Gun Debate

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????

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?

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...

dunkman wrote:

when does this ever happen??

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.

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

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...?

UKDave wrote:

Sorry but your first point has totally lost me 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.

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.

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.

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...?