Gun Debate

Options
1…1617192122…38

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    dunkman wrote:
    they wont use guns.. bombs, jets, nuclear weapons... but not guns.

    Huh? How many bombs, jets and nuclear weapons did they use on the "Mr Koresh" you mentioned below?
    they also will not take you down anyway.... you live in a modern democracy... why would your govt ever, ever, plan on attacking its own people... thats crazy talk mr koresh

    They will not take me down? Why do you assume that when you also assume that my gun will kill someone and when you propose such in the form of a law against guns, backed by the force of guns????
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No. My defense for gun ownership is that I have a right to free exchange.


    go and buy a heart then? or a baby... go out and buy plutonium and a book called "i hate the government and i want to kill them" by I.M. Afuckhead

    then lets see how far " a right to free exchange" goes in a court of law
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    I'm not sure about others...but I'm not for a ban...I'm for making it very difficult to obtain a handgun or assault weapon....

    How difficult?
    it seems that when this debate is raised...those who are pro-gun assume that everyone wants to ban guns...

    I did assume that you want to ban guns. If I told you I want to make it "very difficult" for a child to get an education, wouldn't you accuse me of banning public schools?
    nope, just make if f-n hard to own one...and when you get caught with one, ba-bye for a very long time....

    Hehe...so in other words it's hard to get one, illegal to own one, but it's not a ban?
    how about when a gun is manufactured...the gun is tracked somehow, via a database perhaps...how about treating bullets like presciption drugs...(yeah, I know, not a 100% foolproof, but it's an idea...

    Guns are already tracked via a database. Treating bullets like prescriptions would be pointless since pretty much anyone can get any prescription drug they need today, plus what would take the place of the doctor's discretion here?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    dunkman wrote:
    go and buy a heart then? or a baby... go out and buy plutonium and a book called "i hate the government and i want to kill them" by I.M. Afuckhead

    then lets see how far " a right to free exchange" goes in a court of law

    Not very far. Let's see, however, how many guns exist behind that court of law.

    Citing bad law to justify more bad law doesn't really help your case here.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    gue_barium wrote:
    Guns and cars don't have "purpose". They have function.
    Correctly, the function of a gun is to fire a projectile.

    oooh, I love semantics...it makes things fun...!!!

    thanks for the tip, professor....my thesaurus says they are interchangeable...anyhoo, I hope you understood my main point...
  • UKDave
    UKDave Posts: 5,557
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You asked me if I believed in them. I do believe in them in the sense that they are not made up.

    No. My defense for gun ownership is that I have a right to free exchange. And the only way you can stop me from exchanging freely with others is to point a gun at me and threaten my livelihood. So what's your defense for gun ownership, since having guns is the only way you'll stop me from having one?

    Sorry but your first point has totally lost me :confused: by asking if you believed in something I wasn't aware I was claiming it's invention...

    If no-one had the guns then they couldn't stop you from exchanging freely could they, your only argument to carry a gun is to counter someone else carrying a gun, so no-one carries them or you do your absolute most to restrict access, problem over or severely minimised...

    I have no defence for gun ownership in the general public. I'm not defending it.

    Your question is circular so I can't answer it, you claim the only way to stop you having a gun is to have one myself but that you have a gun to defend you against me having one... can't you see the lunacy in the argument and that fact that you can never put down your guns with that approach?
    Astoria Crew
    Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
    Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
    Katowice, Wembley 07
    SBE, Manchester, O2 09
    Hyde Park 10
    Manchester 1&2 12
    This is just g'bye for now...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    dunkman wrote:
    when does this ever happen?? :confused:

    Everytime a law is passed that is not in my best interest.
    man you guys live in a box of fear...

    Hehe...this coming from the guy who wants to ban guns because he's afraid of them. Nice.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    inmytree wrote:
    oooh, I love semantics...it makes things fun...!!!

    thanks for the tip, professor....my thesaurus says they are interchangeable...anyhoo, I hope you understood my main point...

    There is a difference.
    What is your main point?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Huh? How many bombs, jets and nuclear weapons did they use on the "Mr Koresh" you mentioned below?

    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...


    They will not take me down? Why do you assume that when you also assume that my gun will kill someone and when you propose such in the form of a law against guns, backed by the force of guns????

    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..



    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
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    farfromglorified wrote:
    . I will always choose to follow laws that are in my best interest.
    Don't kid yourself.. you choose to follow the law, whether in your best interest or not, because there could be some nasty consequences if you don't (eg. prison, etc.). Of course, if you think you won't get caught, you might try to flaunt the law.... However you want to come accross on this board, you are just a person who will live his life as governed by society.. or.. are you one of those outcasts with a gun who will go completely doolally? Hmmm... there's a thought.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How difficult?



    I did assume that you want to ban guns. If I told you I want to make it "very difficult" for a child to get an education, wouldn't you accuse me of banning public schools?



    Hehe...so in other words it's hard to get one, illegal to own one, but it's not a ban?



    Guns are already tracked via a database. Treating bullets like prescriptions would be pointless since pretty much anyone can get any prescription drug they need today, plus what would take the place of the doctor's discretion here?


    ok, then, let's do this..since you think guns are safe little toys....perhaps we should give every little boy and girl a gun when they begin 1st grade...since we can't look to other ideas, and since some can't take a step back from the argument long enough to think, rather they like to break one idea down to a several small ones...I bet by this time, you've already had an answer mapped out for a response...

    so, how about give guns to 1st graders...they can start collecting and skeet shooting....sound good...?
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    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...





    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..



    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

    Actually, the Koresh incidence is proof of the government attacking and killing it's own people.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    UKDave wrote:
    Sorry but your first point has totally lost me :confused: by asking if you believed in something I wasn't aware I was claiming it's invention...

    Ok. I'll change my statement to simply "they are not made up".
    If no-one had the guns then they couldn't stop you from exchanging freely could they, your only argument to carry a gun is to counter someone else carrying a gun, so no-one carries them or you do your absolute most to restrict access, problem over or severely minimised...

    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 have no defence for gun ownership in the general public. I'm not defending it.

    I know you're not. You're defending gun ownership for those who say guns are evil and wrong and enforce laws as such.
    Your question is circular so I can't answer it, you claim the only way to stop you having a gun is to have one myself but that you have a gun to defend you against me having one... can't you see the lunacy in the argument and that fact that you can never put down your guns with that approach?

    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.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...this coming from the guy who wants to ban guns because he's afraid of them. Nice.

    nice that you can laugh when 32 people are lying dead... people are scared of guns... i'm scared of wasps... so what?

    you live in fear of your government, criminals, other people with guns basically... the only thing i live in fear of is Simple Red releasing new albums and perhaps leaving an unflushable shit in the office toilet...oh and wasps
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    ok, then, let's do this..since you think guns are safe little toys....

    I don't think that. Guns are quite dangerous and certainly aren't toys.
    perhaps we should give every little boy and girl a gun when they begin 1st grade...

    If you wish to pay for this, knock yourself out.
    since we can't look to other ideas, and since some can't take a step back from the argument long enough to think, rather they like to break one idea down to a several small ones...I bet by this time, you've already had an answer mapped out for a response...

    so, how about give guns to 1st graders...they can start collecting and skeet shooting....sound good...?

    If you have 1st graders and want to give them guns, I completely support your right to do so. If you don't want to give your 1st graders guns, I completely support your tight to do that as well.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    gue_barium wrote:
    There is a difference.
    What is your main point?

    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
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    gue_barium wrote:
    Actually, the Koresh incidence is proof of the government attacking and killing it's own people.

    Actually, the Virginia Tech incidence is proof of the gun owning maniacs attacking and killing it's own people.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    redrock wrote:
    Don't kid yourself.. you choose to follow the law, whether in your best interest or not, because there could be some nasty consequences if you don't (eg. prison, etc.).

    Not really. It all depends on the law. I follow street laws to protect my safety. I follow tax laws for the reasons you mentioned above. I break other laws because I know the consequences are outweighed by the benefits.
    Of course, if you think you won't get caught, you might try to flaunt the law.... However you want to come accross on this board, you are just a person who will live his life as governed by society.. or.. are you one of those outcasts with a gun who will go completely doolally? Hmmm... there's a thought.

    I have no interest in "going completely doolally" with a gun.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I don't think that. Guns are quite dangerous and certainly aren't toys.



    If you wish to pay for this, knock yourself out.



    If you have 1st graders and want to give them guns, I completely support your right to do so. If you don't want to give your 1st graders guns, I completely support your tight to do that as well.

    so what's your issue...you don't seem to care one way or another...? why are you in this discussion...?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    dunkman wrote:
    when does this ever happen?? :confused:
    probably never
    dunkman wrote:
    and if you had a gun would you point it back at a policeman who was asking you to put your hands on your head
    you are missing the point. if guns were 100% banned for civilians, whats from stopping government to turn rogue and use their guns against the people. extremely unlikely? yes but I dont want government to have that much power

    dunkman wrote:
    man you guys live in a box of fear... get out and enjoy your life
    I dont fear anything. except a few crazy ex-girlfriends. and life couldnt be better

Categories