# Frank Mir talks gun control



## nogiforme (Jun 17, 2008)

http://www.matratz.com/2008/07/25/joanne-of-mma-girls-talks-gun-control-with-frank-mir/

GOOD stuff, Frank belives in the 2nd Ammendment


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

that was awesome! my man love for Frank just went up :thumb02:


----------



## FusionX (May 31, 2008)

Frank Mir seems quite intelligent in that interview. It's good to see these kinds of interviews with fighters.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

nogiforme said:


> http://www.matratz.com/2008/07/25/joanne-of-mma-girls-talks-gun-control-with-frank-mir/
> 
> GOOD stuff, Frank belives in the 2nd Ammendment


Wow!

I always thought that the guy looked slightly retarded, but those were some really dumb arguments from Frank Mir.


----------



## williamrod99 (Mar 31, 2007)

Well it depends on what your experience with guns is. Just as with everything in your life. If you hear stories or are a victim of gun crime, then you will be against them. If, on the other hand, guns save your life or know stories of someone who defended him/herself well, then you will be pro 2nd amendment!


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

It's easy to be pro second amendment without being pro-handgun. I'm disappointed the SCOTUS just struck down the DC law last session.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

williamrod99 said:


> Well it depends on what your experience with guns is. Just as with everything in your life. If you hear stories or are a victim of gun crime, then you will be against them. If, on the other hand, guns save your life or know stories of someone who defended him/herself well, then you will be pro 2nd amendment!


That's just not true. It's likely to have some influence, but there's no shortage of victims of guns who have turned to them for protection as well as people who have never been anywhere near a gun or its potential negative consequences but are convinced that they should be banished from existence.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

williamrod99 said:


> Well it depends on what your experience with guns is. Just as with everything in your life. If you hear stories or are a victim of gun crime, then you will be against them. If, on the other hand, guns save your life or know stories of someone who defended him/herself well, then you will be pro 2nd amendment!


If someone had a gun and harbored the intention to murder you, it wouldn't matter if you had the world's greatest weapons cache in your gun cabinet or the greatest gun training, they'd still kill you.

They would not risk their own life by breaking into your armed home to do the bloody deed, they'd catch you unawares, perhaps coming out of a stall in a public washroom, drinking at a pub or catching a nap on the subway.

Gun-nuts have this cliched platitude "guns don't kill people, people do", well this too applies: people inclined to kill succeed exceedingly with guns available in their hands. 

Gangs, all across America, are probably the most armed "fraternities", next to the military, secret service and police, and yet that doesn't deter rival gangs from venturing off into each other's territories to shoot each other. Gun ownership, as demonstrated in their lifestyle, is not a deterrent of gun violence, it's a facilitator.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> If someone had a gun and harbored the intention to murder you, it wouldn't matter if you had the world's greatest weapons cache in your gun cabinet or the greatest gun training, they'd still kill you.
> 
> They would not risk their own life by breaking into your armed home to do the bloody deed, they'd catch you unawares, perhaps coming out of a stall in a public washroom, drinking at a pub or catching a nap on the subway.
> 
> ...


 Are you suggesting that rival gangs would suddenly stop killing each other if only we got the guns out of their hands? :confused02:


----------



## Darkwraith (Jun 4, 2008)

jasvll said:


> Are you suggesting that rival gangs would suddenly stop killing each other if only we got the guns out of their hands? :confused02:



:confused02: :confused03:


----------



## Halebop (Oct 10, 2006)

SILVA>ALL said:


> If someone had a gun and harbored the intention to murder you, it wouldn't matter if you had the world's greatest weapons cache in your gun cabinet or the greatest gun training, they'd still kill you.
> 
> They would not risk their own life by breaking into your armed home to do the bloody deed, they'd catch you unawares, perhaps coming out of a stall in a public washroom, drinking at a pub or catching a nap on the subway.
> 
> ...



yeah. the 2d amendment argument is over. 
District of Columbia v. Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Darkwraith said:


> :confused02: :confused03:


 I've found that the cartoons are better at accentuating posts, rather than encompassing them. :thumbsup:

For example, right now, your cartoons simply suggest that you're trying to poke yourself in the eye, but I'm guessing you were going for something else when you posted them. :dunno:


----------



## Darkwraith (Jun 4, 2008)

My apologies. Was feeling lazy and didn't feel like typing while I was drinking my coffee.. I just agree with you.


----------



## WaCkO92 (Apr 20, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> *If someone had a gun and harbored the intention to murder you, it wouldn't matter if you had the world's greatest weapons cache in your gun cabinet or the greatest gun training, they'd still kill you.
> *
> They would not risk their own life by breaking into your armed home to do the bloody deed, they'd catch you unawares, perhaps coming out of a stall in a public washroom, drinking at a pub or catching a nap on the subway.
> 
> ...


not if i kill them first dumbass


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

jasvll said:


> Are you suggesting that rival gangs would suddenly stop killing each other if only we got the guns out of their hands? :confused02:


No. You're suggesting that I'm suggesting it.

Rival gangs kill with ease and convenience when they have guns, luxuries unavailable in a fight using fists and knives.

Most of these kids couldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight but they'll put a slug in your ass. The fear of getting injured in a gun-less, one on one fight is a deterrent from violence, in of itself.


----------



## Darkwraith (Jun 4, 2008)

So you are thinking the bad guys wouldn't be able to get guns if they were outlawed? You think that they will follow the law and say.."oh, it's illegal to have a gun. I'll just shank this guy instead..."

Crazy...


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Well as I have said before I use to believe in gun control till I found out the saved my fathers life and mine when I was very young. I also have few friend who have their own story about how there were able to escape being robed by simply showing the robber they have a gun. Here is a true story for yha. 

a man in his son where out in there home in the woods in a log cabin they have owned. Suddenly in the middle of the knight there was a demanding knock on the door. the man open his door but kept his screen door locked and he asked the two teenagers that were at the door what do you want. they said we need to use your phone he said give me the number and ill call if for you. the teenagers then said no and demanded he let them in the man then pulled away the curtins that were concealing is body to show them that he has a gun in his hand. the teenagers ran off. the man didnt sleep that night. but sat in his sons room and guarded his son. the next morning he stepped outside and saw that there were two shallow graves for them 2 months later a professor and his wife were stabbed to death in their own home by the same two guys.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

WaCkO92 said:


> not if i kill them first dumbass


How smart of you, quick draw McGraw.

So the justification for gun ownership is that armed "good guys" draw quicker than armed "bad guys"? LOL!

The bad guys live and die by the gun, I'd be more willing to put my money on the bad guy in a gun fight with you.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

Gun control really shouldn't be such a philosophical and divisive issue. It isn't tricky like debating the "chicken or the egg". I can guarantee that the firearm was present before the bullet riddled body appeared. 
Also, I heard an argument that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been prevented if every student had a firearm. Wow! :confused05:.
America is really in the dark ages on this issue compared to almost every other 1st world nation.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> Well as I have said before I use to believe in gun control till I found out the saved my fathers life and mine when I was very young. I also have few friend who have their own story about how there were able to escape being robed by simply showing the robber they have a gun. Here is a true story for yha.
> 
> a man in his son where out in there home in the woods in a log cabin they have owned. Suddenly in the middle of the knight there was a demanding knock on the door. .....
> .............
> ...


You know why those guys showed up? Because Jesus was angry that the little boy didn't say his prayers. 
Fortunately, the Professor and his wife were anti gun campaigners. So every cloud has a silver lining.

Edit : AmericanFighter + repped me for this post??? I thought I layed the sarcasm on pretty thick.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

Darkwraith said:


> So you are thinking the bad guys wouldn't be able to get guns if they were outlawed? You think that they will follow the law and say.."oh, it's illegal to have a gun. I'll just shank this guy instead..."
> 
> Crazy...


What is it with you guys putting words in my mouth?

Of course bad guys will always seek efficicient ways to kill. If gangsters could acquire hand grenades or missiles for their purposes, they'd buy them too. But such destructive resources are so well controlled, on the supply end, that we don't have grenades going off and rockets being launched in gang territory.

They'd be far less gangsters carrying guns in a gun-free civilisation than in one in which everyone carries a gun. Most gangsters own weapons some "good guy" bought at some point in time legally. 

Psychological and criminal evaluation of purchasers is no guarantee that their guns will not end up in the hands of the thuggish and pychotic.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

RushFan said:


> Also, I heard an argument that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been prevented if every student had a firearm. Wow! :confused05:.


...OR, they'd have been a lot more virginia techs if every student had a firearm.

I went to university in a small town, Sackville in New Brunswick, and I can assure you, just as in every other university, there were a lot of characters that everyone whispered about.

I can't imagine each and every one of those characters bearing arms, either by right or by access.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

I hate it when people fail to see the logic. Maybe its because I am a logical thinker while they are emotional thinker.

in Switzerland every adult male are issued a assault rifle for militia duty and are allowed to keep the gun in their house. 
Switzerland has more firearms than almost any country and yet it is one of the safest places to live crime wise. 

another example is that Washington D.C. and Chicago instituted a ban on hand guns well before the crime began to fall in the 1990s but they were laggards not leaders in the crime drop in the national crime drop.

By the way all of my info comes for the book Freakonomics which is actually a pretty liberal book.

ok yes there should be some gun control laws making it harder for people to get guns like a background check or something But please dont leave us defenseless to criminals on the street.

PS. Pepper spray dosent work in most cases.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

SILVA>ALL said:


> ...OR, they'd have been a lot more virginia techs if every student had a firearm.
> 
> I went to university in a small town, Sackville in New Brunswick, and I can assure you, just as in every other university, there were a lot of characters that everyone whispered about.
> 
> I can't imagine each and every one of those characters bearing arms, either by right or by access.


how about one teacher being armed and knowing how to use a gun. Personally I think that if anyone would have had a gun and know how to use it they could have stopped it . Not everyone had to have one.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> No. You're suggesting that I'm suggesting it.


 You're statement implied it, so I asked for clarification.



> Rival gangs kill with ease and convenience when they have guns, luxuries unavailable in a fight using fists and knives.
> 
> Most of these kids couldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight but they'll put a slug in your ass. The fear of getting injured in a gun-less, one on one fight is a deterrent from violence, in of itself.


 See, you were suggesting that the absence of guns would cause gang members to stop killing each other. People die in knife attacks everyday. A kid from the new Harry Potter film died from a stabbing last month, and I lost a childhood friend the month before. Both were predicated on nothing more than a bruised ego.

In the end, people that want to kill other people will. This has been true since prehistory and has survived unscathed right through to 'civilized' times.

There's also the issue of how, exactly, we remove the guns. It's not like your average gang member is buying his weapon through legal channels. It's not like his intent is to use his weapon legally. Is yet another law going to suddenly stop him, or is it just going to affect the already law-abiding citizens?


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

americanfighter said:


> I hate it when people fail to see the logic. Maybe its because I am a logical thinker while they are emotional thinker.
> 
> in Switzerland every adult male are issued a assault rifle for militia duty and are allowed to keep the gun in their house.
> Switzerland has more firearms than almost any country and yet it is one of the safest places to live crime wise.
> ...


*I'd only be for gun ownership if the purchaser of a gun suffers the same penalty as the criminal who uses it to kill.*

It's, in huge part, the recklessness of legal gun owners that ups gun violence on the streets. Particularly when you look at Toronto, a lot of the guns used in the recent surge in gun violence were legally bought in the states and snuck across the border to kill Canadians.

Most of these guns are registered...but that doesn't matter to the criminals who ultimately acquire them through the black market.

For as long as there's a legitimate supply, they'll always be a thriving black market. The criminal guns that kill you are generally supplied by your purchases, not some nefarious organization with a fetish for blood. 

The "good" gun purchaser, supposedly protecting himself, has been a golden asset to the murderous bad guy forever. If, as with hand grenades and missiles, the gangster is hard-pressed to purchase these weapons without the government selling them to him, then the black market won't exist.

The black market for guns used in gang violence exists because some in government are so naive as to believe that the purchaser never intends to resell the gun or that they are careful enough to protect it from theft.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

SILVA>ALL said:


> What is it with you guys putting words in my mouth?
> 
> Of course bad guys will always seek efficicient ways to kill. If gangsters could acquire hand grenades or missiles for their purposes, they'd buy them too. But such destructive resources are so well controlled, on the supply end, that we don't have grenades going off and rockets being launched in gang territory.
> 
> ...


But how is someone going to defend them selfs. I mean when you think about it the robbers pray on the weak. So they would pick a young looking girl or old man. The only way they will be able to defend them selfs is with a gun. 

then as they said in the batman movie some people just want to watch the world burn and its true. I that sinerio I told you about on page two the teenagers didn't even steal anything. 

Most of the time a shot doesn't have to be fired most robbers are cowards just show them the gun and they usualy run away. that is why it is impossible to give a report on the # of lives saved buy guns.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

nevermind....gun control arguments are pointless.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

SILVA>ALL said:


> *I'd only be for gun ownership if the purchaser of a gun suffers the same penalty as the criminal who uses it to kill.*


 Go ahead make that law I not selling my guns to any one. It should be ok to sell a gun to a licensed gun shop but thats it ok. although I am able to find good deals on guns online stores like gunbroker.com where people sell their used guns to others I'll swing with that. 

you see although I don't agree with gun control unlike you I am willing to compromise and if this argument is going to get anything accomplished people on both sides are going to have learn to do this.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

jasvll said:


> You're statement implied it, so I asked for clarification.
> 
> See, you were suggesting that the absence of guns would cause gang members to stop killing each other.


Not at all, jasvll.

I was suggesting that the ease at which gangsters dispose of each other's lives would be absent in the absence of guns.



> People die in knife attacks everyday. A kid from the new Harry Potter film died from a stabbing last month, and I lost a childhood friend the month before. Both were predicated on nothing more than a bruised ego.


Yes, if you stab a person enough times or in the right places, knives kill. However, I don't have to know the human anatomy to take a human life with a gun. I just have to point and squeeze, and without breaking a sweat, render some kid dead. 

Opposition to societal gun ownership is not under some illusion that murderous tendencies end with the end of such gun ownership -- as most conservatives like to argue in deluding the electorate. Opposition to gun ownership is an oppostion to the ease and convenience of disposing of a human life.



> There's also the issue of how, exactly, we remove the guns. It's not like your average gang member is buying his weapon through legal channels. It's not like his intent is to use his weapon legally. Is yet another law going to suddenly stop him, or is it just going to affect the already law-abiding citizens?


That's just my point.

Most murderers aren't legal gun purchasers, they're on the "second market"...a market selling guns legally bought for illegal intentions.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

americanfighter said:


> But how is someone going to defend them selfs. I mean when you think about it the robbers pray on the weak. So they would pick a young looking girl or old man. The only way they will be able to defend them selfs is with a gun.
> 
> then as they said in the batman movie some people just want to watch the world burn and its true. I that sinerio I told you about on page two the teenagers didn't even steal anything.
> 
> Most of the time a shot doesn't have to be fired most robbers are cowards just show them the gun and they usualy run away. that is why it is impossible to give a report on the # of lives saved buy guns.


My point, Americanfighter, was that the guns you purchase to protect yourself from some gun-totting thug are are ususally the same as the gun the thug uses to come after you.

I'm for alternative measures for deterring crime...measures that do not add to it. Increase in policing, mandatory CCTV-type cameras in shady spots etc.


----------



## _JB_ (May 30, 2007)

Thanks for the video.


----------



## Redrum (Jan 30, 2008)

SILVA>ALL, why don't you take the time to read what is LAW, and why it is LAW, and stop trying to peddle your ill-informed and weightless opinion as if it mattered. below is a link to the disposition of The Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of The District of Columbia v. Heller. after you are done, you can present your thoughts and opinions to them, i am sure that the justices will give your heart-felt concerns all due consideration before they reject the whole your arguments outright.


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...sposition+gun+ruling&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> Not at all, jasvll.
> 
> I was suggesting that the ease at which gangsters dispose of each other's lives would be absent in the absence of guns.


 So, you don't think the increased difficulty will lead to fewer murders?




> Yes, if you stab a person enough times or in the right places, knives kill. However, I don't have to know the human anatomy to take a human life with a gun. I just have to point and squeeze, and without breaking a sweat, render some kid dead.


 That's simply not true. There are more non-fatal places to shoot someone than there are fatal, and the fatal places generally fall in the same place, regardless of whether it's a knife doing the poking. The head offers some degree of protection against a knife that isn't there for a bullet, but that's not generally the target area.


> Opposition to societal gun ownership is not under some illusion that murderous tendencies end with the end of such gun ownership -- as most conservatives like to argue in deluding the electorate. Opposition to gun ownership is an oppostion to the ease and convenience of disposing of a human life.


 But does that matter? It's easier to open a can with an automatic can opener but going back to the days before they existed isn't going to affect sales of canned goods, so why, exactly, does the can opener need to go?



> That's just my point.
> 
> Most murderers aren't legal gun purchasers, they're on the "second market"...a market selling guns legally bought for illegal intentions.


 Besides the fact that there are far more ways to get guns than waiting on legal ones to become available illegaly, making it illegal for law abiding citizens to purchase guns isn't going to do anything but raise the street value of the existing black market supply and make the international suppliers more in demand. It's no different than the 'war on drugs.' In the end, all it does is make more criminals as the laws become more restrictive and the 'business' more profitable as risk and demand are artificially inflated. In the meantime, no one with the power to do anything is willing to address the abject poverty that leads people to see gangs, guns, and hard drugs as an improvement over their previous condition. :dunno:


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

Redrum said:


> SILVA>ALL, why don't you take the time to read what is LAW, and why it is LAW, and stop trying to peddle your ill-informed and weightless opinion as if it mattered. below is a link to the disposition of The Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of The District of Columbia v. Heller. after you are done, you can present your thoughts and opinions to them, i am sure that the justices will give your heart-felt concerns all due consideration before they reject the whole your arguments outright.
> 
> 
> http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...sposition+gun+ruling&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


RedRum, this might sound blasphemous to you, but the intentions of the US second amendment are outdated.

You honestly think that hand guns and rifles would stand a chance against the US government if it wanted its way with its citizens, as in Communist Russia or Mao's China?

Let's not be silly! Gun ownership has little in practice to do with the 2nd amendment's intents in this day and age.

It's a beautiful concept (within the context of the era in which it was conceived), but you'd need a heck of a lot more than licensed guns to beat a US governent militia. 

Stones at tankers...that's what your second amendment approved gun ownership would, in truth, be worth.


----------



## Redrum (Jan 30, 2008)

SILVA>ALL said:


> RedRum, this might sound blasphemous to you, but the intentions of the US second amendment are outdated.
> 
> You honestly think that hand guns and rifles would stand a chance against the US government if it wanted its way with its citizens, as in Communist Russia or Mao's China?
> 
> ...


doesn't matter what i think, doesn't matter what you think. you didn't read the law did you? YOUR OPINION<LAW, can you understand that?


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> RedRum, this might sound blasphemous to you, but the intentions of the US second amendment are outdated.
> 
> You honestly think that hand guns and rifles would stand a chance against the US government if it wanted its way with its citizens, as in Communist Russia or Mao's China?
> 
> ...


 Don't you think that epic centralization of power makes a lot more of the Constitution than just its 2nd amendment outdated? I mean, after all, technically, we couldn't stop the executive from violating the first or any other amendment if they decided to, as we've seen countless times; does that mean we're being 'silly' when we try to hold the government accountable to the Constitution?


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

jasvll said:


> So, you don't think the increased difficulty will lead to fewer murders?


It would. That was my point.



> That's simply not true. There are more non-fatal places to shoot someone than there are fatal, and the fatal places generally fall in the same place, regardless of whether it's a knife doing the poking. The head offers some degree of protection against a knife that isn't there for a bullet, but that's not generally the target area.


True, vital organs are vital organs regardless of the murder weapon, however, you couldn't just stab someone in the chest and be sure to puncture their heart or lungs on account of it. The rib cage is where it it is for a reason.

A bullet on the other hand, does not search for an opening between the ribs to find either of these two organs. It will rip through the guard and puncture you.

On top of that, unless you're Superman, there's no reaction time between the squeeze of a trigger and your being shot...you could escape a knike-wielding thug on your feet. 



> But does that matter? It's easier to open a can with an automatic can opener but going back to the days before they existed isn't going to affect sales of canned goods, so why, exactly, does the can opener need to go?


I'm supposing a gun is the equivalence of a can opener in this analogy and "canned goods" are murder. 

Personally, I don't know that I'd buy canned food without a mechanical opener, be it electrical or manual. It'd be too much of a chore to eat if I require a _knife _to cut through the can.



> Besides the fact that there are far more ways to get guns than waiting on legal ones to become available illegaly, making it illegal for law abiding citizens to purchase guns isn't going to do anything but raise the street value of the existing black market supply and make the international suppliers more in demand. It's no different than the 'war on drugs.' In the end, all it does is make more criminals as the laws become more restrictive and the 'business' more profitable as risk and demand are artificially inflated. In the meantime, no one with the power to do anything is willing to address the abject poverty that leads people to see gangs, guns, and hard drugs as an improvement over their previous condition. :dunno:


Great points.

I agree that it would raise the price of guns, but I remember a comedian, I can't remember who, suggesting that the best way to curb gun violence was the govt mandate that only gold bullets be manufactured so that you'd raise the price of murder and, naturally, lower its demand!

The less the guns, the costlier the guns. The costlier the guns, the less the purchases. The less the purchases, the less the gun violence (which is statistically the most lethal weapon in incidence of violence).


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

Redrum said:


> doesn't matter what i think, doesn't matter what you think. you didn't read the law did you? YOUR OPINION<LAW, can you understand that?


I haven't argued about what was and what isn't law. Neither did Frank Mir do the same. YOU are missing the point.

I'm expressing my opinion about gun policy, as did Frank Mir on the video or Jasvll on this forum. No one is reciting law, nor should they be required to do so in these debates. 

This debate is about "what should be", not what "is".

AND YES, I'm expressing my opinion. You have a right to refute or ignore it.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

SILVA>ALL:

Stop double posting.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

MLS said:


> SILVA>ALL:
> 
> Stop double posting.


My apologies.

I didn't know that you considered it double posting even in cases where one is responding to different posts.

From now on, I'll curb my enthusiam, mod.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> It would. That was my point.


 Yet you seemed to deny making that point when asked more than once. :confused02:



> True, vital organs are vital organs regardless of the murder weapon, however, you couldn't just stab someone in the chest and be sure to puncture their heart or lungs on account of it. The rib cage is where it it is for a reason.
> 
> A bullet on the other hand, does not search for an opening between the ribs to find either of these two organs. It will rip through the guard and puncture you.


 Ribs are convex as well as curved. Deflection into the space between is far more likely than a full stop. Not to mention, you'll be incapacitated after the first impact, leaving your attacker to try, try again.




> On top of that, unless you're Superman, there's no reaction time between the squeeze of a trigger and your being shot...you could escape a knike-wielding thug on your feet.


 Yet everyday, people don't.




> I'm supposing a gun is the equivalence of a can opener in this analogy and "canned goods" are murder.
> 
> Personally, I don't know that I'd buy canned food without a mechanical opener, be it electrical or manual. It'd be too much of a chore to eat if I require a _knife _to cut through the can.


 Hence the distinction between 'can-opener' and 'automatic can-opener.' 





> Great points.
> 
> I agree that it would raise the price of guns, but I remember a comedian, I can't remember who, suggesting that the best way to curb gun violence was the govt mandate that only gold bullets be manufactured so that you'd raise the price of murder and, naturally, lower its demand!


 Yet another black market. 



> The less the guns, the costlier the guns. The costlier the guns, the less the purchases. The less the purchases, the less the gun violence (which is statistically the most lethal weapon in incidence of violence).


 It simply doesn't work that way, though, as economists will be happy to tell you. Yes, raising the price of illicit guns will have an effect, but it's more crime to raise the additional revenue needed to get the weapon, not a sudden decision that crime doesn't pay.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Can Acoustic, I mean SILVA>ALL just be banned for stupidity? 

Some of the stuff you are saying is coming straight out of your ass. Do you have any idea the type of punishment you recieve if you legally buy a gun and then give it to someone who uses it in a crime? The government doesn't come after that person they come after you. You're life is ruined for doing that. 

Making tighter gun control is not going to stop crime. How do you plan on taking back all of the guns that are already LEGALLY owned by LAW - ABIDING citizens if you were to make guns illegal? I can tell you that you sure as hell aren't going to be getting my guns unless you are prying them out of my cold dead fingers. The same holds true for 99% of all gun owners I know. 

The problem isn't law abiding citizens owning guns it's the mass surplus of military weapons that have been stolen and sold on the black market over the years.


----------



## Redrum (Jan 30, 2008)

SILVA>ALL said:


> I haven't argued about what was and what isn't law. Neither did Frank Mir do the same. YOU are missing the point.
> 
> I'm expressing my opinion about gun policy, as did Frank Mir on the video or Jasvll on this forum. No one is reciting law, nor should they be required to do so in these debates.
> 
> ...


i also have the right to own a gun, and you do not have the right to refute or ignore it. you can entertain yourself playing "what if" all day long, i chose to play "what is", and that, sir, is the only thing that matters.


----------



## Charles Lee Ray (May 4, 2008)

An armed society is a free society. Disarming the population is the first step towards subjugation.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

Ok. So it's seems we have established that many Americans are die hard gun lovers and will aggressively resist change to gun laws. That's fine. But, when you live by the sword you die by the sword. No more "crocodile tears" news reports and remembrance ceremonies for the victims of subsequent massacres. These victims are obviously an acceptable cost of America's love affair with guns.
Following the Port Arthur tragedy in Tasmania, Australia introduced strict new laws regarding semi-automatic weapons. Instead of paying "lip service" to victims families, the Australian government acted swiftly to limit the threat of firearms on innocent civilians.

Note to self - Never pressure Frank Mir for an autograph. "*If you come in on me you're gonna get cut up*!":eek02: :sign04:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

RushFan said:


> Ok. So it's seems we have established that many Americans are die hard gun lovers and will aggressively resist change to gun laws. That's fine. But, when you live by the sword you die by the sword. No more "crocodile tears" news reports and remembrance ceremonies for the victims of subsequent massacres. These victims are obviously an acceptable cost of America's love affair with guns.


Car crashes are the 10th leading cause of death in Australia, averaging about 1700 deaths per year and representing 22% of death due to external causes, yet cars continue to be all over the road. That's fine, but no more 'crocodile tears' news reports when another innocent person loses their life in a car crash.
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/rss/content/safer_people/issues/big_picture_aust_in_the_world.htm



> Following the Port Arthur tragedy in Tasmania, Australia introduced strict new laws regarding semi-automatic weapons. Instead of paying "lip service" to victims families, the Australian government acted swiftly to limit the threat of firearms on innocent civilians.


 And from what I've read, there were huge protests in Australia, and Tasmania itself, the most directly affected by the incident, initially tried to ignore the new laws before federal threats of sanctioning caused them to cave. In other words, it sounds like Australia is just as mixed on this issue as the US and they don't even have a guarantee in their Constitution regarding the right to bear arms.

Also, have you come across any statistical evidence that the new gun laws have actually served their intended purpose?


----------



## Redrum (Jan 30, 2008)

RushFan said:


> Ok. So it's seems we have established that many Americans are die hard gun lovers and will aggressively resist change to gun laws. That's fine. But, when you live by the sword you die by the sword. No more "crocodile tears" news reports and remembrance ceremonies for the victims of subsequent massacres. These victims are obviously an acceptable cost of America's love affair with guns.
> Following the Port Arthur tragedy in Tasmania, Australia introduced strict new laws regarding semi-automatic weapons. Instead of paying "lip service" to victims families, the Australian government acted swiftly to limit the threat of firearms on innocent civilians.
> 
> Note to self - Never pressure Frank Mir for an autograph. "*If you come in on me you're gonna get cut up*!":eek02: :sign04:


the most alarming response to these tragedies for me is seeing the government official asking "what can we do to make sure that this never happens again?" the correct answer to that question is "nothing", because it will happen again, that is the nature of man. however the usual response to this question is to take away the freedoms of law abiding citizens who have hurt no-one and to place the blame upon an inanimate object as opposed to the savage criminal who actually committed the crime.

with all due respect to you, rushfan, please allow me to ask you this hypothetical question. what will be your response if the government decides to limit the threat of innocent civilians to government? who will protect you from the protector? now this may seem like a silly question, but i do ask in all seriousness, because it has happened before in other countries, and it will happen again.


----------



## ean6789 (Nov 19, 2006)

Man do gun debates get heated fast! Neways i guess ill throw my two cents to the wolves as well. To me gun control mainly applies to handguns and semiautomatic weapons. Rarely if ever will you see a criminal bust out a driveby with a hunting rifle. Imo the major point of gun control is to stop gang violence and the side affects it causes on third parties not inherently involved. I think the big compromise between gun aficionados and those wary of guns is too get rid of handguns or find away to crackdown on its distribution. Doing that will take away the element of surprise and convenience the handgun affords but still allows those who choose to protect themselves to do so with a rifle and whatnot. 

And for the knife vs. gun debate i suppose ill take a stab at that too (pun definitely intended haha). I think the point that Silva>all was trying to make was it is easier to kill with a gun then with a knife. Not simply anatomy wise but mentally as well. You can take a person who kils with a knife and just as easily give him a gun but the same cannot be said for the opposite. The killing with a knife is a much more personal and drawn out act then a simple shoot and run that takes a really sadistic person to pull off. Add to that it is impossible to have an innocent bystandard with a knife, much harder to get within feet of the intended target w/o them knowing, and is much more premeditated. That leads me to believe that there would be significantly less deaths were guns removed as primary weapons due to the next best alternative being much less useful.


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

JuggNuttz said:


> that was awesome! my man love for Frank just went up :thumb02:


Way up. Been a fan of his since he started in the booth at WEC, this just adds a new dimension to the Mir respectwagon.


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> Wow!
> 
> I always thought that the guy looked slightly retarded, but those were some really dumb arguments from Frank Mir.


Enjoy the red.


----------



## Joe"JLau"Lauzon (May 17, 2008)

What I don't get is how everyone thinks that putting gun control laws into effect will lower gang violence. It's not like all the gangs and criminals will hand their guns in. They're gonna keep them, and then all the law abiding citizens will be up the creek. These gangs will get guns off the black market from terrorists or arms dealers that sell them and then the normal citizen cant defend themselves and cops can't guard every store, street, alleyway, and house.


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> How smart of you, quick draw McGraw.


That is a common response from the irrational emotionally driven segment of society that opposes the second ammendment. The truth is nobody advocates for a showdown at high noon on mainstreet. It's a red herring and just another derogatory slight intended to paint with a broad and jaded brush.



SILVA>ALL said:


> ...OR, they'd have been a lot more virginia techs if every student had a firearm.


Again this is a matter of ignorance, 21 is the minimum age for conceal carry in every state that allows it. Utah allows conceal carry on all of their campuses statewide and have not had a single incident. As is said all to often, it is not the gun, it is the individual. It's worth noting that the Va Tech shooter bought his guns ILLEGALLY, the problem is that while gun control supporters in congress are happy to pass gun control legislation they are slow to fund it. The shooter was deemed mentally incompetent by a judge which under the 1968 gun control act made him ineligible to purchase a firearm, however the federal database had not been updated with this information because of a convoluted, underfunded and ill conceived program. Most supporters of the second amendment support the 1968 gun control act which put in place the restrictions on who may or may not purchase a firearm in the US, a law that was passed in response to the murder of Bobby Kennedy. These rules to this day are the baseline for almost all federal licensing including explosives licensing and most state licensing of explosives and firearms. It's also a bit ridiculous that it is more difficult to be federally licensed for firearms than explosives.



SILVA>ALL said:


> It's, in huge part, the recklessness of legal gun owners that ups gun violence on the streets. Particularly when you look at Toronto, a lot of the guns used in the recent surge in gun violence were legally bought in the states and snuck across the border to kill Canadians.


Again, this is not accurate. First of all legal gun owners are just that, legal. Purchasing large quantities of guns legally to resell on the street IS ILLEGAL, it's called straw purchasing and it is a felony. I'm also pretty sure it's Canadians pulling the trigger. 



SILVA>ALL said:


> RedRum, this might sound blasphemous to you, but the intentions of the US second amendment are outdated.
> It's a beautiful concept (within the context of the era in which it was conceived), but you'd need a heck of a lot more than licensed guns to beat a US governent militia.


That is blasphemous, the second amendment is no more outdated than any other amendment. You forget the common able bodied citizen IS the militia, and the military. When you enlist you swear to defend the constitution, against all enemies foreign AND domestic. You swear no allegiance to the government.



SILVA>ALL said:


> I agree that it would raise the price of guns, but I remember a comedian, I can't remember who, suggesting that the best way to curb gun violence was the govt mandate that only gold bullets be manufactured so that you'd raise the price of murder and, naturally, lower its demand!


I believe that was Chris Rock, could work in some country somewhere in the world, but not here. It is to easy to make ammunition. 



SILVA>ALL said:


> My apologies.
> I didn't know that you considered it double posting even in cases where one is responding to different posts.


There is a button next to quote called "multi-quote" you can hit that button on each post you want to respond to and it will stack all the quotes in the same reply. Took me a bit to figure that out too.



RushFan said:


> Following the Port Arthur tragedy in Tasmania, Australia introduced strict new laws regarding semi-automatic weapons. Instead of paying "lip service" to victims families, the Australian government acted swiftly to limit the threat of firearms on innocent civilians.


Yeah knee jerk legislation is a hot commodity in some governments.

I apologize for the multi-posting, I always forget about the multi-quote button.


----------



## ESPADA9 (Oct 13, 2006)

SILVA>ALL said:


> No. You're suggesting that I'm suggesting it.
> 
> Rival gangs kill with ease and convenience when they have guns, luxuries unavailable in a fight using fists and knives.
> 
> Most of these kids couldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight but they'll put a slug in your ass. The fear of getting injured in a gun-less, one on one fight is a deterrent from violence, in of itself.


I agree that a gun is a “convenient” means to kill but you forget some events in history that suggest a gun isn’t a determining factor in efficient mass murder.

Consider the country of Rwanda; in 1994 over course of approximately 100 days, from April 6 through to mid July, at least 500,000 people were killed.
Most estimates of the death toll are nearer the 800,000 and 1,000,000 marks.

When you consider that the vast majority of the murders and mutilations were comitted by a simple farming impliment……….a machette, you have to ask yourself, is it the means to kill that is to blame, or the WILL to comit murder?

The reason for the 2nd amendment was not primarily for personal defense against your fellow citizen, it was intended to act as a deterrent to tyranny by government.

I’m pretty sure the tens of millions of civilians murdered by the Fascist/Socialist state of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China and the Kemer Rouge of Cambodia would have LOVED to have had the luxury of a 2nd amendment right.


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

Copied and pasted from an email.


_A Little Gun History Lesson. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

----------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........We Are "Subjects".

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Peal Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns. _


It also is a fact, that in states that have the Consealed Carry Law, crimes against citizens goes down. Gang volence stays the same as it always will.


----------



## ean6789 (Nov 19, 2006)

JuggNuttz said:


> Copied and pasted from an email.
> 
> 
> _A Little Gun History Lesson. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> ...


On a more serious note if Randy is a god among men then Fedor is a god among Randy haha :thumb02:


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

JuggNuttz said:


> It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
> 
> Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
> 
> ...


I still agree, Guns in Australia aren't banned just certain ones are. You can still buy a gun if you feel the need to defend yourself but just not a machine gun or something. Why not? machine guns are one of the category of guns banned in Australia and you can still get a range of rifles, shotguns etc and that is good enough for defense if someone goes crazy and they have a single shot rifle or machine gun, which will be worse?

It's not that we aren't allowed to have guns but most don't unless they are sport shooters or hunters.



jasvll said:


> And from what I've read, there were huge protests in Australia, and Tasmania itself, the most directly affected by the incident, initially tried to ignore the new laws before federal threats of sanctioning caused them to cave. In other words, it sounds like Australia is just as mixed on this issue as the US and they don't even have a guarantee in their Constitution regarding the right to bear arms.
> 
> Also, have you come across any statistical evidence that the new gun laws have actually served their intended purpose?


Yes, there has been one gun massacre in Australia since and laws were in place but were not as strict as today, the shooter had a range to a fair few guns but many machine guns etc were banned and pump action shotguns and semi automatic weapons are easy to gain, many get them but you have to have a good case to do so. This was a shooting at a University and he killed 2 students compared to Virginia Tech and Columbine who had a variety or powerful guns and killed many. Like i said before, guns aren't banned just unnecessary ones that people can do without.

Quote - 
"Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%"

and...

"78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, yet only 5% of suicides involved firearms"



JuggNuttz said:


> Copied and pasted from an email.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is a major loophole in your arguement. America, Australia etc aren't in civil wars and things like that, there are great levels of order within the countries. I doubt the Australian government is going to send the military into Sydney and exterminate Christians.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

I think it would be kind of pointless to just copy and paste pro / anti gun arguments from somewhere else. Let's do our own thinking. 

So now I'm told Americans need guns to ensure that the constitution is upheld and to prevent tyranny. 
Iran Contra Affair, Gauntanamo Detainees, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Act, "Rendition", Hurricane Katrina, Iraq War, Enron, 2000 US Presidential election and too many assassinations to mention.......but not one peep from the "Citizen Militia". :dunno:
Combined with an average voter turnout of around 40% I get the impression that Americans are less concerned about their Constitution and accountable governance than they are about blowing stuff away with guns.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> in Switzerland every adult male are issued a assault rifle for militia duty and are allowed to keep the gun in their house.
> Switzerland has more firearms than almost any country and yet it is one of the safest places to live crime wise.


Doesn't Switzerland have the highest rate of gun deaths in europe?


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

RushFan said:


> I think it would be kind of pointless to just copy and paste pro / anti gun arguments from somewhere else. Let's do our own thinking.
> 
> So now I'm told Americans need guns to ensure that the constitution is upheld and to prevent tyranny.
> Iran Contra Affair, Gauntanamo Detainees, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Act, "Rendition", Hurricane Katrina, Iraq War, Enron, 2000 US Presidential election and too many assassinations to mention.......but not one peep from the "Citizen Militia". :dunno:


 No one said we have guns so we can hold the government at gunpoint waiting for them to fail us. That being said, there are countless examples of American citizens rebelling against their government for what they feel is right (Kent State, Civil War, Shay's Rebellion, etc.) sometimes armed, sometimes forgoing weapons. The government, on the other hand, generally brings a gun, whether the citizens are armed or not (Kent State), which is why it's so important that we preserve our right to defend ourselves, regardless of whether or not you think a given incident is worth starting a revolution for.




> Combined with an average voter turnout of around 40% I get the impression that Americans are less concerned about their Constitution and accountable governance than they are about blowing stuff away with guns.


 This seems to be a wholly personal issue against America for you. Where's your evidence of correlation between gun use or gun control stance and voter turnout?

I'd like to compare voter turnout in Australia with that of the US, but your government hasn't seen fit to grant you the freedom to decide whether or not any candidate is worthy of your vote.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

Flak said:


> It's easy to be pro second amendment without being pro-handgun. I'm disappointed the SCOTUS just struck down the DC law last session.


How could you be? DC is just a city district. Why should they have the right to overstep the US Constitution? You can add restrictions to laws, but you cannot take away a right like that.

I'm a victim of a gun crime, and my opinion, albeit crude, is to let EVERYBODY carry a gun who isn't a convicted felon. I want these scum of the earth asshats prey on the weak to know that St. Peter is waiting for them right around the corner.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

XitUp said:


> Doesn't Switzerland have the highest rate of gun deaths in europe?


 Apparently not.



> Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm


----------



## Charles Lee Ray (May 4, 2008)

Fear the government that fears your gun.


----------



## Red Baron (Jul 17, 2008)

i havent read through this thread, someone may have already said this but i'll say it anyway

Chris rock (i think) said it best, you'll never be able to make guns illegal, just make bullets worth 5 grand a piece, that way if someone gets shot you know he deserved it.


----------



## milkkid291 (Dec 31, 2006)

RushFan said:


> I think it would be kind of pointless to just copy and paste pro / anti gun arguments from somewhere else. Let's do our own thinking.
> 
> So now I'm told Americans need guns to ensure that the constitution is upheld and to prevent tyranny.
> Iran Contra Affair, Gauntanamo Detainees, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Act, "Rendition", Hurricane Katrina, Iraq War, Enron, 2000 US Presidential election and too many assassinations to mention.......but not one peep from the "Citizen Militia". :dunno:
> Combined with an average voter turnout of around 40% I get the impression that Americans are less concerned about their Constitution and accountable governance than they are about blowing stuff away with guns.



Maybe you should actually live in America or visit it for a few months before you assume that Americans wants gun just to blow stuff away.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

Scarecrow said:


> How could you be? DC is just a city district. Why should they have the right to overstep the US Constitution? You can add restrictions to laws, but you cannot take away a right like that.


Guns are already regulated. You cannot buy an automatic weapon (i dont think), nor is it legal to have a sawed-off shotgun. We restrict by age, mental capacity, and criminal records. Hollow points are illegal aren't they? All of these regulations are technically in violation of the 2nd amendment, however, the constitution has always been up for interpretation ever since Jefferson won out over Hamilton. We have these regulations to protect the public good, and they're seen as reasonable by most. The DC law had been on the books for several years, and was put there as an attempt to do what the other arbitrary regulations do....to have reasonable regulations that protect the public good while still retaining 2nd amendment rights.

You may say that handguns are a right, but in reality, that is completely capricious. We have drawn imaginary lines with firearms that say what is a reasonable weapon to carry, and what is unreasonable. All DC did was put handguns (an extremely dangerous form of firearm responsible for many deaths in their opinion) on the other side of that line. They made an arbitrary decision, just like we have with autos and sawed-offs. 

You can still own a rifle in DC, so technically the 2nd amendment remained in tact (it never said "handguns"). Besides, the law was written to protect state militias from having the ability to fight taken away from them. Rifles are the weapon of choice in a hypothetical combat situation with federal troops, not glocks. All the SC did was make another discretionary call to say that no, they don't consider handguns to be on a similar level to autos or sawed-offs. I disagree with it, but that was their ruling and i have no choice but to accept it. That said, it was still a completely subjective decision. I suppose now it is an unalienable right....but until a couple of weeks ago it certainly wasn't. It was just another part of the "reasonable regulation" we already have.

My feeling is that im ok with putting handguns on the other side of the imaginary line of "reasonable", while still retaining the right to have a "firearm", a very broad definition of guns. That way we can still fight the government should the need arise....a strong argument for retaining the right to have a weapon. Hell, i'd rather have a rifle than a handgun in a combat situation anyway....wouldn't you?


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Are you suggesting that rival gangs would suddenly stop killing each other if only we got the guns out of their hands? :confused02:


No, but he is suggesting that it would not be as easy for them to kill each other. 

Is there somthing hard to understand about that?

Drain cleaner doesn't kill children. But leaving it within a childs reach probably isn't a good idea.

The drain cleaner itself is not a danger. I mean, after all, drain cleaner doesn't kill people, stupid people kill people. 

So how can you argue the precesnce of guns in a society does not increase the level of potential danger? Sure, without the drain cleaner the baby could still drown in water, or maybe fall down the stairs, but isn't it better to minimize the potential?

I don't really see how anyone can argue "but they will kill each other anyway". Does the possibility of someone being stabbed somehow affect the possibilty of someone being shot? Isn't it better to limit the options someone has to kill other human beings? What is the justification in the year 2008 to own a handgun? Afraid the British are gonna invade? 

Would making handguns illegal stop people from getting them? Of course not, that would be naive. But it would definetly make it more difficult to obtain them. Many illegally owned guns were originally purchased through legal means, and then sold illegally.



Redrum said:


> doesn't matter what i think, doesn't matter what you think. you didn't read the law did you? YOUR OPINION<LAW, can you understand that?


If everyone thought like this, the world would still be considered flat.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

double post


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

all i know is.. I live in canada.. and all that separates me from the USA is an invisible line... and no one has guns here.. I dont know a single person that owns a gun.... it seems to work just fine here.... so Im confused as to why every american I know (alot) either owns a gun or knows numerous people that do... I dont understand why its necessary for them to own guns.. seriously... us canadians seem to be doing just fine protecting our families without guns.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

bail3yz said:


> all i know is.. I live in canada.. and all that separates me from the USA is an invisible line... and no one has guns here.. I dont know a single person that owns a gun.... it seems to work just fine here.... so Im confused as to why every american I know (alot) either owns a gun or knows numerous people that do... I dont understand why its necessary for them to own guns.. seriously... us canadians seem to be doing just fine protecting our families without guns.


Gonna have to quote this for truth.

I don't know a single person, not one person (and I live in Ottawa, the capital of Canada) who owns a handgun. I also don't know a single person who has be threatened at gun point. 

Does this mean I don't know anyone who has been robbed and beaten up while downtown in the wrong area? No. But i'd sure rather be beaten up than shot.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

Actually, gun ownership in Canada is quite high. The problem isn't guns themselves, they just happen to amplify the sociological problems of the United States. 

As someone said up thread, they make something difficult (taking a life) easy and convienient. They turn things like assault into homicide.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=726110

Comparative statistics for gun ownership, homicide and suicide rates.

Take it for what it is. Alot more people own guns in the USA even when the stats are broken down on a 1 per million ratio. Not surprisingly alot more people are shot as well.

Homicide Suicide % households
Overall With gun Overall With gun with guns

USA 75.9 44.6 124.0 72.8 48.0
Norway 12.1 3.6 142.7 38.7 32.0
Canada 26.0 8.4 139.4 44.4 29.1
Switzerland 11.7 4.6 244.5 57.4 27.2
Finland 29.6 7.4 253.5 54.3 23.2
France 12.5 5.5 223.0 49.3 22.6
New Zealand 20.2 4.7 137.7 24.1 22.3
Australia 19.5 6.6 115.8 43.2 19.4
Belgium 18.5 8.7 231.5 24.5 16.6
Italy 17.4 13.1 78.1 10.9 16.0
Sweden 13.3 2.0 182.4 21.2 15.1
Spain 13.7 3.8 64.5 4.5 13.1
W.Germany 12.1 2.0 203.7 13.8 8.9
N. Ireland 43.3 21.3 82.7 11.8 8.4
CSSR 13.5 2.6 117.8 9.5 5.2
Scotland 16.3 1.1 105.1 6.9 4.7
England 6.7 0.8 86.1 3.8 4.7
and Wales
Netherlands 11.8 2.7 117.2 2.8 1.9


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Apecity said:


> http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=726110
> 
> Comparative statistics for gun ownership, homicide and suicide rates.
> 
> ...


The US is unique, people in the US tend to be psychopaths and kill each other on a whim. You know last year in canada 62 people died from gun related deaths? In america over 12,500 died the same way?

Everyone I know has at least a hunting rifle, most have some kind of hand gun. People will kill people regardless, you have to look at the person.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

SILVA>ALL said:


> How smart of you, quick draw McGraw.
> 
> So the justification for gun ownership is that armed "good guys" draw quicker than armed "bad guys"? LOL!
> 
> The bad guys live and die by the gun, I'd be more willing to put my money on the bad guy in a gun fight with you.


What an original username! :laugh:



xeberus said:


> The US is unique, people in the US tend to be psychopaths and kill each other on a whim. You know last year in canada 62 people died from gun related deaths? In america over 12,500 died the same way?
> 
> Everyone I know has at least a hunting rifle, most have some kind of hand gun. People will kill people regardless, you have to look at the person.


America also has 10x the population of Canada :dunno:


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Sorry, double post.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Apparently not.
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm


Or looking at other sources, it's the highest in western europe after portugal.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-...e-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

Flak said:


> Hollow points are illegal aren't they? The DC law had been on the books for several years, and was put there as an attempt to do what the other arbitrary regulations do....to have reasonable regulations that protect the public good while still retaining 2nd amendment rights.
> Besides, the law was written to protect state militias from having the ability to fight taken away from them.


They are legal. The DC law has been on the books for more than a decade, it did not prevent crime from going up. In fact violent crime never stopped going up after they enacted the law. What DC was entirely out of line in doing was not issuing the permits that their law allowed for owning a handgun in the home. Heller was not Joe Blow, he was a federal officer and still he was denied. The second amendment was written IN PART to protect the militia, the Supreme Court made it clear that was simply one of the many legal justifications to own a firearm. It also clarified that "legal firearms" are firearms commonly available.



Apecity said:


> What is the justification in the year 2008 to own a handgun?
> Would making handguns illegal stop people from getting them? But it would definetly make it more difficult to obtain them.


It is a constitutional right, that is all the justification that is necessary. What is the justification for burning the flag? Making handguns illegal would do one thing and one thing only, make law abiding citizens victims and criminals at the same time. 



bail3yz said:


> all i know is.. I live in canada.. and all that separates me from the USA is an invisible line... and no one has guns here.. I dont know a single person that owns a gun.... it seems to work just fine here.... so Im confused as to why every american I know (alot) either owns a gun or knows numerous people that do... I dont understand why its necessary for them to own guns.. seriously... us canadians seem to be doing just fine protecting our families without guns.


I'm sure you are aware that Canadian culture is a different animal entirely from American culture. I'm glad your country is civilized enough to get by just fine without firearms should you choose to go that route (although millions of your fellow countrymen choose to own firearms) but there is an enormous difference between the US and Canada culturally and historically. Firearms have been an integral part of American history for as long as there has been an American history. Lets face it, most Canadian cities are safer, cleaner, more pleasant places than the vast majority of American cities for whatever reason. It's interesting that the loudest voice condemning our "culture of violence" should come from those who do not even live here.



Apecity said:


> Does this mean I don't know anyone who has been robbed and beaten up while downtown in the wrong area? No. But i'd sure rather be beaten up than shot.


Whether or not you choose to arm yourself has little to do with whether or not a criminal chooses to do so.



xeberus said:


> The US is unique, people in the US tend to be psychopaths and kill each other on a whim.


That's a bit ignorant don't you think? I do agree with you entirely though that it is an individual that is either a criminal or a law abiding citizen. We certainly have more criminals than you, even as a percentage. There is no good reason to put law abiding citizens at additional risk in an effort to crack down on criminals. It has been proven year after year that criminals do not respect the law, that's about as obvious a statement as can be made. Look at the largest urban areas of the US where gun control is most oppressive, and look at the suburban and rural areas where gun control is lax or non-existant. The rural and suburban communities that embrace the second amendment almost universally have a lower violent crime rate than the urban areas that outlaw firearms. This is a statement on two fronts, first gun control DOES NOT WORK, this point cannot be argued. Second, large urban areas tend to suffer cultural breakdowns that don't provide the necessary environment to promote right and wrong. Whether this is the result of urban policy, the single parent culture, or just people being to close together who knows but it's clear that the big city needs to take another look at it's priorities. For those who believe there is no logical explanation or need for the second amendment in the modern world, take two or three minutes and read Suzanna Hupp's story. I'm a fan of sport shooting, I am not a criminal. I've never really needed a firearm for protection from a criminal or my government (which I have served, with a firearm), that should not preclude me from the guarantees of the second amendment or my right to enjoy a pleasant afternoon at the range.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

cplmac said:


> They are legal. The DC law has been on the books for more than a decade, it did not prevent crime from going up. In fact violent crime never stopped going up after they enacted the law. What DC was entirely out of line in doing was not issuing the permits that their law allowed for owning a handgun in the home. Heller was not Joe Blow, he was a federal officer and still he was denied. The second amendment was written IN PART to protect the militia, the Supreme Court made it clear that was simply one of the many legal justifications to own a firearm. It also clarified that "legal firearms" are firearms commonly available.


I understand all that. I was merely pointing out (in a rather long winded way i suppose) that gun laws, and supreme court rulings regarding the second amendment are essentially arbitrary decisions. I was trying to explain to scarecrow that until this latest ruling, DC was not technically in violation of the second amendment; while simultaneously pointing out that even the most sacred rights held by Americans is not outside the sphere of reasonable regulation.

DC took the imaginary line of what is a reasonable firearm to own, and moved it to the left of handguns. The SCOTUS disagreed and moved it a little further to the right. I think that's a shame, because contrary to what you say, homicide, and indeed crime rates in general have been declining steadily in DC over the last 13 years.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp

Before i get labeled an "enemy of freedom" or something (like ive been called before in similar debates), i think it should be noted that im not against the second amendment, i just think that handguns suck because they cause far more harm than good.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Apecity said:


> No, but he is suggesting that it would not be as easy for them to kill each other.
> 
> Is there somthing hard to understand about that?
> 
> ...


 Unless you're arguing for the banning of drain cleaner, you've just rebutted your own argument. The obvious solution to a hypothetical safety issue with drain cleaner is making it unavailable to the child but available to a responsible adult that knows when and how to use it. Why do you feel a gun should be different?



> I don't really see how anyone can argue "but they will kill each other anyway". Does the possibility of someone being stabbed somehow affect the possibilty of someone being shot? Isn't it better to limit the options someone has to kill other human beings?


 The obvious yet oddly ignored question, is why are murderous human beings such a widespread problem, as you and others have suggested? Why are some so obsessed with addressing a symptom (the existence of guns) while seemingly content to ignore the cause (the source of the will and desire to use it)? 



> What is the justification in the year 2008 to own a handgun? Afraid the British are gonna invade?


 Why is the person on the side of the Constitution, with the backing of the Supreme Court, being asked to justify anything? That's not how it works.



> Would making handguns illegal stop people from getting them? Of course not, that would be naive. But it would definetly make it more difficult to obtain them. Many illegally owned guns were originally purchased through legal means, and then sold illegally.


 If we decided to put an end to farming, would banning tractors really be a meaningful change or would it just change the way people grow their food?


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

cplmac said:


> That's a bit ignorant don't you think? I do agree with you entirely though that it is an individual that is either a criminal or a law abiding citizen. We certainly have more criminals than you, even as a percentage. There is no good reason to put law abiding citizens at additional risk in an effort to crack down on criminals. It has been proven year after year that criminals do not respect the law, that's about as obvious a statement as can be made. Look at the largest urban areas of the US where gun control is most oppressive, and look at the suburban and rural areas where gun control is lax or non-existant. The rural and suburban communities that embrace the second amendment almost universally have a lower violent crime rate than the urban areas that outlaw firearms. This is a statement on two fronts, first gun control DOES NOT WORK, this point cannot be argued. Second, large urban areas tend to suffer cultural breakdowns that don't provide the necessary environment to promote right and wrong. Whether this is the result of urban policy, the single parent culture, or just people being to close together who knows but it's clear that the big city needs to take another look at it's priorities. For those who believe there is no logical explanation or need for the second amendment in the modern world, take two or three minutes and read Suzanna Hupp's story. I'm a fan of sport shooting, I am not a criminal. I've never really needed a firearm for protection from a criminal or my government (which I have served, with a firearm), that should not preclude me from the guarantees of the second amendment or my right to enjoy a pleasant afternoon at the range.



Well I didnt think it was ignorant. I had to take American History for some humanitarians when I went to school in Tempe, arizona. My professor originally said that line about Americans being psychopaths or maybe he quoted someone else, I dunno but that is where the rather bold statement comes.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

XitUp said:


> Or looking at other sources, it's the highest in western europe after portugal.
> 
> http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-...e-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html


 I can't find your particular conclusion (there's a lot to sort through there). What I can find, though, leads me to ask if you're confusing homicide rate with homicide by gun rate? I can't find anything that breaks homicide down by weapon.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

cplmac said:


> It is a constitutional right, that is all the justification that is necessary. What is the justification for burning the flag? Making handguns illegal would do one thing and one thing only, make law abiding citizens victims and criminals at the same time.


Constitutions are not God's writ, they're susceptible to flaws.

There's a reason why the US constitution has amendments, it isn't perfect, neither are the amendments themselves perfect.

The original constitution itself didn't even find gun ownership so imperative that it was worth mentioning and that's why the constitutional provisions pertaining to the right to bear arms only came by way of an amendment. These changes came about because of their RELEVANCE and NECESSITY within the era they were defined.

In the modern context, however, do you really believe that your owning a hunting rifle or hand-gun is enough to thwart a malivolent US government militia from taking your freedoms? Your guns are akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight were such a scenario to ever occur. It made sense that guns were guardians of personal freedom in a context where the average citizen had access to ammunition of the same calibre as their government's, but in this day and age, armed or not armed, such a militia would easily steam-roll you. 

In other words, IMO, the second amendment, for what it was intended, is now obsolete.


----------



## Redrum (Jan 30, 2008)

SILVA>ALL said:


> Constitutions are not God's writ, they're susceptible to flaws.
> 
> There's a reason why the US constitution has amendments, it isn't perfect, neither are the amendments themselves perfect.
> 
> ...


i would rather have the chance to fight and die for my life and my freedom then go down begging for mercy like a sissy. people with sentiments such as yours are proof positive that the second amendment is both relevant and necessary.


----------



## Charles Lee Ray (May 4, 2008)

"Those who would give up their own personal freedom for their personal safety deserve neither their freedon nor their safety" - The great founding father Thomas Jefferson


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

I find it funny that everyone arguing against AMERICANS owning guns don't even live in America. If you're Canadian or European or Australian who are you to tell me that I can't own something that MY government tells me I can legally own if I go through the right procedures? Do you live in America? No, you don't so what gives you the right to tell us how our laws are terrible and go against what you believe?


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

Charles Lee Ray said:


> "Those who would give up their own personal freedom for their personal safety deserve neither their freedon nor their safety" - The great founding father Thomas Jefferson


If you're going to use famous quotes, at least have the decency to credit the right man. It was Franklin who said that.

The irony of using that quote is that many of the 2nd amendments staunches supporters tend to be republicans, the same people who brought us the patriot act.


----------



## Charles Lee Ray (May 4, 2008)

Your correct it was Frankling who said it. I was thinking of another Jefferson quote but it still stands.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

mjbish23 said:


> I find it funny that everyone arguing against AMERICANS owning guns don't even live in America. If you're Canadian or European or Australian who are you to tell me that I can't own something that MY government tells me I can legally own if I go through the right procedures? Do you live in America? No, you don't so what gives you the right to tell us how our laws are terrible and go against what you believe?


Unfortunately, most gun related gang violence in Toronto is on account of American guns be snuck into Canada.

Personally, I'd be indifferent to your gun laws were it that they did not affect Canadians (particularly in Toronto and Vancouver)...but they do.

So my having an opinion on the matter is justified. 

It's sort of like arguing that requests made by your government about surveilling anti-American, potentially terroristic cells should be ignored just because Americans aren't Canadians. That would be silly, wouldn't it?


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

Flak said:


> The irony of using that quote is that many of the 2nd amendments staunches supporters tend to be republicans, the same people who brought us the patriot act.


*Moderator: Sorry for the Double Post. I thought someone else had posted after my last post.*

Great point, Flak.

I'd even venture to call it hypocrisy...either that or a lot of these guys have not caught on to what loss of freedom really means.

They're all waiting to fight against some freedom-stealing, conspiracy theory conceived dictatorship whilst supporting the subtle, insidious increase of governmental powers, such as warrantless wiretaps, tossing out Habeas corpus etc that erode their freedoms.

It's comical.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> Unfortunately, most gun related gang violence in Toronto is on account of American guns be snuck into Canada.
> 
> Personally, I'd be indifferent to your gun laws were it that they did not affect Canadians (particularly in Toronto and Vancouver)...but they do.
> 
> ...


How do you know the guns from the U.S. are being snuck into Canada? Guns that are being used in crimes are not legally owned. Guns owned legally almost never end up on the streets unless they are stolen.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> Unfortunately, most gun related gang violence in Toronto is on account of American guns be snuck into Canada.
> 
> Personally, I'd be indifferent to your gun laws were it that they did not affect Canadians (particularly in Toronto and Vancouver)...but they do.
> 
> ...


Lets completely overlook the fact that the Canadian government has a loophole in it's law that allows Canadian movie production companies to import guns and act as middlemen for international gun dealers. 



> According to Jim Bronskill of the Canadian Press, a British Columbian firm licensed to import guns for use on movie sets was charged for illegally distributing submachine guns to local criminals.
> 
> A year later in 2007, police traced two assault rifles used in a January 2007 shootout in British Columbia. A west-coast company with a movie import licence was responsible for bringing those weapons into Canada.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

...........
decided against it


----------



## djants (Jun 19, 2008)

> A Little Gun History Lesson. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> ------------------------------
> 
> In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> ...



This is ridiculous...blaming the holocaust on gun control? Even if those 13 million were armed (and a lot were children), they would have been no match for TRAINED soldiers...same with other atrocities mentioned.

As for the Japanese invasion thing....LOL!!! Yeah, Im sure the pilots and elite trained soldiers were shitting themselves from the fact that a lot of houses had handguns...might be something to do with the US proving it had the will to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima?

Rwanda has no gun control, yet perhaps the worst example of genocide occired there. The USA also didnt lift a finger to help, probably because there was no oil/personal vendetta involved.

Make it illegal for any american with an IQ of lower than 110 to own a gun.

You would have an unarmed president....


----------



## pauly_j (Nov 28, 2006)

Civil war > genocide?

The point is that some people are bellends, not that mass murder occurs because of gun control.


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

mjbish23 said:


> I find it funny that everyone arguing against AMERICANS owning guns don't even live in America. If you're Canadian or European or Australian who are you to tell me that I can't own something that MY government tells me I can legally own if I go through the right procedures? Do you live in America? No, you don't so what gives you the right to tell us how our laws are terrible and go against what you believe?


lol... oooh okay.. someone should edit topic to say americans only.


----------



## pauly_j (Nov 28, 2006)

An American preaching about foreign intervention? 


Oh lol.


----------



## Charles Lee Ray (May 4, 2008)

djants said:


> This is ridiculous...blaming the holocaust on gun control? Even if those 13 million were armed (and a lot were children), they would have been no match for TRAINED soldiers...same with other atrocities mentioned.
> 
> As for the Japanese invasion thing....LOL!!! Yeah, Im sure the pilots and elite trained soldiers were shitting themselves from the fact that a lot of houses had handguns...might be something to do with the US proving it had the will to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima?
> 
> ...



Apparently Hitler and Yamamoto didn't think so.


Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police."


Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns."


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

bail3yz said:


> lol... oooh okay.. someone should edit topic to say americans only.


Well if we are talking American laws and policies and something that will only affect Americans then yes it should only be Americans talking about it because Australians sure as hell aren't going to be affected by it and Canadians are only affected by it because of Canadian law allowing Canadian companies to import guns with no paperwork.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Unless you're arguing for the banning of drain cleaner, you've just rebutted your own argument. The obvious solution to a hypothetical safety issue with drain cleaner is making it unavailable to the child but available to a responsible adult that knows when and how to use it. Why do you feel a gun should be different?
> 
> The obvious yet oddly ignored question, is why are murderous human beings such a widespread problem, as you and others have suggested? Why are some so obsessed with addressing a symptom (the existence of guns) while seemingly content to ignore the cause (the source of the will and desire to use it)?
> 
> ...


Okay, then let us apply this "hypothetical" safety issue to guns. Are you arguing that irresponsible people cannot get their hands on guns? That children cannot get their hands on guns? Are you arguing that banning handguns would not change the amount of difficulty that currently exists obtaining a gun illegally? Are you arguing that banning handguns would not decrease the number of guns held illegally in irresponsible peoples hands?

Unlike drain cleaner, which is designed to clean drains, and has the unfortunate side affect of being poisenous, a handguns primary function is to shoot a piece of metal at high velocity towards a target. This target could be a can, or it could be a person. As you said, the responsibility of the individual determines its use. This does not change the fact that even in a responsible persons hand the gun is not serving a neccesary function. Am i saying guns should be banned? Not all guns. But why do you need a handgun? Why not shoot your cans with a rifle? 

And before you jump all over me, I know a rifle can kill someone just as easily, but let's be realistic and logical for just a second if that's alright. Less guns give people less oppertunity to do stupid things. Yes, criminals will still obtain them, but alot less easily. It is naive to think that there is no trade going on between people who purchase guns legally, and sell them for illegal purposes.


Why are murderous human beings such a widespread problem? As much as i'd love to dive into a sociological debate with you, *I agree guns themselves are not the root of the problem.* But do you plan on fixing the quagmire of violent American society? Have any suggestions on how we would do that?

A sociological issue of that magnitude must be delt with in small chunks. *Getting people to accept that they do not need a gun to feel safe could be a big step in creating a positive attitude.* 

I'll use the example of environmentalism. I work in a government run liquor store. We recently (last month), by government order, are no longer allowed to use plastic of any kind. We get just as many people yelling at us and telling us we are crazy for changing somthing that "has always been the same", as people telling us how great it is that we are opening peoples eyes to being more environmentally conscious. 

Small steps man, small steps. 

Maybe America isn't ready to ban any kind of gun. Maybe it will piss too many people off to be benificial. Take a smaller step, then.

And if you do not question the constitution, the supreme court, and the others that control your life, then I feel sorry for you, and so would the founding fathers. Questioning the ones who lead created America.

To address your farming metaphor; did someone decide that there will be no more murders this year, thus making guns no longer a worry?



pauly_j said:


> An American preaching about foreign intervention?
> 
> 
> Oh lol.


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

xeberus said:


> Well I didnt think it was ignorant. I had to take American History for some humanitarians when I went to school in Tempe, arizona. My professor originally said that line about Americans being psychopaths or maybe he quoted someone else, I dunno but that is where the rather bold statement comes.


A LOT of bold ignorant one sided statements come from university professors in the US. Do you really believe that Americans tend to be psychopaths who are quick to murder? I really hope that wasn't your experience in Tempe.


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

SILVA>ALL said:


> The original constitution itself didn't even find gun ownership so imperative that it was worth mentioning and that's why the constitutional provisions pertaining to the right to bear arms only came by way of an amendment. In the modern context, however, do you really believe that your owning a hunting rifle or hand-gun is enough to thwart a malivolent US government militia from taking your freedoms?


The original constitution outlined the mechanics of government, the branches and their procedure. The Bill of Rights which contained the first ten amendments including the second was passed two years afterwards because it took ratification by the states. Even operating under the false assumption that it was not deemed implicit in the constitution it was important enough to be considered second only to free speech when enumerating the rights of all citizens. Again, for the cheap seats that did not catch it the first time, we do not need to protect ourselves from the US military because we ARE the US military. When you enlist you swear to uphold the constitution, not the government.



Flak said:


> The irony of using that quote is that many of the 2nd amendments staunches supporters tend to be republicans, the same people who brought us the patriot act.


I get frustrated listening to people complain about the Patriot Act not even knowing it's practical implications. The ONLY thing the Patriot Act allows outside of normal law is access to library records. NOTHING specified in the Patriot Act grants new powers to the government outside of access to library records. It does however streamline the process for getting warrants. 



SILVA>ALL said:


> Unfortunately, most gun related gang violence in Toronto is on account of American guns be snuck into Canada.


I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say most gun related gang violence in Toronto is on account of criminals in Toronto.



SILVA>ALL said:


> They're all waiting to fight against some freedom-stealing, conspiracy theory conceived dictatorship whilst supporting the subtle, insidious increase of governmental powers, such as warrantless wiretaps, tossing out Habeas corpus etc that erode their freedoms.


Now who is the conspiracy theory proponent here? Habeas Corpus was NOT denied to American citizens, it was denied to American enemies who do not themselves practice or believe in Habeas Corpus, much less the laws of war. Warrantless wiretaps I will give you is a pretty borderline practice at best, however in a practical sense you should consider how it is used. It is used to surveil international calls to suspected hostiles. You don't really believe the US has the manpower or desire to listen to every phone call made in the country do you? 

This thread would probably be best served taking a short trip down to the general sub forum. I think Frank Mir was in the title but the subject matter doesn't really lend itself to MMA discussion.


----------



## jeremy202 (Feb 3, 2008)

americanfighter said:


> Well as I have said before I use to believe in gun control till I found out the saved my fathers life and mine when I was very young. I also have few friend who have their own story about how there were able to escape being robed by simply showing the robber they have a gun. Here is a true story for yha.
> 
> a man in his son where out in there home in the woods in a log cabin they have owned. Suddenly in the middle of the knight there was a demanding knock on the door. the man open his door but kept his screen door locked and he asked the two teenagers that were at the door what do you want. they said we need to use your phone he said give me the number and ill call if for you. the teenagers then said no and demanded he let them in the man then pulled away the curtins that were concealing is body to show them that he has a gun in his hand. the teenagers ran off. the man didnt sleep that night. but sat in his sons room and guarded his son. the next morning he stepped outside and saw that there were two shallow graves for them 2 months later a professor and his wife were stabbed to death in their own home by the same two guys.


That was a chilling story.....

Im all for guns, hell, I wish it was legal for law abiding citizens to own fully automatic firearms.I cant stand liberal dipshits like the ignorant user "SILVA>ALL"


----------



## milkkid291 (Dec 31, 2006)

pauly_j said:


> An American preaching about foreign intervention?
> 
> 
> Oh lol.


Not our fault other countries don't have the balls to kill/end evil Dictators...


----------



## Joe"JLau"Lauzon (May 17, 2008)

Exactly, why does everyone say crap about the U.S. in Iraq, when they don't send anyone and aren't willing to do anything about a guy who kills his own people and then call us evil?

Anyway, like I said before, gun control laws won't help any at all, I don't see why people continue to say it would when there is evidence that they don't work.


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

jeremy202 said:


> That was a chilling story.....
> 
> Im all for guns, hell, I wish it was legal for law abiding citizens to own fully automatic firearms.*I cant stand liberal dipshits like the ignorant user "SILVA>ALL"*


Calm down! Jeez, we're passing time with debate here, not passing laws. You need to relax a little.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

milkkid291 said:


> Not our fault other countries don't have the balls to kill/end evil Dictators...


Or fund/train them...


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

cplmac said:


> A LOT of bold ignorant one sided statements come from university professors in the US. Do you really believe that Americans tend to be psychopaths who are quick to murder? I really hope that wasn't your experience in Tempe.


Maybe so, but generally they are right. I mean what kind of education could you get in America from ignorant teachers?

Well psychopaths maybe more prone although im not totally convinced, but "quick to murder" yea I think thats a fair statement.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

I'm tired of the rhetoric so here is my objective analysis of the American gun problem:

There are two reasons why "gun culture" exists in America today.
1. The American Military Indutrial Complex (MIC) :
America is without peer in terms of military spending and production. Weak domestic gun laws add to demand for American produced weapons and reinforce the militiarized culture already present in the USA.

2. Flawed Ideology and Sense of Identity :
Gun ownership is an American tradition and holds deep significance in the hearts and minds of many Americans. However, the practical uses for firearms in daily life have diminished over time due to various technological factors. Gun ownership is now justified based purely on recreational and defense of freedom issues largely driven by MIC propaganda and the NRA.
Placing such high emotional value and cultural significance on agents of violence reflects very poorly on the moral and ethical fabric of American society.
Comparisons can be made between the prolonged "gun culture" in America and Japanese whaling. International opinion has evolved to the point where Whaling is now seen as a barbaric crime against nature.
It's time American attitudes toward guns evolved as well.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> a man in his son where out in there home in the woods in a log cabin they have owned. Suddenly in the middle of the knight there was a demanding knock on the door. the man open his door but kept his screen door locked and he asked the two teenagers that were at the door what do you want. they said we need to use your phone he said give me the number and ill call if for you. the teenagers then said no and demanded he let them in the man then pulled away the curtins that were concealing is body to show them that he has a gun in his hand. the teenagers ran off. the man didnt sleep that night. but sat in his sons room and guarded his son. the next morning he stepped outside and saw that there were two shallow graves for them 2 months later a professor and his wife were stabbed to death in their own home by the same two guys.


Have you got a link to this story?


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

cplmac said:


> This thread would probably be best served taking a short trip down to the general sub forum. I think Frank Mir was in the title but the subject matter doesn't really lend itself to MMA discussion.


:thumbsup: I concur, this really doesn't have anything to do with MMA in general, or the UFC in particular any more. BTW, I love your avatar. And above all, thanks for serving corporal (I presume from the name) raise02:


----------



## pauly_j (Nov 28, 2006)

milkkid291 said:


> Not our fault other countries don't have the balls to kill/end evil Dictators...


Why aren't you doing anything about Mugabe then? Oh yeah, because it's of no interest to you.

That story about the shallow graves sounds like something someone posts in a myspace bullitin. 

'IF U DO NOT REPOST THIS IN 5 MINITS THEN THE 2 BOYS WIL CUM 4 U!'


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

jesus i knew i shoulda just left this thread alone.....





djants said:


> This is ridiculous...blaming the holocaust on gun control? Even if those 13 million were armed (and a lot were children), they would have been no match for TRAINED soldiers...same with other atrocities mentioned.
> 
> As for the Japanese invasion thing....LOL!!! Yeah, Im sure the pilots and elite trained soldiers were shitting themselves from the fact that a lot of houses had handguns...might be something to do with the US proving it had the will to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima?


See the quote i had below about the genocide.

As for Rwanda, true they did not have any gun control laws in the books, but the Warlord controlled the movement of EVERYTHING! you had citizens who couldnt get ahold of a days meal, let alone a weapon to defend themselves.

And the Nuclear Weapon and America's readiness to use it??? Learn some history:

_Second World War
The world’s first nuclear test was conducted on 16 July 1945 by the United States. It took place in Alamogordo, in the desert of New Mexico, and was codenamed ‘Trinity’.

The test was a result of a top-secret programme, The Manhattan Project, which began in 1942 with the aim of building a nuclear bomb. Over the next few years production and research facilities were set up all over the United States (US). _
http://www.comeclean.org.uk/articles.php?articleID=14

Pearl Harbor attack was December 7, 1941.

google is wonderful man, try it out.



Charles Lee Ray said:


> Apparently Hitler and Yamamoto didn't think so.
> 
> 
> Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police."
> ...


Charles Lee Ray....... :thumb02: good work my friend! need to spread around before i hit ya back man, but i will.


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

XitUp said:


> Have you got a link to this story?


I too would like a link.. sounds like an urban legend.


----------



## djants (Jun 19, 2008)

Charles Lee Ray said:


> Apparently Hitler and Yamamoto didn't think so.
> 
> 
> Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police."
> ...


So because of a couple of quotes you are seriously suggesting that *The holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews had guns?*. Let us not forget that the Jews were not exclusively from Germany too.

And if America found itself in a similar position to the UK did in World War 2, with supplies being short etc, what do you think would happen? Answer; every arm that you have the 'right' to bear would be taken to contribute to the war effort. Owning a gun that you do not hand over would be considered tantamount to treason. Conscription would happen and every able bodied man (and possibly woman nowadyas, but who can tell, America still has some backwards values on the subjects of race and sex) would be required to fight overseas. So what you will be left with is the old, the fat, the weak and the mentals, so you would be largely undefended anyways.


Regardless of what some advisor said (if you can be arsed to do the research, you can find a quote for every occasion), the US itself have proved that armed citizens do not deter an army *by invading Iraq!*.

Micheal Moore (whilst being an emotive manipulator of the highest order) was on to something in Bowling For Columbine. Americans are scared ALL the time. Its not singling you out, the same happens over here, the press get hold of a topic and convince the public that it is a bigger threat than it is (at the minute it is knife crime). They convince you that you NEED guns to protect yourself. Its a fair point that some criminals will always be able to get guns, but having guns freely available means that MORE criminals will have guns and by their very nature, will have less respect for the sanctity of human life than the average person, and more likely to kill.


----------



## djants (Jun 19, 2008)

JuggNuttz said:


> As for Rwanda, true they did not have any gun control laws in the books, but the Warlord controlled the movement of EVERYTHING! you had citizens who couldnt get ahold of a days meal, let alone a weapon to defend themselves.
> 
> And the Nuclear Weapon and America's readiness to use it??? Learn some history:
> 
> ...


In rwanda, citizens were still armed, how else were the tutsi militia formed? And again I stress, America couldnt be arsed to get involved.

Im well aware of the time difference between the Peral Harbour/ Hiroshima attacks, but you seem to be suggesting that in the four year gap, Japan were not attacking the US? It is widely perceived that the US attack on Hiroshima was a direct retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbour. Politicians will no doubt be quoted denying this, but History teaches us that America's cheif motivation for war is revenge. That and Oil.

But regardless of any out of context soundbites. Why would the Japanese attack a naval base, arguably much more highly defended than any town or city, if they were that concerned about citizens being armed? Its pretty common knowledge that if any country prepares for war, they are going to be facing other people with guns, Im sure they are usually prepared for it.


sorry for double post....


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

SILVA>ALL said:


> Calm down! Jeez, we're passing time with debate here, not passing laws. You need to relax a little.


i may get a bit worked up myself here with this, but your right, it is debate, and sure its meant to get a lil heated but not go too far. 

I disagree completly with most of your posts... but thats what makes debating so much fun 


+rep to ya sir, but i stll think your wrong :thumb02:


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

jeremy202 said:


> That was a chilling story.....
> 
> Im all for guns, hell, I wish it was legal for law abiding citizens to own fully automatic firearms.I cant stand liberal dipshits like the ignorant user "SILVA>ALL"


You need to check your facts bud. It is legal in the U.S. to own a fully automatic weapon. The gun has to have been manufactured before 1986 though. You also need to fill out different forms and get them signed by your CLEO. A CLEO is like your town police chief. If they don't want to sign it they don't have to. After you get the form signed you then submit it to the ATF with a $200 check that goes towards a stamp you need for the gun. If the ATF decides to approve your form (they can reject you for absolutely no reason so it's not guaranteed you will be allowed to get the gun. It also can take them up to 2 years to approve the form since they are backlogged until late 2007 on forms right now). Once the ATF approves your form and says it's ok for you to own the gun you then have to buy it. This is not cheap since the cheapest full auto gun costs about $10,000. It also isn't easy to find a full auto gun since supplies are dwindling because you can't buy any made after 1986. Once you buy the gun you then need to have it transferred to a FFL dealer (a gun shop) who charges you a fee for transferring the gun. Now you can have your full auto weapon once the gun dealer recieves it.

It's really a pain in the ass to get a full auto gun. It's not really worth the trouble you have to go through. It also isn't cheap because even after you spend all the money to get the gun you then need to spend money on ammo. Ammo isn't cheap right now and a full auto gun eats that shit like a fat kid eats cake.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

RushFan said:


> I'm tired of the rhetoric so here is my objective analysis of the American gun problem:
> 
> There are two reasons why "gun culture" exists in America today.
> 1. The American Military Indutrial Complex (MIC) :
> America is without peer in terms of military spending and production. Weak domestic gun laws add to demand for American produced weapons and reinforce the militiarized culture already present in the USA.


Exactly what are these weak gun laws? All I see people posting about is how people in gangs get guns illegally but does this have anything to do with weak gun laws? Most of the guns they have they stole and why when comparing gun laws and blaming the US does nobody blame Canada which allows guns to be brought into their country while not be registered as long as the guns are imported by movie production companies. Which means I could setup a front as a movie production companie and sell guns to anyone I want. Or how do explain how a gun dealer sold 700 illegal guns before he was caught in Australia?



RushFan said:


> 2. Flawed Ideology and Sense of Identity :
> Gun ownership is an American tradition and holds deep significance in the hearts and minds of many Americans. However, the practical uses for firearms in daily life have diminished over time due to various technological factors. Gun ownership is now justified based purely on recreational and defense of freedom issues largely driven by MIC propaganda and the NRA.
> Placing such high emotional value and cultural significance on agents of violence reflects very poorly on the moral and ethical fabric of American society.
> Comparisons can be made between the prolonged "gun culture" in America and Japanese whaling. International opinion has evolved to the point where Whaling is now seen as a barbaric crime against nature.
> It's time American attitudes toward guns evolved as well.


Do you have a problem with Findland's gun culture where they could legally own a gun at 15 (now change to 18 after a 15 year old went on a shooting rampage at his high school). They also have one on the highest gun ownership per capita.

Or do you have a problem with Japanese gun culture that has grown to the point that there are an estimated 50,000 illegal guns there on the black market? Or how about in Australia two-thirds of mass gun killers are licensed gun killers, problem there? What was the gun culture in Australia like before the government took guns away when 90,000 guns a year were being imported? It seems that you have a problem with the fact the Americans actually stand up and defend their rights instead of having the government do what they want, i.e. having guns taken away like in Australia.

Every country has there problems with this but to only acknowledge America's is quite ignorant.


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

Sorry not spamming, just dont know how to add a quote in edit... sorry






djants said:


> In rwanda, citizens were still armed, how else were the tutsi militia formed? And again I stress, America couldnt be arsed to get involved.
> 
> Im well aware of the time difference between the Peral Harbour/ Hiroshima attacks, but you seem to be suggesting that in the four year gap, Japan were not attacking the US? It is widely perceived that the US attack on Hiroshima was a direct retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbour. Politicians will no doubt be quoted denying this, but History teaches us that America's cheif motivation for war is revenge. That and Oil.
> 
> ...


I read in a history book, but im having a hard time finding it, said Hitler wanted Pearl Harbor to happen, as his Uboats were sinking US resupply ships to the UK, and he feared the US entering the war and targeting him and joining the Western Front. Having the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, makes the US join and concentrate on Japan. He figured the UK was close to falling, and once did, he could concentrate on Russia and reinforce the Japanese against the US. So the point wasnt to bring the US down right then, it was to fracture the US, force them to fight on 2 fronts, which is nearly impossible to win. It is still true today that the US in WWII is the only country to win a war fighting on 2 fronts.

As for the attack itself, and why the Armed Forces were caught so off guard.. well there are 2 "Theories". 

1) Consiracy theory says the US wanted in the war, knew the attack was comming but did nothing, so that the US Public would want war.

2) Even as late as Dec 6th, the US was trying to create peace between the US and Japan, and if they had built up their Navy and put them on high alert, it would surly make peace talks fall, and by the time US learned an attack was immenent, radio was down and had to send a message through commercial channels, where the message ended arriving 4 hours after the attack... http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/pearl.htm

As for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Historians agree it was "A Means to End the War". The japanese were not going to give up, after seeing the fighting and casualties piling up on fighting over small islands, an invasion of Mainland Japan would have cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides. Dropping the bombs saved American lives (morbid as it sounds... that is the point of war), and forced the Japanese into submission.

but i think WWII is getting a lil off topic... FUN!!! but off topic.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

mjbish23 said:


> I find it funny that everyone arguing against AMERICANS owning guns don't even live in America. If you're Canadian or European or Australian who are you to tell me that I can't own something that MY government tells me I can legally own if I go through the right procedures? Do you live in America? No, you don't so what gives you the right to tell us how our laws are terrible and go against what you believe?


The creationism vs evolution is a massive debate. It doesn't effect most people if not all of them as one persons beliefs is their own and it doesn't affect someone else(There are cases but not here) but a lot of people go out of their way to get involved in the debate.

It's sort of the same but creationism nor evolution is a powerful weapon that can easily take a life.



JuggNuttz said:


> I read in a history book, but im having a hard time finding it, said Hitler wanted Pearl Harbor to happen, as his Uboats were sinking US resupply ships to the UK, and he feared the US entering the war and targeting him and joining the Western Front. Having the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, makes the US join and concentrate on Japan. He figured the UK was close to falling, and once did, he could concentrate on Russia and reinforce the Japanese against the US. So the point wasnt to bring the US down right then, it was to fracture the US, force them to fight on 2 fronts, which is nearly impossible to win. It is still true today that the US in WWII is the only country to win a war fighting on 2 fronts.
> 
> As for the attack itself, and why the Armed Forces were caught so off guard.. well there are 2 "Theories".
> 
> ...


No peace attempts and all out war straight away can stabilize things but i don't think it would be a great idea with both sides destroyed and millions of lives killed, millions of innocent lives.

Trying to make peace can come at a price but avoiding it and going into a war will likely come at a much bigger price.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Judoka said:


> The creationism vs evolution is a massive debate. It doesn't effect most people if not all of them as one persons beliefs is their own and it doesn't affect someone else(There are cases but not here) but a lot of people go out of their way to get involved in the debate.
> 
> It's sort of the same but creationism nor evolution is a powerful weapon that can easily take a life.


It's nowhere near the same. American gun laws are not affecting you in Australia. The debate over creationism vs. evolution could affect you based on findings by both sides, but that's another thread by itself.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

cplmac said:


> It does however streamline the process for getting warrants.


It's this 'streamlining' that makes me mildly uncomfortable. I feel much of it goes against the idea of the 4th and 9th. Also, maybe you don't read (although you seem intelligent enough) but the idea of the government keeping tabs on what im reading is not right imo. To continue with the pro-gun hyperbole of "whats next?!!?!" its an easy argument that this is one step away from the censorship of literature, or even the press. No matter how mild, the Patriot Act takes away some liberties of the people in exchange for increased protection, and i only brought it up in response to the rhetoric posted when some one used the Franklin quote.

For or against both the gun debate, or the patriot act....the very fact that there is such vehement disagreement says that both sides have valid arguments. To disagree is one thing, but to dismiss is quite another. There is a problem in the United States, and it manifests itself in debates like this one.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

MLS said:


> Exactly what are these weak gun laws? All I see people posting about is how people in gangs get guns illegally but does this have anything to do with weak gun laws? Most of the guns they have they stole and why when comparing gun laws and blaming the US does nobody blame Canada which allows guns to be brought into their country while not be registered as long as the guns are imported by movie production companies. Which means I could setup a front as a movie production companie and sell guns to anyone I want. Or how do explain how a gun dealer sold 700 illegal guns before he was caught in Australia?


Weak gun laws = Encourages / Facilitates "gun culture". Relative to other 1st world countries American gun laws are lax.



MLS said:


> Do you have a problem with Findland's gun culture where they could legally own a gun at 15 (now change to 18 after a 15 year old went on a shooting rampage at his high school). They also have one on the highest gun ownership per capita.
> 
> Or do you have a problem with Japanese gun culture that has grown to the point that there are an estimated 50,000 illegal guns there on the black market? Or how about in Australia two-thirds of mass gun killers are licensed gun killers, problem there? What was the gun culture in Australia like before the government took guns away when 90,000 guns a year were being imported? It seems that you have a problem with the fact the Americans actually stand up and defend their rights instead of having the government do what they want, i.e. having guns taken away like in Australia.
> 
> Every country has there problems with this but to only acknowledge America's is quite ignorant.


Are you going to address my post at all or just argue that two wrongs make a right?


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

RushFan said:


> Weak gun laws = Encourages / Facilitates "gun culture". Relative to other 1st world countries American gun laws are lax.


I love when people just make such generalied statements. You said that we have weak gun laws, name ones that are weak. There are 20,000 gun laws in America. Do you know how to get a gun in the US or the process?




RushFan said:


> Are you going to address my post at all or just argue that two wrongs make a right?


Yes we have a gun culture that runs all the way back to when the country was founded, not that hard to see. Do we defend our right to coninue this, yes. What exactly do you want me to address. I was asking you if you had problems with other countries gun cultures since you have such a big problem with the US'. Now that we cleared that up, why don't you go back and answer the questions I posed (unlike you who just posted statements) like the question about Canadian gun law loopholes, or other countries gun cultures, or how a guy was allowed to sell 700 illgeal guns in Australia even though your guns law are so strict.


----------



## joppp (Apr 21, 2007)

Can we drop this subject anytime soon? It's not exactly MMA related if you know what I mean...


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

MLS said:


> I love when people just make such generalied statements. You said that we have weak gun laws, name ones that are weak. There are 20,000 gun laws in America. Do you know how to get a gun in the US or the process?
> 
> Yes we have a gun culture that runs all the way back to when the country was founded, not that hard to see. Do we defend our right to coninue this, yes. What exactly do you want me to address. I was asking you if you had problems with other countries gun cultures since you have such a big problem with the US'. Now that we cleared that up, why don't you go back and answer the questions I posed (unlike you who just posted statements) like the question about Canadian gun law loopholes, or other countries gun cultures, or how a guy was allowed to sell 700 illgeal guns in Australia even though your guns law are so strict.


I posted statements because I'm tired of getting bogged down in this is issue. I can't answer questions on the 20,000 American gun laws or Canadian production companies either. The best I can do is to respond to any criticism you have of my post, which I am yet to hear.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

When was your post criticized? I mearly asked you questions on your feelings of other countries since you have such a strong disliking in America's gun law/culture. But because you don't have an answer or your answer doesn't help your case you won't answer them. You say you can't speak on America's 20,000 gun laws yet you offer criticism of them, hmmmm.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

MLS said:


> When was your post criticized? I mearly asked you questions on your feelings of other countries since you have such a strong disliking in America's gun law/culture. But because you don't have an answer or your answer doesn't help your case you won't answer them. You say you can't speak on America's 20,000 gun laws yet you offer criticism of them, hmmmm.


 
My post was directed at "American" gun culture because Frank Mir is the spokesman and America is the poster boy for gun culture especially in the 1st world. I'm happy for my comments to apply on a broader scale.
If you can't criticize my post does that mean we agree?


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

You are very eager to assume things aren't you. I never said I agreed with your posts nor did I say I couldn't criticize your post. Once again, I mearly asked you your thoughts on other countries gun laws/culture since you seem to have such a strong dislike for America's. Now these questions have spanned 3-4 posts and have yet to be addressed.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

RushFan said:


> If you can't criticize my post does that mean we agree?





MLS said:


> You are very eager to assume things aren't you. I never said I agreed with your posts nor did I say I couldn't criticize your post.


I asked a question.



MLS said:


> Once again, I mearly asked you your thoughts on other countries gun laws/culture since you seem to have such a strong dislike for America's. Now these questions have spanned 3-4 posts and have yet to be addressed.


Am I on trial here? 



RushFan said:


> I'm happy for my comments to apply on a broader scale.


.. and if that ain't good enough I'm pleading the 5th. Seems the popular refuge. :laugh:


----------



## SOTAK (May 2, 2008)

Good video. But Nogiera still kicks his ass come fight time.


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

RushFan said:


> Am I on trial here?


no... but i think what he is getting at... you admonish America so much, why do you not seem to have an opinion on these other countries doing the same or worse??


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

RushFan said:


> I asked a question.


Indeed you did ask a question, a question that implied if I didn't critisize your post that I agreed with it, is that not what you meant by your question?



RushFan said:


> Am I on trial here?


Is America?



RushFan said:


> .. and if that ain't good enough I'm pleading the 5th. Seems the popular refuge. :laugh:


Pleading the 5th when faced with questions you won't answer instead of with questions you can't speaks a whole lot about your character.


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

JuggNuttz said:


> no... but i think what he is getting at... you admonish America so much, why do you not seem to have an opinion on these other countries doing the same or worse??


Since when is criticism a particular law, or set of laws, the same as criticism of the United States? 
Rushfan is expressing an opinion related to a particular policy, not admonishing America. There's nothing anti-American about criticizing American gun laws.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

vandalian said:


> Since when is criticism a particular law, or set of laws, the same as criticism of the United States?
> Rushfan is expressing an opinion related to a particular policy, not admonishing America. There's nothing anti-American about criticizing American gun laws.


Ironically, it would seem some Americans do not question authority figures.

I am really not sure why some people are getting so offended in this thrad. It is as if criticizing gun sales constitutes a direct personal attack on each American who disagrees. 

Don't forget, some of us here are Canadian. Not only are we criticized, but half the world makes fun of us!


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Apecity said:


> Ironically, it would seem some Americans do not question authority figures.
> 
> I am really not sure why some people are getting so offended in this thrad. It is as if criticizing gun sales constitutes a direct personal attack on each American who disagrees.
> 
> Don't forget, some of us here are Canadian. Not only are we criticized, but half the world makes fun of us!


Really?
I was born in British Columbia. Maybe I should stick up for the place of my birth more often.


----------



## itsallgood (Oct 5, 2007)

:thumb02: for Mir.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Apecity said:


> Okay, then let us apply this "hypothetical" safety issue to guns. Are you arguing that irresponsible people cannot get their hands on guns?


 No



> That children cannot get their hands on guns?


 No



> Are you arguing that banning handguns would not change the amount of difficulty that currently exists obtaining a gun illegally?


 No



> Are you arguing that banning handguns would not decrease the number of guns held illegally in irresponsible peoples hands?


 No



> Unlike drain cleaner, which is designed to clean drains, and has the unfortunate side affect of being poisenous, a handguns primary function is to shoot a piece of metal at high velocity towards a target. This target could be a can, or it could be a person. As you said, the responsibility of the individual determines its use. This does not change the fact that even in a responsible persons hand the gun is not serving a neccesary function. Am i saying guns should be banned? Not all guns. But why do you need a handgun? Why not shoot your cans with a rifle?


 Necessity has never been a prerequisite for the right to have, say or do a given thing in America. If that becomes the basis for citizens rights, anything could be taken away.



> And before you jump all over me, I know a rifle can kill someone just as easily, but let's be realistic and logical for just a second if that's alright. Less guns give people less oppertunity to do stupid things. Yes, criminals will still obtain them, but alot less easily.


 I'm not a child and the government isn't my daddy. Avoiding stupidity is my personal responsibility and if it turns out I'm stupid, well, then it seems nature is just running its course or God's plan is coming to fruition. The whole point of the United States of America is that the people are running the show, for better or worse.



> It is naive to think that there is no trade going on between people who purchase guns legally, and sell them for illegal purposes.


 Who said that was the case? 



> Why are murderous human beings such a widespread problem? As much as i'd love to dive into a sociological debate with you, *I agree guns themselves are not the root of the problem.* But do you plan on fixing the quagmire of violent American society? Have any suggestions on how we would do that?


 As I said earlier, I think widespread poverty and a sense of hopelessness exists for much of the American population. The same reason violent crime is a problem is the same reason there's such a demand for hard drugs. Instead of honestly addressing this problem, the federal government has been content to address its symptoms through the ATF, DEA, and other beauracracies, creating a booming private prison industry in the process as well as a country with the highest incarceration rate at 1 in 100 imprisoned Americans.



> A sociological issue of that magnitude must be delt with in small chunks. *Getting people to accept that they do not need a gun to feel safe could be a big step in creating a positive attitude.*


 It seems in much of this country, a gun is a measure of safety, regardless of how they feel about it. And the ones that intend to use their gun within the law aren't safer for giving it up. If they weren't responsible enough to use a gun properly, they're not likely to be able to us a vehicle, a lawn mower, a crosswalk, etc. properly. Again, you're addressing a symptom, leaving the problem (pervasive stupidity) untouched.



> I'll use the example of environmentalism. I work in a government run liquor store. We recently (last month), by government order, are no longer allowed to use plastic of any kind. We get just as many people yelling at us and telling us we are crazy for changing somthing that "has always been the same", as people telling us how great it is that we are opening peoples eyes to being more environmentally conscious.





> Small steps man, small steps.


 Small pushes is more accurate. Some are in the right direction; others are not. For example, your government seems more concerned with the bottle the alcohol they're selling to their citizens is stored in than they are that that alcohol is an addictive poison to much of the people purchasing it. Liquor and beer are hardly necessary, right? And they certainly result in increased crime due to impaired judgment. Why should people be allowed to drink it?



> Maybe America isn't ready to ban any kind of gun. Maybe it will piss too many people off to be benificial. Take a smaller step, then.


 Guns in America are already heavily regulated with many types banned altogether.



> And if you do not question the constitution, the supreme court, and the others that control your life, then I feel sorry for you, and so would the founding fathers. Questioning the ones who lead created America.


 You should probably visit my takeyourinterval.com site to find out there's no need to feel sorry for me on that point. I was simply addressing the fact that those arguing for a change in the status quo have the burden of justification on their side, regardless of whether it's a change for the better or for the worse.


> To address your farming metaphor; did someone decide that there will be no more murders this year, thus making guns no longer a worry?


Don't see the connection. Sorry.


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

jasvll said:


> No
> 
> No
> 
> ...


Nope.


----------



## lazer (Apr 8, 2007)

I would not be in favor of people carrying a gun for this purpose at all …protection. I guess it must be my Canadian upbringing. I have 2 guns (rifles) in my house and I use them for target practice and hunting about 5 times a year. When I was thinking about owning a gun about 10 years ago I couldn’t believe how long and how much money it would take to get a license and the training involved to purchase a firearm …and now that I own them I believe that it was a very good way of controlling them. I took the non restricted course that enabled me to buy a hand gun as well …but I really never wanted a hand gun because of the strict laws surrounding them and never felt it was something I would ever use in any great capacity. 

If you have a hand gun in Canada you have to be part of a club to fire it and it’s not allowed for hunting. I can’t speak for other countries but I’m glad that I don’t know anyone with a hand gun on them that they carry …or just any gun in general, that they would want to use as a way of personal protection. I know I may feel completely different if I lived elsewhere, and I can understand the way it might be different in other societies, but I still think it’s wrong to advocate this type of measure as a legitimate means of self defense in whole. I wish things were different around the world where guns were used for personal pleasure only and not in fear or anger.


I don’t mean any disrespect for anyone here at all …I just a pray that things could be better for everyone in a world.


----------



## GodlyMoose (May 20, 2007)

Ah! The mmaforum! The forum to discuss mixed martial arts, and such. I'll enter the UFC section and see about recent events and happenings. A thread about Mir with a lot of posts? Hm, I wonder what wondrous ideas about mixed martial arts, and Frank Mir everyone is talking about! 

I'll just take a peak into this thread and see what all the fuss is ab-


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

lol :laugh:


----------



## SILVA>ALL (Jul 22, 2008)

GodlyMoose said:


> Ah! The mmaforum! The forum to discuss mixed martial arts, and such. I'll enter the UFC section and see about recent events and happenings. A thread about Mir with a lot of posts? Hm, I wonder what wondrous ideas about mixed martial arts, and Frank Mir everyone is talking about!
> 
> I'll just take a peak into this thread and see what all the fuss is ab-


GodlyMoose, you're hilarious!

By the way, what gun toting wingnut has put my reputation on ICU?


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

vandalian said:


> Since when is criticism a particular law, or set of laws, the same as criticism of the United States?
> Rushfan is expressing an opinion related to a particular policy, not admonishing America. There's nothing anti-American about criticizing American gun laws.


When he said that Rushfan "admonish America so much" he was speaking too the laws, not as a country as a whole as his next sentence says "why do you not seem to have an opinion on these other countries doing the same or worse?" Which is also reffering to the gun laws/cultures of other countries. Though I could see where someone could interpret as having an anti-american bias. He said he couldn't speak on the gun laws of America (unless that means something other than I don't know enough about them to speak on them) yet offers what he thinks is fact on them and whats is wrong about them. Then when faced with a question of other countries and their gun laws/culture he chooses not to answer because if he disagrees with their laws/culture that weakens his argument against the US and if he agrees with them then he looks like a hypocrite.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

MLS said:


> I love when people just make such generalied statements. You said that we have weak gun laws, name ones that are weak. There are 20,000 gun laws in America. Do you know how to get a gun in the US or the process?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are not that strict but they are strict enough to keep things safer and keep gun lovers happy. Some people have seem to think guns are banned here which they are not and many people own them but our government is trying to keep the situation in order and control it at a reasonable level which is what i am saying. I defiantly don't think guns should be banned as i like them myself but DEFIANTLY should be controlled at reasonable level which what the Australian government has done and results have clearly shown.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

> a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.65 mm), a firearm barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers, *and more strict *sporting requirements for handgun purchases.[


Seems like the restriction on what kind of guns you can own is pretty high.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

MLS said:


> Is America?


No but that is what the topic is about and it would be "Guns in America" anyway not the entire country itself., Rushman doesn't take other peoples lives either(as far as i know:confused05.

That's what i am arguing about. I am talking on an unbiased global position not as an Australian. Many Americans, Australians, English and citizens from the entire world are gun lovers and i am not arguing that. I think people should have the right to have a gun if they wish but like prison if you make the mistake you take justice, If you don't pass the test to obtain a gun then it is your fault as you must have done something wrong and not known if you would use it in a legal way, this doesn't stop all guns from getting in the hands of wrong people as some might not have done something wrong as of yet and some might come in illegally, Australia have HUGE consequences if you break these infringements and get equal to a murder sentence for having an illegal weapon(Depends how illegal i is, say a machine gun of some type). Australia police our boundaries well and aim to keep the situation under control, it will never disappear but it can be minimized as Australia has done. Like i said guns should be allowed to people who meet the requirements. Fighting fire with fire doesn't work in this case, it just escalates the situation. Australia is a good example, guns sure ain't banned and MANY MANY people have them but the situation is being controlled reasonably well. 

*For the last time - Guns in Australia are legal and MANY have them, Australians didn't lose a right. Certain guns are banned but many still available, they are banned for safety. Guns should be allowed but the laws and requirements to get one should be stricter and controlled.*

Put it this way, When working a LOT and i mean a LOT of safety regulations are in place, It doesn't mean being a Carpenter is banned but it is safer.

Consider yourself lucky, in Burma the government wanted to control the situation and took ALL guns, It defiantly minimized killings.



MLS said:


> Seems like the restriction on what kind of guns you can own is pretty high.


Fairly strict yes, handguns are very strict because they are easy to hide.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Judoka said:


> No but that is what the topic is about and it would be "Guns in America" anyway not the entire country itself., Rushman doesn't take other peoples lives either(as far as i know:confused05.


It seems as though Rushfan is putting all of America on trial with his posts and if you refer to the post a couple up from this one you will see that I touched on that already.




Judoka said:


> *For the last time - Guns in Australia are legal and MANY have them, Australians didn't lose a right. Certain guns are banned but many still available, they are banned for safety. Guns should be allowed but the laws and requirements to get one should be stricter and controlled.*


So taking something away (certain guns that were legal before) isn't a lost right?




Judoka said:


> Fairly strict yes, handguns are very strict because they are easy to hide.


So the gun laws are strict, like I said before even though you said


> They are not that strict


----------



## mrmyz (Nov 23, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Are you suggesting that rival gangs would suddenly stop killing each other if only we got the guns out of their hands? :confused02:


worked in japan.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

MLS said:


> It seems as though Rushfan is putting all of America on trial with his posts and if you refer to the post a couple up from this one you will see that I touched on that already.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was responding to your post in my own matter not in Rushfan's.

Yes but why does someone need a VERY deadly weapon that could make anyone be able to kill 30 innocent people, who are they to take 30 lives...those people don't want to die. Have you seen the surviving victims of the Columbine massacre? they don't support America's gun situation and they have been the victims of the consequences for this matter. Guns still kill but what type obviously affects how many. How many times do people get a random 30 people home invasion? I don't see why you would need enough firepower to kill 30 people and those people where running away not at you.

A guy in Melbourne a few years ago tryed a gun massacre but Australia's strict gun laws meant he couldn't get great firepower he still took lives it but compare our biggest school massacre of 2 people compared to the American school massacre's and you might see a difference in figures, it is not hard to see.

A really don't see why it is important to have such powerful guns? and don't say sport, hunting and protection because it is easily and i mean easily done with lesser guns. Care to answer that for me?

Yes i said it was strict and yes they are but i meant not that strict. In simple terms Australia has fairly strict gun laws but it still gives people the opportunity to have possession of guns and is not like Burma where they aren't allowed any type of gun at all. But also meant handguns are stricter then some of the other rules because they are much easier to hide.

I am sure the families of victims of these guns that should be banned would disagree with the argument. The more power = the more capable it is of taking more lives. In Australia they took these weapons away and what do you know? less lives are lost, it is evident that it works. I don't see why Americans need such powerful weapons, Australians and others around seem to get around just fine with lesser guns and many places no guns at all are allowed.


----------



## pauly_j (Nov 28, 2006)

Judoka said:


> *For the last time - Guns in Australia are legal and MANY have them, Australians didn't lose a right. Certain guns are banned but many still available, they are banned for safety. Guns should be allowed but the laws and requirements to get one should be stricter and controlled.*


I don't think that has any relevance. Australians have proven that they can be trusted with guns, whereas Americans are offing each other in record numbers. If guns aren't a problem, then them being legal isn't a problem.


----------



## mrmyz (Nov 23, 2006)

pauly_j said:


> I don't think that has any relevance. Australians have proven that they can be trusted with guns, whereas Americans are offing each other in record numbers. If guns aren't a problem, then them being legal isn't a problem.


different culture.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

pauly_j said:


> I don't think that has any relevance. Australians have proven that they can be trusted with guns, whereas Americans are offing each other in record numbers. If guns aren't a problem, then them being legal isn't a problem.


It really doesn't but people are using it a reference point for taking away rights of Australians which isn't true.


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

xeberus said:


> Maybe so, but generally they are right. I mean what kind of education could you get in America from ignorant teachers? Well psychopaths maybe more prone although im not totally convinced, but "quick to murder" yea I think thats a fair statement.


It's easy to be right when you are teaching math and science, it is not so easy when you are teaching abstract subjects, and university campuses are notoriously one sided when it comes to politics. As for your opinion of Americans, it's good to know where you are coming from, it puts your statements in perspective unfortunately for you.



RushFan said:


> 1. *1*The American Military Indutrial Complex (MIC) :
> America is without peer in terms of military spending and production. *2*Weak domestic gun laws add to demand for American produced weapons and reinforce the militiarized culture already present in the USA.
> 
> 2. *3*Flawed Ideology and Sense of Identity :
> ...


This post really just floored me, I'm not really even sure where to start. I guess I'll go in order, try and keep up. *1* We are not without peer, you seem to forget conveniently enough that your much closer neighbor China is an impressive military spender, as is India and Russia. *2* American gun laws may be weak compared to socialist or communist countries but they are not weak by AMERICAN standards. We pride ourselves on the capacity to do for ourselves without the need for our government to do for us. If that is a militarized culture, than so be it. *3* Our ideology may seem flawed to you, but it has done us just fine for hundreds of years. *4* How about that, you are right about that. *5* That is factually inaccurate, how has technology allowed anyone to physically protect themselves, or enjoy a day at the target range? *6* It is justified by the Constitution of the United States, and thankfully defended by the NRA.  Your whole point of the MIC is assanine, gun owners do not spend the kind of money the "MIC" is in the market for. *7* The NRA is not an agent of violence, they do more to educate the civilian population on gun safety than any other organization in the country government or otherwise. They have advocated for this issue tirelessly from day one. Not that I would expect you to know this, it does not fit in the box you've created. You might know more about it if you didn't live thousands of miles away, apparently that is in no way an impediment to your expertise. *8* No, they can't. *9* We do not govern ourselves according to the dictates of international society, and I suspect you would not care one bit if America told you that your laws were out of line and needed changing. Why? Because your gun laws have nothing to do with America, and vice versa. Whaling the same as gun control? Really? Seriousely, did you fall out of a page from the Daily Koz or are you for real?



djants said:


> Owning a gun that you do not hand over would be considered tantamount to treason. Conscription would happen and every able bodied man (and possibly woman nowadyas, but who can tell, America still has some backwards values on the subjects of race and sex) would be required to fight overseas. The US itself have proved that armed citizens do not deter an army by invading Iraq! The press get hold of a topic and convince the public that it is a bigger threat than it is (at the minute it is knife crime). They convince you that you NEED guns to protect yourself.


First off, the US is not the UK, never have and never would require our citizens to belong to a specific church in order to have the right to bear arms, it's part of the reason why we came to North America in the first place. I'm not really sure what you are talking about with our backwards values regarding race and sex, we have much more diverse representation than any other nation on earth. As for armed citizens deterring an invasion, it is not a factor in our foreign policy, no idea how it factors in for others. Your media is clearly not representative of our media on this issue as American media takes every opportunity to deride the second amendment. I'm pretty sure someone mentioned doing some research, you really should consider that suggestion.



djants said:


> In rwanda, citizens were still armed, how else were the tutsi militia formed? And again I stress, America couldnt be arsed to get involved. Why would the Japanese attack a naval base, arguably much more highly defended than any town or city, if they were that concerned about citizens being armed?


You know it's funny, your country couldn't be arsed to get involved either. Is it possible, and I know how crazy this may sound, but is it possible an armed citizenry on an island that was not even a US state yet was a non-issue in regards to a bombing campaign of a naval base? I know, call me crazy.



Judoka said:


> It's sort of the same but creationism nor evolution is a powerful weapon that can easily take a life.


Creationism vs. Evolution is not even remotely the same debate. That is a debate of philosophy not law.



Flak said:


> It's this 'streamlining' that makes me mildly uncomfortable. I feel much of it goes against the idea of the 4th and 9th. Also, maybe you don't read (although you seem intelligent enough) but the idea of the government keeping tabs on what im reading is not right imo. To continue with the pro-gun hyperbole of "whats next?!!?!" its an easy argument that this is one step away from the censorship of literature, or even the press. No matter how mild, the Patriot Act takes away some liberties of the people in exchange for increased protection, and i only brought it up in response to the rhetoric posted when some one used the Franklin quote.
> 
> For or against both the gun debate, or the patriot act....the very fact that there is such vehement disagreement says that both sides have valid arguments. To disagree is one thing, but to dismiss is quite another. There is a problem in the United States, and it manifests itself in debates like this one.


I agree with your points, I disagree with your assessment of their practical impact. The fourth clearly protects your privacy, the ninth really doesn't have any specific bearing on this or anything else actually (it literally protects "rights not enumerated in the bill of rights" i.e. nothing specifically). I do however agree with almost all of your post, it is simply a matter of how significant those infringements are much the same as it is with the second amendment debate. I tried to rep you but I've got to spread it around.



SOTAK said:


> Good video. But Nogiera still kicks his ass come fight time.


I'm not sure about that, if Mir can get it on the ground I think it's anyones fight.



vandalian said:


> Since when is criticism a particular law, or set of laws, the same as criticism of the United States?


In this thread? Pretty much from the word go, lots of people not from America taking this opportunity to shit down our leg for a myriad of reasons most of which don't even relate to the second amendment.


Apecity said:


> It is as if criticizing gun sales constitutes a direct personal attack on each American who disagrees.
> Don't forget, some of us here are Canadian. Not only are we criticized, but half the world makes fun of us!


It's not a direct personal attack on us, it's a direct attack on the constitution, with a healthy dose of America sucks for x reason thrown in for good measure. I love Canada, I just wish Canadians on message boards would take a little less liberty bashing the States. We are after all pretty good neighbors to each other.



Judoka said:


> Consider yourself lucky, in Burma the government wanted to control the situation and took ALL guns, It defiantly minimized killings.


You are kidding right? You didn't just suggest that the government of *Myanmar* has saved lives with its gun laws did you? Seriously, read a paper, the country is thousands of miles closer to you than the US. They minimized killings? I suppose they did limit the capacity of their people to fight back while being murdered in the street for protesting. Good point....


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

cplmac said:


> Creationism vs. Evolution is not even remotely the same debate. That is a debate of philosophy not law.
> 
> You are kidding right? You didn't just suggest that the government of *Myanmar* has saved lives with its gun laws did you? Seriously, read a paper, the country is thousands of miles closer to you than the US. They minimized killings? I suppose they did limit the capacity of their people to fight back while being murdered in the street for protesting. Good point....


1. I wasn't comparing the two. I was saying that it doesn't affect people yet they still get involved.

2. No i didn't i said the government to control the situation could do what Burma(Myanmar) did and ban all guns instead of allowing them still just be stricter on the issue.


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

As a matter of constitutional law, they cannot ban firearms. They can and do regulate them. I spent yesterday trap shooting in my backyard, it was a great time and nobody went on a rampage. Reading this thread you would think that was the exception to the rule. I'm a member of the NRA and I'm a firm believer in denying the right to buy a firearm to any violent criminal. We are not unreasonable, we are law abiding citizens who demand the liberty our constitution guarantees.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Judoka said:


> Yes but why does someone need a VERY deadly weapon that could make anyone be able to kill 30 innocent people, who are they to take 30 lives...those people don't want to die. Have you seen the surviving victims of the Columbine massacre? they don't support America's gun situation and they have been the victims of the consequences for this matter. Guns still kill but what type obviously affects how many. How many times do people get a random 30 people home invasion? I don't see why you would need enough firepower to kill 30 people and those people where running away not at you.


As the case in almost every school shooting the guns used in Columbine were not *legally* acquired and since this thread is about the rights of Americans to own guns (*legally*) what is your point, the guns used in columbine were *illegal*. You don't see why some people want fully automatic rifles, they like to collect them. Also how many times have 30 people massacres happened, in the US the deadliest one killed 33 people and that has only happened once.



> A guy in Melbourne a few years ago tryed a gun massacre but Australia's strict gun laws meant he couldn't get great firepower he still took lives it but compare our biggest school massacre of 2 people compared to the American school massacre's and you might see a difference in figures, it is not hard to see.


Population differences couldn't play a role in that either could it? Why don't we try and compare two like things. Texas has 2-3 million more people than Australia not 280,705,771 million like the US has more than Australia. There has been one school shooting in Texas and it was way back in 1966 and they have concluded the shooter was more than likely driven to do it because of the Glioblastoma brain tumor he had, he also had an illegal gun. One school shooting and Texas is one of if not the most gun friendly state and probably has the most guns then any other state. Also weren't there already gun law changes because of the Port Arthur massacre before that school shooting happened?



> A really don't see why it is important to have such powerful guns? and don't say sport, hunting and protection because it is easily and i mean easily done with lesser guns. Care to answer that for me?


People like to collect them, it's considered a hobby. You don't know how hard it is to get a full automatic rifle in the US do you? It's freaking hard and thats why if any are really used (which I can't think of a time in the US where one was used) it probably isn't a *legal *gun. Even though you don't want me to say it sport, hunting, proctection. Do you not think that knives should be regulated since they sell ones that are big and can inflict a lot of damage but people have them for the same reasons as guns.



> Yes i said it was strict and yes they are but i meant not that strict. In simple terms Australia has fairly strict gun laws but it still gives people the opportunity to have possession of guns and is not like Burma where they aren't allowed any type of gun at all. But also meant handguns are stricter then some of the other rules because they are much easier to hide.


So when I said they were strict why question that?



> I am sure the families of victims of these guns that should be banned would disagree with the argument. The more power = the more capable it is of taking more lives. In Australia they took these weapons away and what do you know? less lives are lost, it is evident that it works. I don't see why Americans need such powerful weapons, Australians and others around seem to get around just fine with lesser guns and many places no guns at all are allowed.


I also bet that families of gun victims would also be proponents of gun ownership. Sporting Shooters Association of Australia disagrees with you on the fact that taking guns away leads to a direct number of lower deaths nor does this study http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/the_impact.pdf


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

cplmac said:


> This post really just floored me, I'm not really even sure where to start. I guess I'll go in order, try and keep up. *1* We are not without peer,


Peer - something of *equal* worth or quality.



cplmac said:


> you seem to forget conveniently enough that your much closer neighbor China is an impressive military spender, as is India and Russia.


Impressive yes. Peer no.



cplmac said:


> *2* American gun laws may be weak compared to socialist or communist countries but they are not weak by AMERICAN standards.


Comparisons with other industrialized western democracies ie; Australia, Britain and Canada reveal that American gun laws are lax.



cplmac said:


> We pride ourselves on the capacity to do for ourselves without the need for our government to do for us. If that is a militarized culture, than so be it.


Here is a link regarding militarized culture in America.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mariscal05052003.html



cplmac said:


> *3* Our ideology may seem flawed to you, but it has done us just fine for hundreds of years. *4* How about that, you are right about that.


Try to comprehend my posts in their entirety. 



cplmac said:


> *5* That is factually inaccurate, how has technology allowed anyone to physically protect themselves, or enjoy a day at the target range?


I sought to compare the necessity of gun ownership between 1860's "Old West" and today. What was once *needed*, is now *wanted*.



cplmac said:


> *6* It is justified by the Constitution of the United States, and thankfully defended by the NRA. Your whole point of the MIC is assanine, gun owners do not spend the kind of money the "MIC" is in the market for.


Taken from - http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt


> o There were 13.7 million firearm transactions in
> 1993-1994, including 6.5 million handguns. About 60
> percent of gun acquisitions involved federally
> licensed dealers.


Private ownership of firearms in America is big business by any standards. 



cplmac said:


> *7* The NRA is not an agent of violence, they do more to educate the civilian population on gun safety than any other organization in the country government or otherwise. They have advocated for this issue tirelessly from day one. Not that I would expect you to know this, it does not fit in the box you've created. You might know more about it if you didn't live thousands of miles away, apparently that is in no way an impediment to your expertise.


The firearm is an "agent of violence" not the NRA.



cplmac said:


> *8* No, they can't.


Your in depth rebuttal is truly compelling. :confused02:



cplmac said:


> *9* We do not govern ourselves according to the dictates of international society, and I suspect you would not care one bit if America told you that your laws were out of line and needed changing. Why? Because your gun laws have nothing to do with America, and vice versa. Whaling the same as gun control? Really? Seriousely, did you fall out of a page from the Daily Koz or are you for real?


My views on gun control are not confined to America. My comments relate to any nation that places high emotional value and cultural significance on agents of violence. 

The whaling analogy is perfect.


----------



## djants (Jun 19, 2008)

cplmac said:


> First off, the US is not the UK, never have and never would require our citizens to belong to a specific church in order to have the right to bear arms, it's part of the reason why we came to North America in the first place. I'm not really sure what you are talking about with our backwards values regarding race and sex, we have much more diverse representation than any other nation on earth. As for armed citizens deterring an invasion, it is not a factor in our foreign policy, no idea how it factors in for others. Your media is clearly not representative of our media on this issue as American media takes every opportunity to deride the second amendment. I'm pretty sure someone mentioned doing some research, you really should consider that suggestion.


Having diverse representation and being tolerant of that fact are two separate issues entirely. The US is very puritant in its attitudes to sex on the media, a notable example being the Janet Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction' incident. The US media was in outrage, the rest of the world were like "so?". Backwards attitudes towards race? just look at the KKK..

You completely missed the point with regards to conscription, and the church statement is irrelevant. During World War 2 in the UK, citizens were required to donate all iron objects, gates etc for the purpose of builing weapons for the war effort. What I was suggesting was that in a similar set of circumstances, your arms would be taken from you for the same reason. 

I mentioned Rwanda because someone in the thread (I should have quoted) mentioned about the USA protecting other nations, Im well aware that the UK didnt get involved.


My intent is not to say "the UK is better than the US", because our nation is also dominated by fuckwits, just like the USA. Sweeping generalisations may occur but that is on account of what impressions your media give to us, it isn't balanced, and I know it doesn't represent the whole of the nation, but it certainly does represent a large portion. Surely you cant deny that your country gives off an impression of war-loving, jingoistic delusion?


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

MLS said:


> As the case in almost every school shooting the guns used in Columbine were not *legally* acquired and since this thread is about the rights of Americans to own guns (*legally*) what is your point, the guns used in columbine were *illegal*. You don't see why some people want fully automatic rifles, they like to collect them. Also how many times have 30 people massacres happened, in the US the deadliest one killed 33 people and that has only happened once.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't know they were illegally gotten so i am wrong there, i will admit that BUT how did they practically buy all of a stores ammo without any questions asked.

Populations? There might be less in Melbourne then Texas but come on it's a major school in a major city, there would have been over a thousand on those grounds.

You can get them here in Australia as well but they are not active, Australia is an island so it's easier to keep things out then America but the Americans seem to have the border to Mexico pretty secured so i imagine they could do it to stop a fair percentage of illegal weaponry.

Knives are deadly but they are in everyday life and guns have importance but not like knives. Knives can kill yes but are not ranged and guns do more damage.

Again...I am NOT saying take away guns just unnecessary ones that people can do everything they need without them, Australia does it. Our requirements for a gun license are harder to obtain and we have had improvements because of this. Guns are a big part of peoples lives so take them away? No(Some that are unnecessary), make them harder to get? yes. By doing this alone Australia has saved lives.

Take away guns? No, make them harder to get. Try control to control the situation which doesn't mean eliminate it but have it at a reasonable level. People don't have to give up guns but the government can save lives by having control if needed.

You can still get lots of guns in Australia, we have just try our best to keep all these illegal weapons out and make guns harder to get, which for most it shouldn't be a problem so i don't see why you are getting fired up about this because if you have a good case which could be a number of things and meet requirements.

I am not talking about taking away guns but controlling it, fighting guns with guns makes the situation a lot worse. doing it this way you keep your guns but it has a higher chance that it will save lives and *THAT* is my point.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

After 16 pages I still don't understand why so many people think that taking away a gun someone legally owns is going to stop crime? Do you think if you made a gun ban (not all guns but just certain types) that criminals would turn them in? No, they wouldn't. You'll only punish the people who took the legal means to aquire those guns. Why would you want to limit the rights of law abiding citizens? Crime is inevitable. You will never be able to get rid of all the guns on the streets so just leave it like it is.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

I think some people just recognise that there is a problem, and "business as usual" isn't making the populous safer (even if owning a gun makes you _feel_ safer); so they want to try it a different way.

You're right though, with so many millions of guns already in circulation, it will take generations for them to cycle out. I'm afraid the USA is stuck.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

mrmyz said:


> worked in japan.


Japan also lacks many other rights Americans take for granted, protection from unreasonable search and seizure is a relevant example in this case. It's an entirely different system of government, right down to the openly directed capitalism employed from the top down. Not to mention, we're dealing with a country smaller than the US's single state of Montana, united by ethnicity and culture. Finally, that country was bombed into submission, completely overhauled by and reformed to the specifications of the US about 50 years ago. 'Worked in Japan' says little to nothing about what will work in the US.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Judoka said:


> I didn't know they were illegally gotten so i am wrong there, i will admit that BUT how did they practically buy all of a stores ammo without any questions asked.


They didn't buy all the ammo at once so at the time there was no real reason to question them.



> Populations? There might be less in Melbourne then Texas but come on it's a major school in a major city, there would have been over a thousand on those grounds.


Not quite sure what you are getting at so let me clarify my original point. You can't really compare the US and Australia's school shooting and gun deaths/injuries because of how big the population difference is. Statistically speaking, the US does have a greater chance of a school shooting then Australia based soley on the population difference. I offered up Texas as an example because it has a similar population to Australia and even with it's relaxed gun laws compared to Australia's it still has only had one school shooting. I believe 18 people were killed but a lot of that had to do with the guy shooting off a tower 307 ft tall making it hard to subdue him.



> You can get them here in Australia as well but they are not active, Australia is an island so it's easier to keep things out then America but the Americans seem to have the border to Mexico pretty secured so i imagine they could do it to stop a fair percentage of illegal weaponry.


The difference in guns that you can get in the US and Australia is huge. I agree that it is easier to keep stuff out off Australia then it is the US. The US/Mexico border is far from secured and most illegal guns come thorugh there, as do a lot of other illegal things.



> Knives are deadly but they are in everyday life and guns have importance but not like knives. Knives can kill yes but are not ranged and guns do more damage.


If you regulate guns to the point where they are extremly hard to get then knives would seem like the next weapon used, so why not go ahead and regulate them as well?



> Again...I am NOT saying take away guns just unnecessary ones that people can do everything they need without them, Australia does it. Our requirements for a gun license are harder to obtain and we have had improvements because of this. Guns are a big part of peoples lives so take them away? No(Some that are unnecessary), make them harder to get? yes. By doing this alone Australia has saved lives.


Guns are hard to get especially the ones you are deaming unnecessary (these are very hard to get). The problem isn't with the legal guns it's with the illegal ones.



> Take away guns? No, make them harder to get. Try control to control the situation which doesn't mean eliminate it but have it at a reasonable level. People don't have to give up guns but the government can save lives by having control if needed.


Again guns are hard to get and the people who wait year*s* to see if they can even get a license to get a fully automatic rifle aren't the ones using them to kill people. It's the people who are using the guns that are illegally smuggled in or illegally bought on the black market that are using them to kill people.



> You can still get lots of guns in Australia, we have just try our best to keep all these illegal weapons out and make guns harder to get, which for most it shouldn't be a problem so i don't see why you are getting fired up about this because if you have a good case which could be a number of things and meet requirements.


Again you can get guns there but the guns you can actually have is very limited. There are strict laws on which guns you can own, they even put a limits on airsoft guns.



> I am not talking about taking away guns but controlling it, fighting guns with guns makes the situation a lot worse. doing it this way you keep your guns but it has a higher chance that it will save lives and *THAT* is my point.


Like I said earlier, the problem is not with the legal guns it's with the illegal guns.




mrmyz said:


> worked in japan.


What worked in Japan, there are still an estimated 50,000 guns on the black martket in Japan and apartments are being used as store houses for guns. I'm talking aparrtments being completely filled with guns. It actually created an illegal industry.


----------



## mrmyz (Nov 23, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Japan also lacks many other rights Americans take for granted, protection from unreasonable search and seizure is a relevant example in this case. It's an entirely different system of government, right down to the openly directed capitalism employed from the top down. Not to mention, we're dealing with a country smaller than the US's single state of Montana, united by ethnicity and culture. Finally, that country was bombed into submission, completely overhauled by and reformed to the specifications of the US about 50 years ago. 'Worked in Japan' says little to nothing about what will work in the US.


you forgot to mention that japan is a island and smuggling into the island is far easier to regulate then a larger body like the U.S.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

mrmyz said:


> you forgot to mention that japan is a island and smuggling into the island is far easier to regulate then a larger body like the U.S.


 How so?


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

Radar.


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

The guns in columbine shooting may have been obtained illegally.. but the fact that so many americans have guns makes it ALOT easier to obtain a firearm illegally. 

lol I wouldnt even know where to start if I wanted to get a firearm illegally in Canada. The only people I know that owns guns are americans. 

Maybe they should have some sort of law to force law abidding gun owners to keep their guns locked up? possibly keep the gun and ammo locked in separate areas? 

Idk if they already have a law or anything like that.. I admit Im pretty uneducated on the subject


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Flak said:


> Radar.


I actually misread his statement, thinking he was suggesting that the US was easier to regulate because it was larger and wasn't an island, two things that seemed to work against it.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

bail3yz said:


> The guns in columbine shooting may have been obtained illegally.. but the fact that so many americans have guns makes it ALOT easier to obtain a firearm illegally.
> 
> lol I wouldnt even know where to start if I wanted to get a firearm illegally in Canada. The only people I know that owns guns are americans.
> 
> ...


 The US Supreme Court actually just ruled on that issue; it didn't go well for advocates of extreme gun control.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

bail3yz said:


> lol I wouldnt even know where to start if I wanted to get a firearm illegally in Canada. The only people I know that owns guns are americans.


I would suggest movie production companies.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

jasvll said:


> As I said earlier, I think widespread poverty and a sense of hopelessness exists for much of the American population. The same reason violent crime is a problem is the same reason there's such a demand for hard drugs. Instead of honestly addressing this problem, the federal government has been content to address its symptoms through the ATF, DEA, and other beauracracies, creating a booming private prison industry in the process as well as a country with the highest incarceration rate at 1 in 100 imprisoned Americans.
> 
> It seems in much of this country, a gun is a measure of safety, regardless of how they feel about it. And the ones that intend to use their gun within the law aren't safer for giving it up. If they weren't responsible enough to use a gun properly, they're not likely to be able to us a vehicle, a lawn mower, a crosswalk, etc. properly. Again, you're addressing a symptom, leaving the problem (pervasive stupidity) untouched.


I asked you to suggest how we could solve such a massive sociological problem, not restate what the overall problems are. 

If we don't take small steps, addressing the symptoms, as you put it, then arn't we just pointing our fingers saying "my country is full of stupid, 'hopeless' people, but I am not one of them, therefor I get to do what I want". 

You state "If they weren't responsible enough to use a gun properly, they're not likely to be able to us a vehicle, a lawn mower, a crosswalk," implying that being responsible with a gun is a basic function. A function so simple that mowing ones lawn would be considered just as responsible as owning a gun and making sure it is never used illegally. Then why are so many people using guns irresponsibly? According to you it is because your country is full of idiots. Then perhaps we should take away your guns and lawn mowers until you figure out how to fix your education system and economy? I understand this is a blanket statement, but that is what you are saying.

I'd really like to know how you can "honestly address" the problem of pervasive stupidity you are refering to without infringing on the free choice you claim to have. Why do you not have the free choice to buy heroin and put it in your veins? Because the government recognizes there is no benefit to society allowing people to do so, thus they infringe on your rights as a human being to do so. Why are people not upset over this? 



jasvll said:


> Avoiding stupidity is my personal responsibility and if it turns out I'm stupid, well, then it seems nature is just running its course or God's plan is coming to fruition. The whole point of the United States of America is that the people are running the show, for better or worse.


Why don't they just allow the drug addicts to do drugs and let "nature run its course". They spend an awful lot on the war on drugs.


I still fail to see the benefit to society in allowing average citizens to own handguns. The arguement "it infringes on our rights" is BS, and you should recognize that. You have free choice in America? The country that does not even allow you to smoke a plant(marijuana) in your own backyard. Please. Why do they get to draw the line in the sand if the people are running the show? Shouldn't each individual draw that line for himself? And don't forget, you gave up alot more of your rights that many still consider basic after the patriot act was passed, too. Somthing tells me most people would not have voted to pass that, but for some reason, despite "the people running the show", they were given no such oppertunity. Nor did the people who are "running the show" get a chance to decide if they went overseas to fight in a war. Hmm...

I am not saying infringing on rights is justified, but it would seem to be a neccesary function. And to address your comment on selling liquor through the government, it is just as hypocritical as selling guns. Is it hypocritical to sell alcohol but ban heroin (and guns)? It sure is! Is it infringing on peoples rights? Damn skippy it is! But I think crack and guns should be illegal because they offer alot of potential negatives with few positives. It is debatable whether alcohol and ciggarettes offer positives, but my point is that infringing on rights is neccesary. 



jasvll said:


> You should probably visit my takeyourinterval.com site to find out there's no need to feel sorry for me on that point.




Cool site! Are you a writer or just a fan?



jasvll said:


> Don't see the connection. Sorry.


You used the metaphor "If we decided to put an end to farming, would banning tractors really be a meaningful change or would it just change the way people grow their food?".

So I made the relationship in your metaphor: tractor = gun, farming = shooting things. After all a tractor is the tool you use to farm. A gun is the tool you use to shoot things. People will find another way to farm, people will find another way to kill each other. No problem there. 

But what I have been saying the whole time, is that a gun (forget about your right to own one for a second) is designed to shoot things, and you, and the rest of society, would get along just fine without it.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

cplmac said:


> It's not a direct personal attack on us, it's a direct attack on the constitution, with a healthy dose of America sucks for x reason thrown in for good measure. I love Canada, I just wish Canadians on message boards would take a little less liberty bashing the States. We are after all pretty good neighbors to each other.
> 
> .


I really don't think criticizing gun laws is taking liberty bashing the States. It is somthing I disagree with, and I was just stating my opinion. Feel free to criticize any Canadian laws. I will not get offended.

Americans have the right to determine their own laws, just like I have the right to my opinion. I hold no ill will to anyone.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Apecity said:


> I asked you to suggest how we could solve such a massive sociological problem, not restate what the overall problems are.


 My answer was that I wouldn't waste time trimming one branch when the root of the problem was only growing beneath me. 



> If we don't take small steps, addressing the symptoms, as you put it, then arn't we just pointing our fingers saying "my country is full of stupid, 'hopeless' people, but I am not one of them, therefor I get to do what I want".


 Only if that's all you're doing. Addressing poverty, class warfare, corporate dominance, etc. is a whole other discussion, one which I've had in the past on this board, but doesn't fit this particular thread.

And I did not say the US was full of stupid or hopeless people, as I'll explain further down.



> You state "If they weren't responsible enough to use a gun properly, they're not likely to be able to us a vehicle, a lawn mower, a crosswalk," implying that being responsible with a gun is a basic function. A function so simple that mowing ones lawn would be considered just as responsible as owning a gun and making sure it is never used illegally.


 Only if operating a lawn mower is to be considered a basic function, and I hardly think that's the case.



> Then why are so many people using guns irresponsibly?


 Define 'so many.'

Keep in mind, nearly 100 people in the US die per year from riding mower accidents (a tool designed to do nothing more than cut grass). Over 40,000 people die per year in vehicle accident (more than 10,000 over gun deaths).

http://www.doityourself.com/stry/riding-lawnmower-safety



> According to you it is because your country is full of idiots.


 That's not what I said at all. I said 'if they weren't responsible enough to use a gun...' as a response to your suggestion that irresponsibility was an issue. I also used 'pervasive stupidity' as a synonym for that hypothetical. At no point did I say that I thought irresponsibility was the root cause, as I've stated (and apparently restated ) I think we'd be better served addressing our economic, political, and social problems if our goal is to reduce our homicide and suicide rates.



> Then perhaps we should take away your guns and lawn mowers until you figure out how to fix your education system and economy? I understand this is a blanket statement, but that is what you are saying.


 No, that's you taking what I said and adding your solution to the end.  I stopped at 'fixing the problem.'



> I'd really like to know how you can "honestly address" the problem of pervasive stupidity you are refering to without infringing on the free choice you claim to have.


 Again, I wasn't saying I thought that pervasive stupidity was the problem. I was responding to a hypothetical where that was the case.



> Why do you not have the free choice to buy heroin and put it in your veins? Because the government recognizes there is no benefit to society allowing people to do so, thus they infringe on your rights as a human being to do so. Why are people not upset over this?


 Actually, a lot of people are. Drugs weren't banned in America until 1915 (may be a year or two off), marijuana until nearly 1930. Americans had access to everything except lsd and some other synthesized hallucinogenics and were doing just fine. The drugs were banned when we let a few too many religious zealots, the majority of which came from the newly empowered women's movement, run the show as a result of manic fear regarding the 'godless communists' as well as the belief that it would improve society . They also banned alcohol, which was eventually overturned (led by many of the same women's groups ) for the exact same issues that have resulted from the prohibition on drugs, namely dramatic increases in violent crime, creation of black markets, destruction of the family unit, corruption of youth, etc. 

Marijuana, which isn't even a drug and whose active ingredient is actually produced by the body, was banned primarily due to racism toward immigrating Mexicans. America continues to miss out on billions of dollars per years from the hemp industry, not to mention the opportunity to tax a completely natural pain and stress reliever. I blame a combination of ignorance and pharmaceutical industry greed for that one.



> Why don't they just allow the drug addicts to do drugs and let "nature run its course". They spend an awful lot on the war on drugs.


 Yes, some have suggested that the jobs created for the prison system and beauracracies that now fall under the Department of Homeland Security as well as the removal of unemployed from the flooded labor pool play a large part in the reason the 'War on Drugs' continues to grow while the results continue to decline.



> I still fail to see the benefit to society in allowing average citizens to own handguns. The arguement "it infringes on our rights" is BS, and you should recognize that.


 I think that's a fundamental difference in philosophy of government, though. Both the left and the right in the US have adopted the philosophy that Americans have no rights, only privileges. Our former Attorney General even went so far as to claim that due process of law was a privilege bestowed by the government. This is the road that many other countries of the world have gone down, for better or worse, and it's a road the US can't go down without rendering the Constitution unrecognizable.



> You have free choice in America? The country that does not even allow you to smoke a plant(marijuana) in your own backyard. Please. Why do they get to draw the line in the sand if the people are running the show? Shouldn't each individual draw that line for himself? And don't forget, you gave up alot more of your rights that many still consider basic after the patriot act was passed, too. Somthing tells me most people would not have voted to pass that, but for some reason, despite "the people running the show", they were given no such oppertunity. Nor did the people who are "running the show" get a chance to decide if they went overseas to fight in a war. Hmm...


 Now you're starting to get the picture. Guess what my position is on each and every one of those issues. 



> I am not saying infringing on rights is justified, but it would seem to be a neccesary function. And to address your comment on selling liquor through the government, it is just as hypocritical as selling guns. Is it hypocritical to sell alcohol but ban heroin (and guns)? It sure is! Is it infringing on peoples rights? Damn skippy it is! But I think crack and guns should be illegal because they offer alot of potential negatives with few positives. It is debatable whether alcohol and ciggarettes offer positives, but my point is that infringing on rights is neccesary.


 But again, though, there's a fundamental question to be answered. Should the government trust a person to make the right decision or should the government's belief about the right decision be forced on that person by an all powerful central authority? The Constitution was America's answer to that question, and some of us aren't yet ready to change our minds. 



> Cool site! Are you a writer or just a fan?


 It's mine. I need to write more, but my schedule's been pretty hectic lately. Still doing the research, though.



> You used the metaphor "If we decided to put an end to farming, would banning tractors really be a meaningful change or would it just change the way people grow their food?".
> 
> So I made the relationship in your metaphor: tractor = gun, farming = shooting things. After all a tractor is the tool you use to farm. A gun is the tool you use to shoot things. People will find another way to farm, people will find another way to kill each other. No problem there.


 Yes, but that was my point in drawing the parallel. The people in question still have the desire and are still going to kill; why pretend like the method is the source of the killing? 



> But what I have been saying the whole time, is that a gun (forget about your right to own one for a second) is designed to shoot things, and you, and the rest of society, would get along just fine without it.


 As I've said, in this or the other thread, using 'they can get by without it' is not a valid criteria for government, at least not of a free people.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Damn...time for work. I'll be back


----------



## mrmyz (Nov 23, 2006)

this is one long ass thread. Boys and their guns geeze lol.


----------

