Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Gun control
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337569 is a reply to message #337389] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 11:27   |
|
|
What if I don't hunt, haven't been in the military, but I want to use long range rifles on shooting ranges? I don't see why I would need any more than a gun license from a simple background check that would take just a few minutes.
If Iron Warrior is right about most shootings being spur of the moment incidents, then it would be even more reasonable to say that there should be LESS restriction on sniper rifles because it would take a special, cold, and calculated person to perform such acts. I don't know you, but I don't know any sociopaths.
As far as gun control goes, I might agree with some licensing. I mean, violent felons and sociopaths probably shouldn't be given weapons. However, even the most violently tempered humans will generally stop before they kill someone. Plus, those that are willing to kill, they won't waste time getting their weapon registered. They'll get an illegal weapon and use it.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337573 is a reply to message #337569] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 11:50 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
If you want to use it in a shooting range you rent the gun at the shooting range and return it when you are done.
And you're putting words in my mouth. I never said ANYTHING about criminals using such weapons for attacking other people. And like I said, it isn't harming anyone to put a restriction on heavy weapons because you only need a light weapon to defend yourself. Tell me, if you wanted a gun for self defense, why should you get an assault rifle instead of a revolver?
All you've been saying is how banning weapons doesn't stop killers and how banning weapons only harms people who want to defend themselves... but I have never said anything relating to that.
[Updated on: Thu, 26 June 2008 11:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337574 is a reply to message #337573] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 11:58 |
 |
SlikRik
Messages: 328
Registered: December 2005
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:50 |
If you want to use it in a shooting range you rent the gun at the shooting range and return it when you are done.
....
Tell me, if you wanted a gun for self defense, why should you get an assault rifle instead of a revolver?
|
To the first part, you can bring your own gun to shooting ranges. If the shooting range didn't have the specific gun I wanted to shoot available for rent, I'd go out and buy my own.
To the second part:
To make sure the motherfucker is dead!!
Roleplay 2 Website (click pic) designer, owner, and admin.
Roleplay 2 Forum admin.
Present & Past WOL Names: SlikRik (current), SlikRik19/24/07, rik1924, rik19244
| Canadacdn wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 15:52 |
If you don't want EA to get any credit, destroy their Refinery. Duh.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337575 is a reply to message #337574] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 12:07 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
For your first part: It works the same at any other product retailer. If they don't have what you're looking for, go somewhere else. If there isn't anywhere else, then you're crap out of luck.
You ever hear the term 2 wrongs don't make a right? There is a less chance of you killing the person your trying to defend yourself against if you use a light weapon.
[Updated on: Thu, 26 June 2008 12:09] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337583 is a reply to message #337573] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 12:48 |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:50 |
If you want to use it in a shooting range you rent the gun at the shooting range and return it when you are done.
And you're putting words in my mouth. I never said ANYTHING about criminals using such weapons for attacking other people. And like I said, it isn't harming anyone to put a restriction on heavy weapons because you only need a light weapon to defend yourself. Tell me, if you wanted a gun for self defense, why should you get an assault rifle instead of a revolver?
All you've been saying is how banning weapons doesn't stop killers and how banning weapons only harms people who want to defend themselves... but I have never said anything relating to that.
|
Uhh, if the business allows me to bring my own sniper rifle to the range, why the fuck would I have to rely on just them having it? It doesn't harm anyone by me owning it.
I don't want a high powered rifle over a hand gun. It's not about self-defense. I want my sniper rifle for recreation, competition, and possibly hunting (obviously, no .50 cals for hunting).
My whole argument against criminals is that the only reason why you would restrict something is if it massively endangers the public. Otherwise, that's an oppressive government.
No, there's no need for an assault rifle or a sniper rifle. That's all beside the point. I made a point earlier about having things in excess. Should we not be allowed to purchase things in the excess if we wish to? I'm going to buy a new laptop once I sell my current one. I have a desktop that works just fine. Are you going to tell me that I should have no right to purchase an expensive gaming rig, even if I'm only going to play Renegade on it, and nothing newer than that? Yes, it's in excess, and there's not necessarily a point to having it, but should I not be allowed?
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337598 is a reply to message #337583] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 14:41 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 15:48 |
Uhh, if the business allows me to bring my own sniper rifle to the range, why the fuck would I have to rely on just them having it? It doesn't harm anyone by me owning it........
|
Seriously, you're replying to arguments I'm not even making!
I never said anything about not being allowed to own one! I only said make getting one harder!
If you want one badly enough, you just need to take a proper course in using one, that is all I'm saying. Guns are just like everything else, I don't understand why they need special treatment.
Look at cars. You get a drivers license and you get to drive specific types of cars, but if you want to drive another type of vehicle, like a plane, a trucker, or a boat, you need to get another license for doing so. Why not apply this system to guns as well? Your right to bare arms isn't infringed because you aren't losing the ability to own a gun. If you only want a gun for self defense, you can get one using the current system. If you wanted a stronger weapon for recreation, that's fine too, but you just need more requirements to get them.
[Updated on: Thu, 26 June 2008 14:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337612 is a reply to message #337389] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 16:02 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Do us all a big favor and never go into politics. You clearly don't have the faintest fucking clue why government being able to dictate rights and needs to the people is a horrid idea, and I sincerely hope that you are never in a position for your ignorance to piss on my freedom.
HERE'S THE BOTTOM FUCKING LINE: NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR ANY CITIZEN OR GROUP OF CITIZENS HAS ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO TELL ANOTHER CITIZEN WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT DO OR POSSESS, FOR ANY REASON, UNLESS THAT INDIVIDUAL IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME OR ADJUDICATED AS A DANGER TO THE REST OF SOCIETY. NOWHERE IN OUR CONSTITUTION DOES IT STATE THAT ANY CITIZEN MUST PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY ACTION, ANY PURCHASE, ANY DECISION THAT THEY MAKE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR MAKING IT. NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR ANY OTHER ENTITY HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY ANYTHING AT ALL WHICH DOES NOT DIRECTLY HARM ANOTHER CITIZEN OR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. ANYTHING, INCLUDING PARKING A TANK IN THEIR FUCKING DRIVEWAY OR PAINTING BIG SHINY RAINBOWS ON THEIR FRONT WALK. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE ANY OF THAT AWAY UNLESS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR IT CAUSES OR ALLOWS HARM TO BE DONE BY IT.
My apologies for shouting, but some people here really seem to be that dense.
I do not want Big Brother telling me what guns I may or may not own. Our Founding Fathers did not want Big Brother telling people what guns they may or may not own. When a government starts telling people what they may or may not own, unless someone else's rights are violated as a direct consequence of that ownership (as in slavery), it has overstepped its bounds. Laws requiring registration, authorization, or restriction violate the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty, and therefore violate the beliefs upon which our nation was founded. Government serves the people, it does not tell them what to do. It does not sacrifice freedom for security. I can't fathom how the fuck we ever forgot that.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337614 is a reply to message #337612] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 16:31 |
|
|
| NukeIt15 |
I can't fathom how the fuck we ever forgot that.
|
The World Wars, The Great Depression, and the counter-culture. The past century has been a huge blow to the principles that our nation was founded upon.
Though, the spirit of liberty is not dead within America. I'm pleasantly surprised to see what good Ron Paul has done for the libertarian/Constitutionalist message. The message is getting louder, too.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337627 is a reply to message #337612] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 19:01 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 19:02 |
BIG RED TEXT
|
Please explain to me then, if they aren't allowed to do such things, why do we need driver's licenses to drive cars? Trucks? Planes? Why we need Hunting Licenses to go hunting? Why we have to be of a certain age to start drinking? Why we can get arrested for possessing drugs? Why gays can't get married in most states? Why people are shot simply by walking on government property? Why we need a passport to leave the country? Why you can get arrested for using or being aligned with using a swastika? Why you aren't allowed to do anything to the flag? Why there have been video games deemed "too violent" or "too mature" to be allowed sales in the United States? Why it is illegal to possess child pornography? Or why the government bans or restricts the use of hundreds of thousands of other things?
I don't get why you guys keep on coming back at me saying that I said "Omg they should ban this and that cause of this reason and that reason!"
I never said they should ban anything! All I said is that there should be a heavier requirement for owning high-powered rifles that aren't going to be used for self defense.
If you have a problem with that, that means you have a problem with drinking ages and drivers licenses too. Because the way I see it, it would still take much longer for a person to acquire a drivers license than a permit to use heavy weapons. I don't understand why you guys aren't grasping the point: you should be trained in its use before you can start using it. Do you seriously want a guy, living in the city, who has never held a gun before in his life, to purchase an M16 for "recreational" purposes without any training in how to use it?(An by training I mean 1 or 2 simple 4-5 hour classes)
[Updated on: Thu, 26 June 2008 19:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337640 is a reply to message #337612] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 19:45 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 18:02 |
Do us all a big favor and never go into politics. You clearly don't have the faintest fucking clue why government being able to dictate rights and needs to the people is a horrid idea, and I sincerely hope that you are never in a position for your ignorance to piss on my freedom.
HERE'S THE BOTTOM FUCKING LINE: NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR ANY CITIZEN OR GROUP OF CITIZENS HAS ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO TELL ANOTHER CITIZEN WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT DO OR POSSESS, FOR ANY REASON, UNLESS THAT INDIVIDUAL IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME OR ADJUDICATED AS A DANGER TO THE REST OF SOCIETY. NOWHERE IN OUR CONSTITUTION DOES IT STATE THAT ANY CITIZEN MUST PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY ACTION, ANY PURCHASE, ANY DECISION THAT THEY MAKE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR MAKING IT. NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR ANY OTHER ENTITY HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY ANYTHING AT ALL WHICH DOES NOT DIRECTLY HARM ANOTHER CITIZEN OR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. ANYTHING, INCLUDING PARKING A TANK IN THEIR FUCKING DRIVEWAY OR PAINTING BIG SHINY RAINBOWS ON THEIR FRONT WALK. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE ANY OF THAT AWAY UNLESS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR IT CAUSES OR ALLOWS HARM TO BE DONE BY IT.
My apologies for shouting, but some people here really seem to be that dense.
I do not want Big Brother telling me what guns I may or may not own. Our Founding Fathers did not want Big Brother telling people what guns they may or may not own. When a government starts telling people what they may or may not own, unless someone else's rights are violated as a direct consequence of that ownership (as in slavery), it has overstepped its bounds. Laws requiring registration, authorization, or restriction violate the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty, and therefore violate the beliefs upon which our nation was founded. Government serves the people, it does not tell them what to do. It does not sacrifice freedom for security. I can't fathom how the fuck we ever forgot that.
|
That is the danger of excessive individuality and freedom. 100% freedom will lead only to more strife...in ALL things moderacy is required.
We are all god's creatures and with our given higher intelligence, we are complex beings capable of a wide range of thought and emotions...we are not robots.
The thing that bothers me the most about your post is the almost complete negligence of the neighbor. It is all about yourself and yourself and yourself? I thought humanity grew out of that mentality thousands of years ago with the dawn of civilization...I guess we want to go back?
You see, you CAN be a responsible man, you CAN be a intelligent man, you CAN be a man of understanding and all that by itself will ensure that you CAN be a man who can safely keep a nuclear warhead in his basement for "recreational" purposes or just because he can...but you think your neighbors will be able to sleep at night? This is the reason governments came into existence in the first place: to resolve the issue of fear in the people.
We will be all animals overnight if such massive amounts of freedoms are allowed. Men MUST be governed but in all things moderacy should be be the norm.
Having a government is like a tug of war. Both need to keep the other in perfect check and both need the other for survival. The people recognize the government for without recognition, the government is nothing. The government in turn, respects the people (as they ought to) to get respect from the people in return. Have no government to govern and there WILL be chaos. Having only people will be a greater strife.
You cannot support the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and yet demand more ridiculous individual liberties. You cannot apply late-1700 norms to that of today to further your cause. The Founding Fathers did not know what a 7.62 mm assault rifle was and they did not know what a .50 cal sniper rifle was...I bet my soul that if they foresaw the creation of those weapons and their incredible ability to kill several dozen people per minute, I am sure they would have put a limiting clause in the Constitution.
Regarding the red text, if you want to do whatever you want to do and yet live under the protective security and benefits of a united society, then I would say your best bet is to start your own society. The active nuclear warhead collector, the neighborhood tank-collecting freak, and the backyard sniper rifle shooter can all live in one place without anyone telling them what to do.
EDIT: I made small correction.
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 07:19] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337643 is a reply to message #337640] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 19:56 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Also realize that the "freedom" you guys are speaking of is not do whatever the hell you want with no restrictions and not get in trouble for it. The "freedom" is the ability to live without the overbearing stress of restrictions that are faced in many other countries.
The thing with America is that there are restrictions, but they aren't stressful to the people. What I mean by that is that restrictions are placed with consent of the people. The government can't just decide something is not right for the people and ban them from using it. There needs to be consent from the people... hence the reason we are having this discussion in the first place. If the freedom was gone, there would be no point in us, the people, discussing the laws relating to gun control at all... because the government would just do as they please with those laws without our consent.
If I was going against liberty and freedom by proposing a restriction, then I don't know what liberty and freedom is.
It's alright for you to have your freedoms with your heavy assault rifles, but it isn't ok for me to have my freedom in disapproval of you having it?
[Updated on: Thu, 26 June 2008 19:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337649 is a reply to message #337389] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 20:47 |
|
|
You can have your disapproval all you want, as long as you don't impede on my right to own one through legislation when I'm not impeding on your rights or the rights of anybody else.
Personally, I don't agree with Hobbes. I don't think that the state of nature is chaos. I think that small, prosperous communities would arise. People have a desire to support their friends and family. As much as people want to think that people are entirely selfish, there is a bit of altruism.
Anarchy is not a horrible form of "government". My only problem with anarchy is that it will beget several, small governments, defeating the purpose.
Fear isn't what makes people give up their power to the Leviathan. People just have grown to be social creatures, and very specialized in skill sets, so an economy and government form from that.
As far as the government is concerned, it's only job is to protect its citizens from threats, be they domestic or foreign. As long as my actions do not impede on the rights of others, I should have absolutely no interference from my government WHATSOEVER. My actions, be they moral or immoral, according to ANY moral set is irrelevant. Only I am responsible for my actions. My government is not my parent, nor do I wish it to be. If someone wants their decisions to be made for them, they can hire someone to plan their day. I will not partake in such utter disregard for life.
Government only gives enough liberty to its citizens, so that there won't be any mass rebellion. Government knows that the more liberty citizens have, the less control over the people that they have. Some of you view it necessary for there to be a balance struck, but the government should always be able to be swatted like a fly by its citizens. The citizens give the government its powers, and allowing for these ridiculous restrictions on personal liberties only makes the people less powerful.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337680 is a reply to message #337389] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 04:08 |
 |
sadukar09
Messages: 2812
Registered: May 2007
Location: Ottawa,Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I find it amusing that Canada has lower gun related deaths than U.S. and has almost as high gun per capita. (In case you want to source, it's here.)
The data I want to point out is this, "Firearm Homicide" the U.S. have 3.72 x100,000 rate, while Canada have 0.72x100,000. This is 14 year old data, but the more accurate 2008 data would probably reflect the same thing.
Edit: Scroll to the bottom, and see a graph of gun related deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
| Quote: |
[19:16:48] <APBBR> @ryan3k: THE ENFIELD DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BECAUSE THE BULLETS INSTANTLY HIT THEIR TARGETS LOL
[19:16:52] <APBBR> @ryan3k: CHRONO TECHNOLOGY IN TEH BULLETS
|
| Quote: |
[22:48]<APBBR> @V0LK0V: AOL COMING UR WAI K
[22:48] <APBBR> Host: Quitting due to Westwood Online connection loss.
|
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 04:09] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337696 is a reply to message #337649] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 06:18 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 23:47 |
You can have your disapproval all you want .... liberties only makes the people less powerful.
|
So what is your take on drivers licenses? Do you support the idea of a government controlled system in which, only through time and a series of tests, you are legally allowed to drive a car?
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 06:18] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337698 is a reply to message #337389] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 06:31 |
|
|
Don't misquote me like that, please.
As for your question, the concept of driving cars is a bit different than shooting guns. Do I think people should have a license to drive a car on their own property and not on public roads? No, I don't. However, it should be illegal to drive without a license on public roads and in populated areas. This being for the same reason why it's not illegal to shoot a gun in the country, but it is in the city.
I don't know about you, but when I buy my gun, I'm not going to be wielding it in the street and firing shots. That's reckless endangerment of others' lives. The same would go for driving without the slightest fucking clue as to what you're doing. However, if you want to shoot yourself in the foot in the country, be my guest. If you want to drive your vehicle into trees on your property, be my guest.
It's either that, or just make the penalties high for those that cause crashes, and get rid of "no fault insurance" laws (like in my stupid state of Michigan). Most people will be smart enough to not operate the vehicle in a manner to where it would endanger others and that could land them hefty fines. Of course, most people are smart enough to not drive drunk, too. There are exceptions, of course, and for reckless endangerment of others, penalties should be high.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337700 is a reply to message #337698] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 06:41 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Ok, I guess your opinion is your opinion.
And I didn't miss quote you. It's called an ellipsis.. I didn't want to have my post be made up of your post so I took the first and last line and divided it in the middle with the ellipsis telling people that there are words there they where just omitted. 3 dots means I omitted words from your sentence, while 4 dots means I omitted sentences in a paragraph.
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 06:43] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337701 is a reply to message #337700] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 06:48 |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 09:41 |
Ok, I guess your opinion is your opinion.
And I didn't miss quote you. It's called an ellipsis.. I didn't want to have my post be made up of your post so I took the first and last line and divided it in the middle with the ellipsis telling people that there are words there they where just omitted.
|
I know what an ellipsis is. I'm talking about where you quoted me as saying "liberties only makes the people less powerful." That is far from reflecting my view, and just plain false.
The problem with people wanting legislation on anything that could be used dangerously ignores two facts. The first being that most people are smart enough to where they're going to avoid harming others. People aren't THAT selfish and arrogant, especially when they have dire consequences for those actions. The second being that just because something CAN happen doesn't mean that it WILL. As NukeIt said, we get rid of the idea of innocent until proven guilty when we punish others (yes, restricting civil liberties is a punishment. That's the principle our prison system runs on.) for something that they didn't do, and probably never were going to do.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 06:49] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jun 01 23:26:04 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01309 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
