( search forums )
So waddya yall thinka the U.N. Gun Ban?
Soldat Forums - Misc - The Lounge
peemonkey
May 22, 2006, 5:54 am
Search around for it on the internets. They want to take my guns away. If this happens, I'm going to the Alamo with a big "[CENSORED] you" sign and lots of ammunition.

?
May 22, 2006, 5:57 am
make sure to aim below the waist

Vijchtidoodah
May 22, 2006, 8:52 am
As if it would actually work. I'd rather keep my guns...

Milkman Dan
May 22, 2006, 8:57 am
 Quote:Originally posted by VijchtidoodahAs if it would actually work. I'd rather keep my guns...

You have guns? or are you refering to your muscles again -_-

SuperKill
May 22, 2006, 9:44 am
UN is [CENSORED]ing retarded.
some days ago 2 UN jeeps were in my city for hell knows why, anyway the first one parked real far from the sidewalk, while the second one was going in like 5 or maybe 10 KPH (2-4MPH) and managed to hit the first jeep. the drivers then stepped out of the vehicles, looked at eachother, then switched jeeps and left the place.

that left a very big WTF feeling around the area.

Soulsnipa
May 22, 2006, 11:26 am
[CENSORED] guns lift weights.

Vijchtidoodah
May 22, 2006, 11:31 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Milkman DanYou have guns? or are you refering to your muscles again -_-


I'm American, we all have guns.

MOFO NOFO
May 22, 2006, 2:15 pm
I'm australian we all dont have guns.

Elephant_Hunter
May 22, 2006, 3:14 pm
I don't think that any American citizen needs a gun. Never had to use one myself, and I hope that I never will. If you want to use guns, join the military/police. At least then you get some proper training. Oh, and have a fun life shooting people for real.

Yukwunhang
May 22, 2006, 3:23 pm
Yeah, guns are for the week.

peemonkey
May 22, 2006, 4:10 pm
EH, guns are definatly needed. Now I've never had to shoot someone before, but if some tweaker breaks in at night he sure as hell won't be walking out.
Besides, we got a partada the constitution sayings it's our right as Americans to keep&bear arms.
They're not taking my [CENSORED]ing guns.

?
May 22, 2006, 5:49 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah Quote:Originally posted by Milkman DanYou have guns? or are you refering to your muscles again -_-


I'm American, we all have guns.

*Looks around* Yep he is right, i just found two i never knew i had.

Deleted User
May 22, 2006, 6:06 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterI don't think that any American citizen needs a gun. Never had to use one myself, and I hope that I never will. If you want to use guns, join the military/police. At least then you get some proper training. Oh, and have a fun life shooting people for real.




I don't much care what other countries want to do with their laws for guns, all I know is that when this country was founded it was written into the constitution that Americans have the rite to keep and bear firearms. Now if you dont like that then try and ammend the constitution, but as long as the constitution still says that you can all leave me and my Firearms alone. Frankly I'd be more worried to be in the company of somone who does not like people to have guns than somone who's fine with it. If they're stupid enough to let themselves be defensless against robbers and their own government then what are they going to do to me? The rite to keep and bear firearms in the constitution was for ones defense and in the case of the government disobeying the constituion and not correcting it to rebel against it. So go be defenseless and leave us who have a shred of common sense alone





EDIT: Oh and peemonkey, the U.S. is not part of the U.N. :p

Deleted User
May 22, 2006, 6:41 pm
*tear*..nicely said FMBM

Elephant_Hunter
May 22, 2006, 7:23 pm
 Quote:Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Are you part of a well regulated Militia? I think not.

A gun makes it so much easier to kill. You don't have that right. You are not the law. You aren't even reading the constitution correctly, so how can we trust you to tell a robber from a child?

You know what? F* that. What if the robber was a child? Are you going to kill him/her? Do you have the intuition to make that kind of split-second decision?

And to think, you are calling me scary.

AerialAssault
May 22, 2006, 7:40 pm
Gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Elephant_Hunter
May 22, 2006, 7:49 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by AerialAssaultGun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Law abiding citizens would have no good use for a gun.

 Quote:
(11:42:54 AM) Ender: when a criminal is found with a gun it hits the news here in holland :o



?
May 22, 2006, 8:30 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_Hunter Quote:Originally posted by AerialAssaultGun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Law abiding citizens would have no good use for a gun.

 Quote:
(11:42:54 AM) Ender: when a criminal is found with a gun it hits the news here in holland :o





Some people just like guns, they are fun to use and useful if your going hunting, i tried hunting without a gun once, but i couldn't throw a bullet fast enough :(

Anyway, guns DO protect people, especially if you live away from town like me. After dark no one answers the front door without a gun or some type of weapon in hand at my house.


Elephant_Hunter
May 22, 2006, 9:27 pm
Look, I was raised on a farm. We were also "away from town" as you might say. We had no [working] guns on our property, and I've lived a good 18 years without seeing a bullet fired. Nobody robbed our farm, and nobody killed our livestock.

Right now I go to college in Phoenix, Arizona. I've been here two years. I still have no gun, and I've never been robbed. Say I were robbed? I'd rather give up my stuff than shoot somebody.

You don't need a gun, and it's naive to think that you do.

livingdalife
May 22, 2006, 9:49 pm
Australias rules suck, I want my right to own a Desert Eagle, and an MP40. And I want a f*ckin firing range.

?
May 22, 2006, 9:58 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterLook, I was raised on a farm. We were also "away from town" as you might say. We had no [working] guns on our property, and I've lived a good 18 years without seeing a bullet fired. Nobody robbed our farm, and nobody killed our livestock.

Right now I go to college in Phoenix, Arizona. I've been here two years. I still have no gun, and I've never been robbed. Say I were robbed? I'd rather give up my stuff than shoot somebody.

You don't need a gun, and it's naive to think that you do.

Its naive to think that guns are not needed, and plus your being a prick about it so no one is going to listen to you. Most people that have guns aren't hiding in trees on their lawn and waiting for someone to knock on thier door so they can blow the person away. Its a "if it comes to it I'll use it" deal, course for some reason you have decided to overlook that whole fact, which is really stupid, its like packing a reserve parachute for skydiving, you really don't want to have to use it but you pack it just in case.

Deleted User
May 22, 2006, 10:01 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by livingdalifeAustralias rules suck, I want my right to own a Desert Eagle, and an MP40. And I want a f*ckin firing range.


What?s so great about the mp40 other than being good for WW2 re-enactment clubs? Or do you just like the retro stuff ;)

Famine
May 22, 2006, 10:08 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_Hunter Quote:Originally posted by AerialAssaultGun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Law abiding citizens would have no good use for a gun.

 Quote:
(11:42:54 AM) Ender: when a criminal is found with a gun it hits the news here in holland :o





Yea, lets just [CENSORED] the 4th amendment too! You know why, law abiding citizens wouldn't need privacy because they would have nothing to hide.


 Quote: Look, I was raised on a farm. We were also "away from town" as you might say. We had no [working] guns on our property, and I've lived a good 18 years without seeing a bullet fired. Nobody robbed our farm, and nobody killed our livestock.

Right now I go to college in Phoenix, Arizona. I've been here two years. I still have no gun, and I've never been robbed. Say I were robbed? I'd rather give up my stuff than shoot somebody.

You don't need a gun, and it's naive to think that you do.

Fine, since you can use yourself as a universal standard then so can I. My cousin was killed by a wreckless driver, we shouldn't own cars because we can just walk to places. That sounds like a good idea, it only happened to me so I must be right!

Law abiding citizens can use guns correctly. I know, it has saved people in my life from being mugged or hurt.

Deleted User
May 22, 2006, 10:15 pm
I agree with Elephant hunter, people do not need guns. Guns shouldn't even be given to resposible people in my opinion, because they might get stolen, then used to shoot some poor kid who just joined this hip gang. Go buy a tank.

?
May 22, 2006, 10:17 pm
We shouldn't have cars either, they can be used to kill someone, take all the kitchen knives too, also burn all the trees, their branches can be chopped off and use as weapons, lets get rid of all wires too... they can be used to choke people, lets no forget powertools....

Vijchtidoodah
May 22, 2006, 10:29 pm
In the U.S., the original ideas behind the "Right to Bear Arms" statement was self-defense in it's broadest terms: literally, to allow people a way to protect themselves from others, to be able to form a militia at a moment's notice to defeat any invading enemies, and to protect their land and livestock by killing any predatory or destructive animals.

The gun still serves these purposes to this day and that's why Americans and others, in certain situations, do need guns. The other half of the population don't really need guns, but it's still our right to own and operate one if we want to.

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterYou don't need a gun, and it's naive to think that you do.

It's also naive to think that your limited perspective on the world is representative of all of it. As an extreme example, in trouble spots in the world -- places where robbery, rape, and murder occur daily -- people do need guns. Then there are places where those things don't happen as often, but are still a persistent threat to a person's safety, those people also need guns.

If the criminals of the world didn't have guns, then yes, nobody would really need a gun. But that's not how the world works.

On the other hand, I know plenty of people who run ranches but couldn't possibly financially survive if it wasn't for the constant use of a gun to kill the gophers that destroy irrigation systems, consume large portions of crops, and dig holes that end up being a place that cows and other farm animals routinely fall into and break their legs. These people have no other means of killing the gophers, so they need their guns.

Finally, the Second Ammendment is there so that the U.S. will never be unarmed in the event of an attack. It doesn't matter whether or not we finally have a functioning military -- the principle still stands, whether or not it is currently applicable.

P.S. FMBM, the U.S. is part of the U.N. In fact, it is one of the founding members and is one of only a five countries that is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

?
May 22, 2006, 10:36 pm
Besides if we didn't have guns people would find a way to kill each other, I mean murder was aroudn before gunpowder was invented

Rambo_6
May 22, 2006, 11:09 pm
In (soviet) canada we have the right to arm bears!

ho hohoho hoh ohoh hoho ho ho ho ho h ohho hoho hdADKLaaFJ *faints*

Cookie.
May 23, 2006, 12:15 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah

On the other hand, I know plenty of people who run ranches but couldn't possibly financially survive if it wasn't for the constant use of a gun to kill the gophers that destroy irrigation systems, consume large portions of crops, and dig holes that end up being a place that cows and other farm animals routinely fall into and break their legs. These people have no other means of killing the gophers, so they need their guns.



My grandparents had some rifles and a shotgun for killing those pesky groundhogs! The other side of my family that lived further north had a rifle to scare off angry bears!

vash763
May 23, 2006, 12:25 am
Elephant, guns can be used for recreational activity too

Think about it this way, you can go down to the track and race your car; you can go down to the shooting range and unload a few clips.

You can run someone over; you could blow someone away.

I think most people don't just go around shooting everyone else. And if they did don't you think that the government would step in and go "Well [CENSORED], this didn't work out, better ammend this" (just like prohibition).

If you don't want a gun, don't want anyone else to have one, don't want anything to do with them, then you're sol.

peemonkey
May 23, 2006, 12:43 am
I personally know at least 9 people who've used guns to defend themselves and others, and none of them are crazy people or anything. Sometimes people just knowing that you have a gun is enough to make them back the [CENSORED] off.
Law abiding citizens have many uses for firearms, just because your farm hasn't been robbed doesn't mean people don't get robbed, attacked, raped, etc.

AerialAssault
May 23, 2006, 1:10 am
Seriously. E.H. law abiding citizens have no use for guns other than protecting themselves from CRMINALS WHO OBTAINED WEAPONS ILLEGALLY.

?
May 23, 2006, 1:21 am
Actually some young punks broken into my truck and tried to steal it, course you have to know how to crank it up simplely cause its old :P but they took the $300 radio out of it, if I was awake and had a gun i woulda blow them away, that way i still would have my stereo and not have had to get a new one....

Elephant_Hunter
May 23, 2006, 1:23 am
 Quote:Originally posted by VijchtidoodahIn the U.S., the original ideas behind the "Right to Bear Arms" statement was self-defense in it's broadest terms: literally, to allow people a way to protect themselves from others, to be able to form a militia at a moment's notice to defeat any invading enemies, and to protect their land and livestock by killing any predatory or destructive animals.

We have Vijcht on the left, saying that the "original idea" behind the second amendment was to give regular folks guns, and the constitution on the right saying something about a "well regulated militia." Well, one of them's gotta be right.

 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah
It's also naive to think that your limited perspective on the world is representative of all of it. As an extreme example, in trouble spots in the world -- places where robbery, rape, and murder occur daily -- people do need guns. Then there are places where those things don't happen as often, but are still a persistent threat to a person's safety, those people also need guns.


As an [not so] extreme example, a kid breaks in your house at night. You take out your gun, and (naturally) shoot him. He's dead. Gone. No more neighborhood snow-shoveling boy. One less thieving brat to wake you up.

 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah
If the criminals of the world didn't have guns, then yes, nobody would really need a gun. But that's not how the world works.


The criminals in the world are those who act rashly. I've heard too many stories of "law-abiding citizens" with guns handy and a bad temper. Your perfect world is just as skewed as my own.

 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah
On the other hand, I know plenty of people who run ranches but couldn't possibly financially survive if it wasn't for the constant use of a gun to kill the gophers that destroy irrigation systems, consume large portions of crops, and dig holes that end up being a place that cows and other farm animals routinely fall into and break their legs. These people have no other means of killing the gophers, so they need their guns.


... Gopher exterminator and pest control. Come on, you think we didn't have gophers on the farm?

 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah
Finally, the Second Ammendment is there so that the U.S. will never be unarmed in the event of an attack. It doesn't matter whether or not we finally have a functioning military -- the principle still stands, whether or not it is currently applicable.


In the event of an attack that disables our military, the law is kinda out-the-window... chaos ensues... this conversation wouldn't really mean much in that situation. You'd have the guns, and I would not. I'd be dead. Happy?

?
May 23, 2006, 1:27 am
 Quote:... Gopher exterminator and pest control. Come on, you think we didn't have gophers on the farm?
Bullets are cheaper
 Quote:I'd be dead. Happy?
Well if you too dumb to have a way to defend yourself... yeah

Elephant_Hunter
May 23, 2006, 1:33 am
 Quote:Originally posted by ? Quote:... Gopher exterminator and pest control. Come on, you think we didn't have gophers on the farm?
Bullets are cheaper


There are instructions on gopher exterminator. To use guns you need trained. Now which is cheaper?

 Quote:Originally posted by ?
 Quote:I'd be dead. Happy?
Well if you too dumb to have a way to defend yourself... yeah


Hmm, those Jews didn't have guns. We all seem to be partying about that.

(sigh)

?
May 23, 2006, 1:35 am
 Quote:To use guns you need trained
No, you don't, just know how to aim it right.

 Quote:Hmm, those Jews didn't have guns. We all seem to be partying about that.

(sigh)
don't try to change the topic here

Elephant_Hunter
May 23, 2006, 1:39 am
 Quote:Originally posted by ? Quote:To use guns you need trained
No, you don't, just know how to aim it right.


Now you're just being an idiot.

Famine
May 23, 2006, 1:48 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_Hunter Quote:Originally posted by ? Quote:To use guns you need trained
No, you don't, just know how to aim it right.


Now you're just being an idiot.


It just takes a little common [CENSORED]ing sense.

Also, the 4th amendment says something specifically about search and seizure, yet we've interpreted it to have a broad meaning of privacy. Interesting how the constitution works, isnt it?

Elephant_Hunter
May 23, 2006, 1:49 am
Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Take a gun safety course and check back. You're exactly the kind of person I don't want walking the street.

?
May 23, 2006, 2:19 am
what do you me you guys? Elephant hunter is the one that went a baby on us.

?
May 23, 2006, 3:31 am
The only gun owner I have ever known that ever shot someone was a guy that used to go coon hunting around my house, and he accidentally shot himself in the foot... and practically every person i know owns a gun...

Milkman Dan
May 23, 2006, 4:58 am
 Quote:Originally posted by ?The only gun owner I have ever known that ever shot someone was a guy that used to go coon hunting around my house, and he accidentally shot himself in the foot... and practically every person i know owns a gun...

COON HUNTING??? YOU REALLY ARE IN THE SOUTH!!!

n00bface
May 23, 2006, 5:18 am
hahahahahahahhahahhahahahaah coon hunting. no black folk round these 'ere partssss.

Vijchtidoodah
May 23, 2006, 5:23 am
Ele, I'm just going to skip everyone else's arguments and focus on you. (soooo sexyyy...)

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterWe have Vijcht on the left, saying that the "original idea" behind the second amendment was to give regular folks guns, and the constitution on the right saying something about a "well regulated militia." Well, one of them's gotta be right.

Well, regular folks were the militia. In any case, the phrases in that statement do not have the same meaning now as they did then and you can't effectively tell what the original idea behind the amendment was just by seeing what its final form is. My point still stands. If you look through Wikipedia, they touch on some of the essential argument behind it.

 Quote:As an [not so] extreme example, a kid breaks in your house at night. You take out your gun, and (naturally) shoot him. He's dead. Gone. No more neighborhood snow-shoveling boy. One less thieving brat to wake you up.

No, that is an extreme example, and a flawed one at that. I have never heard of any people shooting children that break into their houses at night. Generally, people break in when they know you aren't around and they tend to be teens, not children. Either way, I would order him to stop and, if he didn't or if I saw him draw a gun, I'd shoot him in the arm or in the leg

 Quote:The criminals in the world are those who act rashly. I've heard too many stories of "law-abiding citizens" with guns handy and a bad temper. Your perfect world is just as skewed as my own.

Not exactly, I never said anything about people with guns being given a motive to use them. I was only talking about the fact that using a gun to defend yourself from a criminal who doesn't have one is excessive, and therefore not necessary.

 Quote:... Gopher exterminator and pest control. Come on, you think we didn't have gophers on the farm?

Sometimes the cost outweighs the benefit when you pay for pest control over hundreds of acres. Poisons, meanwhile, aren't metabolized as fast as they should to stifle the gopher population, and carbon monoxide asphyxiation isn't practical when you can only target one small area at a time. Guns aren't entirely effective, but at least the bullets are cheap and you can kill gophers as you see them without having to take the time away from other tasks to go find the damn things.

You are, however, correct about needing training...but all you have to do is find a person who knows how to use a gun and they'll tell you three things: How to handle a gun, how to load a gun, how to use a gun. It takes a 9 year old about 20 minutes to figure all this out and hit their target and you'll be hard-pressed to find someone that will sell you a gun but not teach you how to use it for free.

On a side note, how big was your farm and where was it?

 Quote:In the event of an attack that disables our military, the law is kinda out-the-window... chaos ensues... this conversation wouldn't really mean much in that situation. You'd have the guns, and I would not. I'd be dead. Happy?


Not quite. Chaos wouldn't necessarily ensue, and I don't see any reason why it should. Back when the U.S. was first starting out, for instance, the militia was the only thing keeping us independent. These days, the riots and chaos you're talking about typically only happen in desperate times when people aren't around to protect their belongings.

vash763
May 23, 2006, 5:41 am
What peemonkey and Vijcht said.

Captain Ben
May 23, 2006, 7:18 am
 Quote:Originally posted by livingdalifeAustralias rules suck, I want my right to own a Desert Eagle, and an MP40. And I want a f*ckin firing range.


Funny that, this kid I know at school has both of thos guns and is a loyal member at the local firing range :o BUT he has to keep all of his guns in a safe which is attached to the ground, etc.
I myself am not gun trained, but I know basic safety (ie always assume it is loaded, don't aim at anyone etc) and but that's just with old .22 rifles.

Vijcht, EH, fi yuo guys need to fuel this discussion a bit more, I'd say you should check out Hungary's revolution against the Russians in the late fifties... They drove them out for a while but then they returned and smashed them. I guess it's not really relevant, but yeah.

?
May 23, 2006, 7:20 am
 Quote:I myself am not gun trained, but I know basic safety (ie always assume it is loaded, don't aim at anyone etc) and but that's just with old .22 rifles.
add in a little commen sense and your now officially able to fire a gun :D

Swarmer
May 23, 2006, 8:39 am
Guns are awesome. I don't see how this simple mathematical fact could have been overlooked.

Deleted User
May 23, 2006, 12:30 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah

 Quote:As an [not so] extreme example, a kid breaks in your house at night. You take out your gun, and (naturally) shoot him. He's dead. Gone. No more neighborhood snow-shoveling boy. One less thieving brat to wake you up.

No, that is an extreme example, and a flawed one at that. I have never heard of any people shooting children that break into their houses at night. Generally, people break in when they know you aren't around and they tend to be teens, not children. Either way, I would order him to stop and, if he didn't or if I saw him draw a gun, I'd shoot him in the arm or in the leg



Well, not all shots are accurate. You could aim for his leg, but accidently hit him in the back, and shoot a kidney, and same for if you aimed for his arm, you could hit him in the back and then the bullet will go into his lung.

Then shooting the kid in the leg, or arm might cause the kid to go into shock, or bleed severely. We're talking about a kid, that means anyone up to 16. People can die from shock, or put into a coma, like some extreme cases. I heard that a young boy had gotten shot in the torso, and the shock put him into a coma.

Have fun.

Captain Ben
May 23, 2006, 1:25 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by ? Quote:I myself am not gun trained, but I know basic safety (ie always assume it is loaded, don't aim at anyone etc) and but that's just with old .22 rifles.
add in a little commen sense and your now officially able to fire a gun :D


But that doesn't mean if I ever get a gun I'm going to act like I'm the [CENSORED]. I'd take a safety course and only ever use it at a shooting range. And if there was ever someone in my house, I'd take the gun, force the magazine in and cock it really loudly and tell them to get the [CENSORED] OUT OF MY [CENSORED]ING HOUSE.

But meh, in Papua New Guinea (my home away from home) we have an abundance of home saftey devices situatied around the house, assuming the crooks got through the electric/razorwire fence, security guard(s), survelliance cameras, security dogs and barred windows. But no guns. WHo needs a gun when you've got a cattle prod :D

Deleted User
May 23, 2006, 1:26 pm
I'm personally tired of people who think they know what's best for me. The US is supposed to be independant and free. Let the populace own guns. If they're robbed in their own home and drawing a gun gets them killed, fine, it was their own decision. However, a knife can kill as well as a gun, as can a spoon, a bare fist, or even prolonged exposure to the sheer amount of [CENSORED] on these forums.

Guns aren't the problem, people are. Removing guns won't solve any problems. People who really want a gun will get one any way, and law abiding, gun-trained citizens will be the only ones to suffer.

In other words, let the damn people have their guns. They aren't bothering me or you or your dog, unless your dog happens to be trespassing.

Mmm, them's good eatin.

?
May 23, 2006, 4:57 pm
 Quote:unless your dog happens to be trespassing.

Mmm, them's good eatin.
A simple bbgun shot to the butt is perfectly fine for most wandering dogs. :D

peemonkey
May 23, 2006, 6:08 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by KrilliousI'd have to agree with Elephant_hunter here. Let's say a robber comes and he was going to steal something small and he sees that you have a gun, but he also has one but wasn't planning on using it, now if he sees you have gun he will have to use it and since most people aren't actually going to use the gun, they get shot themsleves.

If you aren't going to use your gun when the time comes, you may as well not have one.

If someone broke into my place I'd tell them to get on the ground in the felony arrest position, and if they ran I'd let them go. If they pulled a gun, then I have valid reason to fear for my life and I'll but the [CENSORED]er down. Shooting someone in the leg who ahs a gun is incredible stupid, you have to make sure they cannot use any weapon.

Vijchtidoodah
May 23, 2006, 8:43 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by peemonkey
Shooting someone in the leg who ahs a gun is incredible stupid, you have to make sure they cannot use any weapon.

Eh, I hope that wasn't aimed at me. I meant that I'd shoot the guy in the leg only if he tried to run away.

 Quote:Originally posted by dascoo
Well, not all shots are accurate. You could aim for his leg, but accidently hit him in the back, and shoot a kidney, and same for if you aimed for his arm, you could hit him in the back and then the bullet will go into his lung.

Then shooting the kid in the leg, or arm might cause the kid to go into shock, or bleed severely. We're talking about a kid, that means anyone up to 16. People can die from shock, or put into a coma, like some extreme cases. I heard that a young boy had gotten shot in the torso, and the shock put him into a coma.

Have fun.


I figured someone might bring that up. I'd rather save the kid if he tries to kill me, but I'm not going to try to measure the difference between a shot in the arm that saves my life and an accident that kills the kid, but still saves my life.

As for shooting someone in the leg while running away, I don't actually think I'd do that. I'd want to, but I think I'd just be relieved that the guy is out of my house.

Ok
May 23, 2006, 8:48 pm
Erm... guns ...
I saw someone said "Good cidizens don't need guns".
I wonder if that guy would say that after getting messed up by 3-4 huge guys...

Efforts should be put in educating the gun holders rather then denying guns from ppl...
Its all about education!!! we're like computers, we need a good OS instalation inorder to become stable in the future ^_^

Vijchtidoodah
May 23, 2006, 9:36 pm
Women love my hard disk.

Elephant_Hunter
May 23, 2006, 10:22 pm
You think I haven't been beat up? I've been regularly slammed into lockers, taken outside and beat on by multiple students (who had flunked several times, so they were huge to me), attacked by the wrestling club members nearly every day... Their parents even goaded them on. The teachers chose to ignore it, the police said they would "look into it", and my mother was on welfare so she could not afford a lawyer.

You have no idea what it's really like. Don't even bother saying you do, because you do not. Guns would not have done me any good as a bloody, beaten up kid. They won't do me any good now. I'm friends with all those guys now. We've sorted out our differences. You know what I feel when I hear someone say, "What if?" Rage... rage that I could put up with the [CENSORED] I did, and you're just going kill somebody.

You say that it's your human right to bear arms.
Who here believes in the ten commandments? I've heard many of you profess to be Jewish/Christian.

peemonkey
May 23, 2006, 10:27 pm
Who the [CENSORED] said it was human rights? It's the rights of Americans. Religion has nothing to do with the topic, nor does you being unpopular and getting beat up.
Let's get back to the gun ban now. Who thinks it'll go anywhere, and if it passes, what america's reaction will be.

Elephant_Hunter
May 23, 2006, 10:31 pm
Religion has everything to do with the topic if you are Jewish or Christian.

Famine
May 23, 2006, 10:53 pm
 Quote:You know what I feel when I hear someone say, "What if?" Rage... rage that I could put up with the I did, and you're just going kill somebody.


You must truly hate yourself, then. Also, this is about the constitution, not religion.

?
May 23, 2006, 11:11 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterReligion has everything to do with the topic if you are Jewish or Christian.

WHAT! Dude im a christian but i still am gonna defend myself, even kill the person if neccesary. Also this topic is about American right to own a gun... nothing to do with human rights or religion...
And if you are thinking that "thou shall not kill" means we have to hug and kiss everyone even if they are choking us out your wrong, the litteral meaning for that word(in english) is MURDER! In fact Sergeant York, a very famous hero from ww1 was a christian, and btw he used a gun :O

-edit-
 Quote:I've been regularly slammed into lockers, taken outside and beat on by multiple students
Dude, don't brag about that...

Elephant_Hunter
May 23, 2006, 11:28 pm
I was basically showing Ok that he's full of it.

...but this isn't about me getting sympathy. This is about the code of conduct that you think humans should follow. This is about the U.N. Gun Ban, morals, and killing. Lots of non-American people have participated in the discussion, so I think it's expanded beyond merely the Constitution.

?
May 23, 2006, 11:36 pm
 Quote:...but this isn't about me getting sympathy
Dang i have to rethink my whole post now!

 Quote:This is about the U.N. Gun Ban, morals, and killing
Dude if you didn't realize morals change from person to person, and don't friggin bring up killing, guns are only 1 out of TONS of things that kill people... in fact ill type out random things you could prolly go to your local mall and buy to kill someone with:
Knife
Pipe
screwdriver
piano wire
can os gasoline and a match
rope
broken glass
a pen
knitting needles
a beer mug
a beer bottle
a car
a lamp
a rock
a piece of wood
big nails
a frying pan
a pillow
a rag
a hobby knife
a glass container
compare a gun to that number of items that i just pulled off the top of my head...

peemonkey
May 23, 2006, 11:41 pm
Clawhammers have killed more people than .50BMG rounds. *shakes fist at california*

?
May 23, 2006, 11:44 pm
want to fix that peemoneky?

peemonkey
May 23, 2006, 11:48 pm
How dare you say his name in my presence again :'(
Actually I'm probably not long for california as it is, they've proposed so ridiculus anti-gun laws, such as putting a serial number on ALL ammunition, as well as having a tiny serial number on the hammer that'd apperently mark each shell fired. It's great to know the politicians care enough to make laws demanding things currently impossible and thing that would make a whole new crime genre.

Vijchtidoodah
May 24, 2006, 12:04 am
 Quote:Elephant_HunterWho here believes in the ten commandments? I've heard many of you profess to be Jewish/Christian.

I'll agree that religion has quite a bit to do with this, but what's your point?

 Quote:peemonkey...as well as having a tiny serial number on the hammer that'd apperently mark each shell fired.

The hammers already leave a unique mark on each shell fired...

?
May 24, 2006, 12:42 am
-edit-

Actaully im tired of hearing elephnat hunter shoot out crap like a busted tiolet. E.H. you can pm me if you want to talk about this more, i have stated solid fast over and over but you for some reason overlook them. Im not posting in this thread from now on.

night

peemonkey
May 24, 2006, 1:01 am
Not true vij, it's the scrapings that the rifling makes on the bullet that is unique. a hammer is just a hammer unless you mod it.
gram, post here, i love you. just post on topic :)

Vijchtidoodah
May 24, 2006, 1:40 am
Ah...then I was mistaken.

peemonkey
May 24, 2006, 1:52 am
It's no problem.
So come on guys, you think president bush would go against it or what?

Deleted User
May 24, 2006, 2:47 am
 Quote:Originally posted by peemonkeyIt's no problem.
So come on guys, you think president bush would go against it or what?



I think he would, he better :p Seeing as he's a farmeresque type person I think he'll realize just how stupid it is, and if he doesn't then in thw words of former NRA president Charleton Heston "from my cold dead fingers" :p. Immagine if kerry had gotten in though *shudders*

And EH, everyone but you has some sense behind their posts. From reading your posts it looks like you got beat up one too many times and have somthing to prove because you were neglected. We had nothing to do with your child hood and we just want the rite to do what our own blasted constitution says, so get off our backs

Captain Ben
May 24, 2006, 8:27 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Field Marshal BM Quote:Originally posted by peemonkeyIt's no problem.
So come on guys, you think president bush would go against it or what?



I think he would, he better :p Seeing as he's a farmeresque type person I think he'll realize just how stupid it is, and if he doesn't then in thw words of former NRA president Charleton Heston "from my cold dead fingers" :p. Immagine if kerry had gotten in though *shudders*

And EH, everyone but you has some sense behind their posts. From reading your posts it looks like you got beat up one too many times and have somthing to prove because you were neglected. We had nothing to do with your child hood and we just want the rite to do what our own blasted constitution says, so get off our backs


He's from Texas and I don't think he is very 'farmer-esque'... His father was the President of the US of A, so I don't think he'd be one to be shooting gophers and ploughing much. Aside from that, I'm sure Bush would be against it.

But anyway, FMBM a forum is a place where people discuss and display their opinions. I can see where EH is coming from and valid points, even though you're obviously against what he's saying.

Vijchtidoodah
May 24, 2006, 9:28 am
Captain Ben, have you even seen Dubya on his ranch? The guy cares more about tending to shrubbery on that thing than the country he runs.

frogboy
May 24, 2006, 9:56 am
Just don't tell [CENSORED] Cheney though.

As for comparing guns to cars, I really doubt the primary purpose of a car is to kill people. Sure, a gun probably has purposes other than killing or harming people, but that's its primary purpose. The word "gun" even comes, in part, from an Old Norse word for 'war' or 'battle'.

n00bface
May 24, 2006, 10:33 am
well the word p-enis is derived from a latin word for tail, does that mean it's meant to be used as a tail? in fact, mine is inverted, but that's besides the point. i'm not an expert on guns, but you can get peemonkey to tell you what different guns are used for and i'll guarantee you that most are not meant to be used to kill other people. if the primary purpose of guns was killing people, i don't think there would be such a big market for them.

Deleted User
May 24, 2006, 12:10 pm
are you kidding me? most of the ak 47's now are being used in africa to kill people. what the [CENSORED] are you talking about guns are not supposed to be for killing things. but your right that there are some guns that are just meant for markmenship and sport.......and defensive weapons still count as killer weapons.

BTW: wtf inverted?

Elephant_Hunter
May 24, 2006, 12:23 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah
I'll agree that religion has quite a bit to do with this, but what's your point?

Just wondering if religion was anywhere near as important to you as politics. Obviously, religion isn't exactly in support of killing. I'd quote the commandment, but I don't think it's necessary :D

 Quote:Originally posted by Field Marshal BM
And EH, everyone but you has some sense behind their posts. From reading your posts it looks like you got beat up one too many times and have somthing to prove because you were neglected. We had nothing to do with your child hood and we just want the rite to do what our own blasted constitution says, so get off our backs


Marshal, read. I have little tolarance for ignorant people.

Ok made a witty comment about me getting beaten up, and I simply pointed out that he couldn't have chosen a worse subject. It was one post, and I don't expect you or anyone else to feel sympathy for me.

On top of that, do you have a different constitution? Mine says that people can bear arms as required keep a "well regulated militia". Heh, maybe I didn't get the memo.

Deleted User
May 24, 2006, 12:44 pm
On the issue of legalising guns in general, not necessarily the American Constitution, I?m not too sure whether to support it either way. I might support it because, being in England, there are much less guns in civil circulation. Although that does mean that the only people that have guns are criminals and people with (VERY strict) gun licenses, I do feel safer because only the criminals that know where to go have guns instead of any random person that suddenly flips and gets really pissed off (that?s not saying that people normally shoot someone because they are mad) or a criminal that can just go to a gun shop (providing that they get past any background tests) or just steal one. Either that or I?m just sheltered XD

But I might not support it because people that really need guns, like farmers, will be pretty defenceless against robbers, animals etc. Plus the people that are very much against guns sometimes (I?m not sure how exaggerated this is) tend to be the ones that will support a criminals human rights if they get injured, like in the Tony Martin case, the robber that survived had the cheek to seriously sue Tony for his injuries. Although I?m not sure how blown up that story was by the media.

 Quote:Originally posted by n00bfacewell the word p-enis is derived from a latin word for tail, does that mean it's meant to be used as a tail? in fact, mine is inverted, but that's besides the point. i'm not an expert on guns, but you can get peemonkey to tell you what different guns are used for and i'll guarantee you that most are not meant to be used to kill other people. if the primary purpose of guns was killing people, i don't think there would be such a big market for them.


Guns are made for 'defence', wich pretty much means killing people.

n00bface
May 24, 2006, 12:54 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by dascooare you kidding me? most of the ak 47's now are being used in africa to kill people. what the [CENSORED] are you talking about guns are not supposed to be for killing things. but your right that there are some guns that are just meant for markmenship and sport.......and defensive weapons still count as killer weapons.

BTW: wtf inverted?


Yes, now tell me how many americans have AK-47s stashed in their closets? What you said is kind of irrelevant.

Vijchtidoodah
May 24, 2006, 8:04 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterObviously, religion isn't exactly in support of killing. I'd quote the commandment, but I don't think it's necessary :D

Obviously, eh? First of all, let me say that with a little more understanding of Judaism and its offspring you'll realize that the ten commandments are ten guiding commandments with quite a bit of flexibility. The one about not stealing, for instance, can be ignored if you're so desperate that you need to steal food to survive.

However, the real fault lies with your misunderstanding of one of the commandments. While I'm sure you believe it says "Thou shalt not kill," the commandment is actually "Thou shalt not murder," which is as plain as it gets -- you are forbidden to kill an innocent person, but are able to kill someone trying to kill you or your family.

Deleted User
May 24, 2006, 8:39 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by n00bface Quote:Originally posted by dascooare you kidding me? most of the ak 47's now are being used in africa to kill people. what the [CENSORED] are you talking about guns are not supposed to be for killing things. but your right that there are some guns that are just meant for markmenship and sport.......and defensive weapons still count as killer weapons.

BTW: wtf inverted?


Yes, now tell me how many americans have AK-47s stashed in their closets? What you said is kind of irrelevant.


ak47 was an example, and probably alot of americans have an ak 47 in there closet. for fun. 90% guns are made for killing.

there's such a big market for gun's because people think gun's are cool, and they probably wont ever use them against a person, but still it will kill someone.

peemonkey
May 24, 2006, 8:51 pm
I'm a total gun guy, I have a bunch, I've fired a bunch, and plan on owning a whole bunch more. Hell, in a few weeks or days even, I'll be selling guns. I've never killed anyone. I've never affiliated myself with someone who's murdered someone, but I have become quite good buddies with people who've had to kill either becuase they're soldiers, cops, or people who've been in a spot where it's been absolutely needed. Almost 100% of the guns I've fired, own, have held or plan on havings/holding/firing/selling, have not, and likely never will, kill a person. Now all these people with all their guns and all their friends with guns and none of them are criminals. They're just folks like to thier flex 2nd amendment rights. I'm law-abiding, pretty clean cut (these days) and haven't shot-a-[CENSORED].

But yes, most guns are made for killing, but that doesn't mean all guns should be taken away, because that'd leave ONLY guns for killing, be it in the hands of armies or criminals, as that's where you'd ever find them.

Milkman Dan
May 24, 2006, 9:15 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by dascoo90% guns are made for killing.
o_0

The other 10% do what?

Famine
May 24, 2006, 9:18 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Milkman Dan Quote:Originally posted by dascoo90% guns are made for killing.
o_0

The other 10% do what?


Did you even read his post?

Some people own guns, just to own guns!

n00bface
May 24, 2006, 9:53 pm
ok apparently what i said was taken a little out of context. (most) guns are made for killing, but that's not how the majority of americans use them. i'm sure the gun makers craft the gun to 'killing' specifications, but i also don't think they expect most of the guns they make to actually take a life away. bugatti veyron's are made to go fast, but you aren't going to see one speeding down the road at 250 miles per hour. same thing applies for guns - most gun owners are recreational shooters or just keep something stashed away for self defense.

Deleted User
May 24, 2006, 10:05 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by n00bfaceok apparently what i said was taken a little out of context. (most) guns are made for killing, but that's not how the majority of americans use them. i'm sure the gun makers craft the gun to 'killing' specifications, but i also don't think they expect most of the guns they make to actually take a life away. bugatti veyron's are made to go fast, but you aren't going to see one speeding down the road at 250 miles per hour. same thing applies for guns - most gun owners are recreational shooters or just keep something stashed away for self defense.


Quoted for truth.

Honestly, I don't give a [CENSORED] how Bush responds. Whatever his decision will be, will be decided by whoever pays him the most, under the table. I do know that no matter what he says this country = a giant swirling cesspool of bull[CENSORED] and cock monglers.

Melba
May 24, 2006, 10:45 pm
 Quote:Originally posted by Lapis_LazuliI'm personally tired of people who think they know what's best for me. The US is supposed to be independant and free. Let the populace own guns. If they're robbed in their own home and drawing a gun gets them killed, fine, it was their own decision. However, a knife can kill as well as a gun, as can a spoon, a bare fist, or even prolonged exposure to the sheer amount of [CENSORED] on these forums.

Guns aren't the problem, people are. Removing guns won't solve any problems. People who really want a gun will get one any way, and law abiding, gun-trained citizens will be the only ones to suffer.

In other words, let the damn people have their guns. They aren't bothering me or you or your dog, unless your dog happens to be trespassing.

Mmm, them's good eatin.


Anarchy?

EDIT: How the [CENSORED] can you allow yourselves to compare a spoon (or any other cutlery) with a gun as a murder weapon?

Coming from little Norway and all, I don't really have much of a say here since I can't put myself in your nation's situation, but I can tell you something. -Someone here likes guns too much to see what the consequences of having them are.

Fangus Deef
May 25, 2006, 1:57 am
Cite sources for said fact please, EH. And why don't you respond to peemonkey's points?

Elephant_Hunter
May 25, 2006, 3:38 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Fangus DeefCite sources for said fact please, EH.


Then I expect you all to do the same.

Fangus Deef
May 25, 2006, 4:57 am
Give me specifics on what you want me to cite and I'll do the best I can. Mostly what I've said has been from being in the recreational shooting world, and in the world in general.

Vijchtidoodah
May 25, 2006, 6:28 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_Hunter
I'm sure plenty of martyrs would disagree. Of course, there's no easy way to ask them.

People make of their own religion what they want. If they choose to die rather than leave behind what they believe in: that's their choice (and, perhaps, a good one at that). But don't expect some petty exception to the rule to prove your point -- it doesn't.

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterThat's actually incorrect. I don't know what the Jewish believe, but most modern Christians will cite "Thou shall not kill."

You keep ignoring the fact that the way things are translated doesn't necessarily reflect what they actually mean. Like Jared Diamond's guide Yali; the concepts of power, inventions, and goods can not be summed up by the single word, "Cargo." The hebrew word, meanwhile, is best used in this instance as the English word "murder."

But let's assume that you're absolutely correct this time because, as best anyone else can tell, you are. You still haven't made any great strides other than showing your incredible ability to ignore my points (which is getting a bit tiring, please stop).

 Quote:Originally posted by VijchtiDoodah...the ten commandments are ten guiding commandments with quite a bit of flexibility. The one about not stealing, for instance, can be ignored if you're so desperate that you need to steal food to survive.

Sure, you aren't allowed to kill, but you are also obligated to preserve your own life. Quite a predicament, yes? Your life trumps that of a stranger trying to kill you. Sorry, but the stranger loses -- even if you have to kill him to stop him. I wish my knowledge were better on the subject so that I could recite all the written rules for when you are allowed to kill someone, but memorizing thousands of pages worth of text isn't all that appealing to me.

Captain Ben
May 25, 2006, 6:54 am
 Quote:Originally posted by VijchtidoodahCaptain Ben, have you even seen Dubya on his ranch? The guy cares more about tending to shrubbery on that thing than the country he runs.


Lol, I don't see alot of G.W Bush gardening videos, so I'm not suprised I'm wrong.

Vijchtidoodah
May 25, 2006, 9:18 am
He's a regular Martha Stewart.

Elephant_Hunter
May 25, 2006, 9:45 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah
You keep ignoring the fact that the way things are translated doesn't necessarily reflect what they actually mean. Like Jared Diamond's guide Yali; the concepts of power, inventions, and goods can not be summed up by the single word, "Cargo." The hebrew word, meanwhile, is best used in this instance as the English word "murder."


If it can not possibly be summed up in one word, why are you insisting that the best word is "murder"? Unless the Hebrew language was so vague as to have no way to describe "unlawful killing" (murder), one must assume they meant killing in general.

 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah
But let's assume that you're absolutely correct this time because, as best anyone else can tell, you are. You still haven't made any great strides other than showing your incredible ability to ignore my points (which is getting a bit tiring, please stop).


I am citing where in the Hebrew bible the words can be found. I am referencing my facts now. I am quoting and tackling everything you bring up. Could show me what I am ignoring, please?

 Quote:Originally posted by VijchtiDoodah
Sure, you aren't allowed to kill, but you are also obligated to preserve your own life. Quite a predicament, yes? Your life trumps that of a stranger trying to kill you. Sorry, but the stranger loses -- even if you have to kill him to stop him.


This could very well be correct for the Jewish religion. There is very little about peace in the Hebrew books, and most everything about turning the other cheek is in the Christian books. I suppose that my last hinge of hope on a religious standpoint against you is that you mistranslated a word.

Unfortunately, there are no gun-totin' Christian fanatics here in the forums, so I make due with you "Jewish" folk. Hah, I might just put that word in quotes every time I write it now. It feels so unnatural typing "Jewish" instead of Jew, but that's a whole other conversation.

Vijchtidoodah
May 25, 2006, 9:24 pm
Are you pretending to be naive and blind? Really, I can't tell. If you are, just knock it off and leave, then find something better to do. If not, I'm beginning feel sorry for you.

I suppose I'll follow the points that you shoddily tried to defend once more...

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterIf it can not possibly be summed up in one word, why are you insisting that the best word is "murder"? Unless the Hebrew language was so vague as to have no way to describe "unlawful killing" (murder), one must assume they meant killing in general.

You're missing the point. I've been continually trying to tell you that you can't always trust translations to be true to what they originally meant, or what they mean in a given situation. The one about cargo was just an example of how translations can go wrong.

In terms of shooting someone in your own home, the best translation for that particular commandment is "murder." Leave it at that.

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterI am citing where in the Hebrew bible the words can be found. I am referencing my facts now. I am quoting and tackling everything you bring up. Could show me what I am ignoring, please?

That's right, you're citing your facts, but when it comes to a deeper understanding of what you're actually citing you are severely lacking.

What are you ignoring? Try reading the passage that I quoted directly under the statement about what you are ignoring. It can't be any clearer than that unless I added pink bows and a large, blinking arrow. That point is especially important because, whether or not you're correct about the word being "kill" without any deeper meaning attached (which is ridiculous when every passage in the Torah requires thousands of years worth of scrutiny and definitions in the form of supporting text) -- you're still wrong.

Yes, killing is bad. But you are obligated to protect your life and the life of those under your care even if you have to kill the person who threatens your safety. So you are allowed to kill, to take away a life, but you are not allowed to murder, to take away the life of an innocent -- no matter which religion you practice.

And don't quote "Turn the other cheek." That passage is about revenge, not preserving life. Nowhere in that passage does it even talk about life, it talks about insults. The rest of the Bible follows suit as the teachings of a Jewish scholar.

Vijchtidoodah
May 25, 2006, 9:34 pm
Citing websites is just about the lamest tactic in an argument since you can find anything you want, but this argument is about popular beliefs on religion...which is exactly what Wikipedia provides.

Judaism:
 Quote:6. "Thou shall not murder"
Killing an innocent human being is a capital sin.

Christianity:
 Quote:5. "You shall not kill."

* Since respect for life includes an obligation to respect one's own life and the lives of people under one's protection, it is legitimate to use force -- even fatal force -- against the threats of an aggressor who cannot be stopped any other way. While Catholic teaching recognizes the right of states to execute criminals when necessary to preserve the safety of citizens, the Church argues that other methods of protecting society (incarceration, rehabilitation) are increasingly available in the modern world; thus, there are now few if any cases that really necessitate capital punishment. Catholics and Orthodox (along with many Protestants) also consider abortion sinful and a violation of this commandment.

Islam:
 Quote:"....anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people." (5:32)

Islam is the interesting one since it specifies that you can only kill a person who is guilty of murder, but it follows Judaism's tenet about an obligation to protect life, so I'm sure you're still able to sidestep that one when you need to defend yourself.

Elephant_Hunter
May 26, 2006, 1:07 am
Considering that most Christians are neither Lutheran or Catholic, that second quote doesn't hold much weight. (source)

Plus, I am only citing by request. It wasn't part of my original tactic at all.

Vijchtidoodah
May 26, 2006, 1:25 am
But most Christians are Catholic, the greater majority is Protestant -- both of which hold these same beliefs.

This discussion is over. I'm not dealing with your childish antics anymore.

Deleted User
May 26, 2006, 1:44 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah
This discussion is over. I'm not dealing with your childish antics anymore.



Good choice, this obviously isn't going to go anywhere on his end. Way to be the bigger man and bow out

Elephant_Hunter
May 26, 2006, 2:23 am
Marshal, calling me childish and shutting the door in my face can hardly be considered a "bow" out.

I'll end this discussion a happy man, knowing that I was able enough to handle people's accusations and answer their questions.

Fangus Deef
May 26, 2006, 2:50 am
Okay, no more religion, no more childishness fellas, let's discuss the ban on guns. No religion, this has nothing to do with it, this is about the GUN BAN.

Famine
May 26, 2006, 3:39 am
So, since every human (law abiding or not) has the potential to become a criminal, then we should ban guns? So it is not the guns fault, it is the potential that is held in every human, at least according to your logic. From this, we can conclude that all potentially dangerous items should be banned, since these things hold the same potential that a human does, and can be used accordingly.

If we followed your logic, the only truly logical thing to do is to basically, ban life so we do not let any risk of potentially dangerous things come to be. At least, to keep your logic constant. If not, then the logic fails because it does not follow the same principles when applied to other potentially dangerous occurences.

Now, this of course, goes to the extreme. I would be so kind to assume you wish people to sustain life with all things needed. Such as food, water, shelter, and so on. With this need for life, and man's nature to survive, we come to the conclusion that guns are necessary. Not in everybody's life, but in certain people's life. They have already been mentioned. Hunters, farmers, and various other occupation which have a habit of being dangerous or almost inoperable without a gun. Since these normal citizens are allowed to have a gun then, acccording to the government, we must extend these rights to every other person. Or, we can create permits that let specific people under specific circumstances, own a gun.

This however, would not stop people from owning guns. If someone wants one, someone will get one. I suppose we could stop this by having an all-seeing government, but we already broke the second amendment, why break the fourth? So, it goes on. All the inherent criminals now have guns, and those who are permitted are off using them as their permit lists them to.


A bit more on-topic: I don't think this ban will be signed by Bush. Either way, doing so would be a breach of the second amendment.

Vijchtidoodah
May 26, 2006, 7:13 am
 Quote:Originally posted by Field Marshal BM
Good choice, this obviously isn't going to go anywhere on his end. Way to be the bigger man and bow out


Thanks.

Swarmer
May 26, 2006, 9:26 am
Oh man, I don't see how anyone could actually argue that Christianity teaches complete pacifism. Obviously it means murder, not killing. That's the definition that's consistent with what the rest of the Bible says. And don't forget the fact that this part of the argument has NOTHING to do with the original argument at all.

Not all guns are made for killing people. Shooting for sport is really popular and is even an Olympic sport. Lots of guns are made for this specific purpose. All of the "cool" guns are usually owned by collectors and enthusiasts, who enjoy owning and firing thier awesome weapons. Crimes are commited usually with just a cheap pistol. Taking that pistol away isn't going to make him less hate-filled. He's not going to be like, "Oh wait, I don't have a gun anymore, I guess I'll become a good citizen now and not rob or kill anyone."
People are confusing cause and effect. The problem is violence. Guns are NOT the cause of that, so leave them alone. The cause of violence is a fundamental flaw in humans. You can't fix this. Removing one of infinite weapons will not remove the hate.

Elephant_Hunter
May 26, 2006, 1:00 pm
Dearest Vijchty,

A silly observer might say that it was either going to be me or you. I wrote and erased of at least three "this is going nowhere" posts. At first, my thoughts were, "I'm not going to be the one to give up... this is war, and the word is my hammer of mashing things!" This is a rather childish incentive, and it wasn't driving me to write more than a few poorly contrived insults.

After some careful thought, I saw what a great learning experience this was for us both. The conversation was reaching a conclusion that we could have started to see in another couple pages. The more detailed our debate became, the more we unearthed the roots of the problem... and the more aggrivated we became.

You'll probably live your whole life as a gun owner and never kill a soul. I'll probably live my whole life and never need to use a gun. In a sense, we have both wasted time on this discussion. In another sense, we're both enl

Sweet manly love,
Elephant



Anyhow! On with the discussion. I'm not about to let one rotten cucumber ruin the salad ;)

 Quote:Originally posted by Fangus DeefOkay, no more religion, no more childishness fellas, let's discuss the ban on guns. No religion, this has nothing to do with it, this is about the GUN BAN.


Give me an example of what kind of input would be appropriate.

Captain Ben
May 26, 2006, 2:36 pm
DURHURHURGUNSHOULDBELEGALANDWESHOOTALLSHOOTINHARMONYDURHURHURDUR

ThomasMortfog
May 26, 2006, 3:58 pm
I saw someone posted "ak47s stashed in a closet" or something close, jus make sure someone doesn't get a hold of them and spray your ammo everywhere, where I live a 30 pack of AK bullets was raised to $7.49 because of the amount of crime recently. AK-47s ARE legal firearms, you can buy them at a gun store if you have a shining clean criminal record. Actually, youcan buy MP5s, AK-74s, AK-101s, Desert Eagles, M1s, Thompson LMG or SMG, MP38 or MP40, Berettas, RPK-74s, and a LOAD of other mostly military used weapons. You just need a spotless, shining clean, not even one crime on your record, and you can buy almost any and every gun ever made,

I said ALMOST... I know someone is going to go on about "You can't buy an RPG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "AK-47s and all those guns are illegal!!!" but guess what? They aren't. Come on now... Use some frigging common sense.

Fangus Deef
May 26, 2006, 5:47 pm
Only speak for your region thomas, you can't have AK47's in california unless they're totally deacivated in which case they're useless.
7.62x39 ammo has nothing to do with crime, it's because of all the conflicts around the world and how many AK-47's and other weapons in the caliber are in the hands of people around the world.

Swarmer
May 26, 2006, 6:08 pm
I wonder how much I could pay for an AK in Somalia. All those impoverished people seem to have one. How much are they? Like $50?

Deleted User
May 26, 2006, 8:35 pm
You can buy an ak 47 for peanuts in most countries. Used.