made, the easier it is for violence to happen; nobody wants to attack the armed man, but the criminal flocks to a disarmed people.
Jump to: