Gun Debate

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

412...

i thought you meant "take me down" in terms of the general populace of america forming its beloved miltia against the govt... if you have aspirations to become Koreshian then go ahead...

I don't have those aspirations.

they wont ever ever attack the population of america... your govt that is.. it will never happen... so having arms to form a militia is utterly pointless... pointless in the respect that you'd never defeat your own army..

It happened once on a mass scale during the Civil War. It has happened on moderate scales many times in American history. And it happens on a small scale everyday when laws are passed and enforced that violate individual will.

man this whole "we must have guns... its our right" is utterly fucking pathetic... its a right granted by men... bog standard men.. not some god who came down and decreed and then fucked off... we have no rights other than the ones we made up for ourselves... and these rights can be unmade... it used to be a "right" to own a slave... got rid of that one... and we'll get rid of the gun one... quite simply

If you have "no other rights other than the ones we made up for ourselves", then the root of all rights is force, my friend. If a right is only what I can extract from you via coersion or violence, it isn't me who needs to be justifying guns.

jlew24asu

UKDave wrote:

...and that paranoia is the root cause of your problem

what is "my problem" ?

UKDave wrote:

.Fact is non of these guns are used against the government, it's an excuse not a reason...

huh? there is no reason for guns to be used against the government. why would there be?

farfromglorified

inmytree wrote:

so what's your issue...you don't seem to care one way or another...?

No, I don't care if you buy guns for some kids.

why are you in this discussion...?

I'm for full rights of gun production, sale, and ownership. That's where I am.

gue_barium

inmytree wrote:

does it matter, professor....? do you really care...?

from here: http://www.answers.com/purpose&r=67

The noun purpose has 3 meanings:

Meaning #1: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions
Synonyms: intent, intention, aim, design

Meaning #2: what something is used for
Synonyms: function, role, use

Meaning #3: the quality of being determined to do or achieve something
Synonym: determination

The verb purpose has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: propose or intend
Synonyms: aim, purport, propose

Meaning #2: reach a decision
Synonym: resolve

You're not talking straight. You said you had a main point in the original post I replied to. You said the "purpose of guns was to kill". I disagreed by saying that guns don't have a purpose, they have a function. It is the purpose of the person holding the gun, or driving the car, that propels the function. It is more than semantics, it is the truth.

UKDave

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. I'll change my statement to simply "they are not made up".

I'm not interested in "countering someone else carrying a gun". I'm interested in having the right to buy whatever I'd like from whomever wishes to sell it to me.

I know you're not. You're defending gun ownership for those who say guns are evil and wrong and enforce laws as such.

I've never claimed that I have a gun to defend me against you. You're finding circular logic only by putting words in my mouth.

OK, glad we put the first point to bed... :rolleyes:

You can't buy whatever you want, that's anarchy talk again... there are restrictions on certain things for good reasons, like they are dangerous and not in the best interest of society as a whole to be available to all. Yes I know the world isn't perfect and this is abused but you don't solve this by taking away all the restrictions you do it by fixing the system.

There will always be guns yes I accept that but they shouldn't be widely available to the general public, the whole point of a civilised society is that people are put in positions of responsibility for the good of the rest of society. You apparently distrust yours so much that you feel the need to be protected from them or use this as an excuse to arm yourself.

Nit-picking again, you claim the only way for you to give up guns is for "others" to have them and then use that as the very argument for keeping yours, sorry but circular, if it's not, show me the circumstances in which you would give up your gun...

redrock

gue_barium wrote:

Actually, the Koresh incidence is proof of the government attacking and killing it's own people.

Because Koresh along with his followers were upstanding citizens??? I understand there were innocent victims but this whole sect was rife with peodophiles, etc....

inmytree

gue_barium wrote:

You're not talking straight. You said you had a main point in the original post I replied to. You said the "purpose of guns was to kill". I disagreed by saying that guns don't have a purpose, they have a function. It is the purpose of the person holding the gun, or driving the car, that propels the function. It is more than semantics, it is the truth.

oh sweet fuckin jesus...

what's the "purpose" of the shooter...?

is that better lady...? honestly, did you not understand...? I really don't get what your saying or why you're saying...anyway, thanks for proofing my post...it's made things more clear...then again...

by the way, I give, uncle...you win...

what's the function of guns....? do you feel better, can we move on...

josevolution

i'm not here to agree or dissagree about the gun debate ,but after this latest massacre something good has to come from it no ?? i mean change the law in some way as to make it hard for anyone who wan'ts to purchase a gun it should be mandatory/law that you have to have a license to carry/buy a weapon, no please don't tell me those that were murdered died and nothing will come of it ,that would be a shame the goverment owes these family's that no???.........

gue_barium

redrock wrote:

Because Koresh along with his followers were upstanding citizens??? I understand there were innocent victims but this whole sect was rife with peodophiles, etc....

You can't have it both ways. Basically you're saying, well, it was wrong for the government to do, but what the hell, they were no good anyway. And you are also inferring that (since they were no good anyway), deadly force with firearms was ok, too.

gue_barium

inmytree wrote:

oh sweet fuckin jesus...

what's the "purpose" of the shooter...?

Usually, the shooter takes aim at a target.

dunkman

keep killing each other mentalists.. i'm outta this thread... i have to go read a guidebook on "How to set up your own Funeral Business in America"


i think i could make a fortune

farfromglorified

UKDave wrote:

OK, glad we put the first point to bed... :rolleyes:

You can't buy whatever you want, that's anarchy talk again... there are restrictions on certain things for good reasons, like they are dangerous and not in the best interest of society as a whole to be available to all. Yes I know the world isn't perfect and this is abused but you don't solve this by taking away all the restrictions you do it by fixing the system.

I can buy whatever I want, so long as I have the money for it. Your "fixing the system" just means deciding when you're going to commit violence against me for doing so. Your paragraph above implies some universal social purpose. Unfortunately, I don't care about universal social purpose nor do I believe it to exists.

There will always be guns yes I accept that but they shouldn't be widely available to the general public, the whole point of a civilised society is that people are put in positions of responsibility for the good of the rest of society. You apparently distrust yours so much that you feel the need to be protected from them or use this as an excuse to arm yourself.

I already told you that trust isn't an issue here. I don't trust my government, but that has nothing to do with why I own a gun.

Nit-picking again, you claim the only way for you to give up guns is for "others" to have them and then use that as the very argument for keeping yours, sorry but circular, if it's not, show me the circumstances in which you would give up your gun...

Telling me what my argument is doesn't make it so. Stop pretending that I'm telling you I want a gun to protect me from yours. That isn't why I want a gun.

UKDave

jlew24asu wrote:

what is "my problem" ?

huh? there is no reason for guns to be used against the government. why would there be?

In your defence should your government point a gun at you and tell you what to do...

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

keep killing each other mentalists.. i'm outta this thread... i have to go read a guidebook on "How to set up your own Funeral Business in America"


i think i could make a fortune

Umm....the ratio between life and death is always 1:1, guns or no guns.

gue_barium

dunkman wrote:

keep killing each other mentalists.. i'm outta this thread... i have to go read a guidebook on "How to set up your own Funeral Business in America"


i think i could make a fortune

I think you made it clear another time that firearms aren't entirely banned in Scotland. There is still the traditional hunting.

redrock

gue_barium wrote:

You can't have it both ways. Basically you're saying, well, it was wrong for the government to do, but what the hell, they were no good anyway. And you are also inferring that (since they were no good anyway), deadly force with firearms was ok, too.

Did I mention firearms in my post?

UKDave

farfromglorified wrote:

I can buy whatever I want, so long as I have the money for it. Your "fixing the system" just means deciding when you're going to commit violence against me for doing so. Your paragraph above implies some universal social purpose. Unfortunately, I don't care about universal social purpose nor do I believe it to exists.

I already told you that trust isn't an issue here. I don't trust my government, but that has nothing to do with why I own a gun.

Telling me what my argument is doesn't make it so. Stop pretending that I'm telling you I want a gun to protect me from yours. That isn't why I want a gun.

Nice lack of social conscience...

So tell us, why do you want a gun and in what circumstances would you give this up...

inmytree

gue_barium wrote:

Usually, the shooter takes aim at a target.

but could you define "target"...? do you mean the store...or a skeet, or a dog, or person, a desired goal, or A railroad signal that indicates the position of a switch by its color, position, and shape, or The sliding sight on a surveyor's leveling rod, or An object of criticism or attack...

you see, "target" can mean several things, please be more clear...

jeffbr

UKDave wrote:

Against someone else wielding a fire arm perhaps?

Perhaps. Or perhaps someone weilding a knife, club, crowbar, broken bottle, etc..

mammasan

As far as gun control is concerned I'm kind of on the fence. I don't think that personal fire arms should be banned. The majority of gun owners are responsible people who use them for sport. On the other hand I find it troubling that this kid was able to buy a weapon so easily. From what reports have ststed the background check to a couple of minutes and then he is off. A criminal background check can be completed in that amount of time but what about education of gun safety and determining if the buyer is psychologically sound. In New York state there is a waiting period and you need letters from community members to determine you character. A process like this would have probably prevented this kid from purchasing the guns.

I don't think though that icidents like this school shooting could be easly remedied by simply imposing stricter gun laws. Maybe in this case it might have but then again people have the option of turning to the black market.