Originally posted by CagedCrado
Just because something doesnt have a use doesnt mean that it is useless.
use·less
adj.
1. Being or having no beneficial use; futile or ineffective.
2. Incapable of functioning or assisting; ineffectual
useless
\Use"less\, a. Having, or being of, no use.
sorry, just had to respond to that. :p
Originally posted by CagedCrado
And those weapons do have a use, sport shooting and target practice. There is no reason not to allow sport shooting with any type of weapon to test your mental skill and ability with fire arms.
and noone here (that I know of) is saying that you can't sport with them. Acquire a hunting license and purchase a deer rifle.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
It isnt about self defense, it is about the right to do what you want to do.
but like everything there are boundaries to do what you want to do, I'm under 21 and I want to drink, does that mean the government is wrong for imposing a restriction on my right to do what I want to do, yes. But because others have made wrong decisions, in order to protect the majority of people, they had to pass laws that restricted consumption of alcohol by teens. Drunk Driving was/is a serious risk, especially among teens, sad but true fact. what about those that just wanted some fun, so they drugged a girl and raped her? Surely they were just doing what they wanted to do.
Sadly people have ruined it for the gun nuts, and I think it's time we establish some rules about guns and their purchasing.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Also to the person comparing gun deaths from the UK to the US, there are more gun deaths in the UK per population, even if you consider you didnt take full information from the US.
US population: 293 million (cia world factbook)
UK population: 60 million
that is a 5:1 ratio, so there should be 5 times more gun deaths in the united states, or about 50-60,000. Which there arent according to you.
I've addressed this before somewhere. I'll see if I can find it again.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
To change any of the first ten ammendments is a violation of my unalienable rights, and will be the end of my residency in the united states. To outlaw firearms is the same as outlawing freedom of speech. The same as if they outlawed computers or star wars or the media, or whatever you liberals do for entertainment.
please cut the mindless bull****ting and slander. Restricting your having of weapons is not equatable to having your freedom of speech taken away. I have yet to hear of words killing someone. Also, you aren't legally capable of buying a nuclear bomb, but it seems that it's well within your rights to buy one, why aren't you protesting that? Or do you think that's another liberal ploy to infringe on your rights? Sure you have rights, but so do others.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
I dont own guns, but i know an infringement on unalienable rights when i see one.
what about all the innocent people killed because someone wacked out gun nut shouting "i have my rights" shot them. They had rights too, the right to live. The people purposefully gunned down with legally purchased assualt rifles, ak-47's, m16's, and other various AR's. What about their rights?
all I propose is we ban sale of assault rifle and high caliber gun and handguns. You can purchase a single shot rifle if you present a valid hunting license and permit. 9mm handguns are fine enough to protect your home, if you truely value the skill of a shot, a 9mm is enough to kill someone with one shot to the head.
Finally, stop tossing rhetoric. Your constant blaming the "liberals" is no better (and no more founded) than hitlers blaming of jews for germany's and the worlds problems. You want someone to blame, blame the fundamentalists that cause these speaks of banning weapons, blame the nuts that cause the "liberal slandering" of hobbyists. Own up to reality, not everything is the fault of commie pinko, fag loving liberals.
[fun fact] from the 20's even up to the 50's and 60's democrats were actually the conservative bunch.[/fun fact]
Hunting Rifles - To be kept locked up until certain seasons come about. No shotguns.
Hand Guns - Not to be taken off your property; PERIOD. No handguns bigger than a simple 9mm
Anything Else - BANNED
*high fives kain*
precisely.
Originally posted by Kain
Hunting Rifles - To be kept locked up until certain seasons come about. No shotguns.
Hand Guns - Not to be taken off your property; PERIOD. No handguns bigger than a simple 9mm
Anything Else - BANNED
Why not shotguns? I'm just curious, because that doesn't make any sense if you want them banned for some hippy tree hugging reasons. They're not all that lethal unless you're a bird, or it's being fired at you at close range. A hunting rifle is far more lethal. And the term "hunting rifle" is a pretty broad category, isnt it? Any rifle, can be used for hunting afterall, yes? I know what you mean, even if I don't agree. I was just nitpicking a little. So no need to point that out.
Anyways, here's hoping someone comes along real soon and wants to ban something you like and use lawfully. Cheers!
Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Anyways, here's hoping someone comes along real soon and wants to ban something you like and use lawfully. Cheers!
skateboarding is not a crime!!
:D
Originally posted by toms
skateboarding is not a crime!!
:D
lmao
Pretty good, toms.
let me put it this way, it is our constitutional right to own a gun. and i think all guns should be allowed, everything from handguns to rifles to assault rifles. They are all allowed by the original constitution, and we should uphold that.
then I demand a 60 megaton hydrogen bomb. It is my right as an american citizen.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
then I demand a 60 megaton hydrogen bomb. It is my right as an american citizen.
I am not aware that bombs are constitutionally allowed....
bombs are arms, arms are what is used in the constitution. The right to bear arms, now give me my bomb, I want to go hunting.
if you can afford it, you can have it.... nobody said they would give it to you for free. But, by all means, you should be allowed to buy it
Indeed, my money to spend on the bomb. so what I may kill a few thousand people, but it's my right as an american citizen to purchase this weapon. I wish to go squirrel and pigeon hunting in New York.
feel free to, however, you had better hope you have PLENTY of money to buy this bomb of yours, and you better have a d*** good lawyer to keep your a** from being thrown in a gas chamber, etc
hunting accident. I had no idea they were there. ;)
Originally posted by InsaneSith
hunting accident. I had no idea they were there. ;) then i guarantee you will land your butt in prison for life on several million counts of manslaughter.
in addition, the constitution does not give you the right to use the arms, just to own them, the gov't can still limit their use, (although, IMO, they shouldn't)
I see... well they should have known better than to walk into the hunting range without a vest on, for all I knew they were a deer.
you would still get pinned for manslaughter because of your neglect. You should know new york isn't a hunting range, and it would be your negligenc for using too powerful a weapon on the range. It would be neglect, it would be manslaughter, you would be jailed, also, if someone wanders onto a range, and you shoot them, i guarantee you would get prison time
Fair enough, I wasn a rocket launcher then, and I will go Bear hunting in the mountains.
No worries about forest fires, it's okay, I was exercising my constitutional right!
Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
in addition, the constitution does not give you the right to use the arms, just to own them, the gov't can still limit their use
I think people are forgetting to read this. And aren't there international laws about nuclear proliferation, that would prevent someone from who doesn't already own nuclear weapons from getting them?
Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
I think people are forgetting to read this. And aren't there international laws about nuclear proliferation, that would prevent someone from who doesn't already own nuclear weapons from getting them?
they are not reading that... crazy folk
and you are correct about the second part, although i think i still had a point
Hunting Rifles - To be kept locked up until certain seasons come about. No shotguns.
Hand Guns - Not to be taken off your property; PERIOD. No handguns bigger than a simple 9mm
Anything Else - BANNEDCorrect me if I'm wrong, Kain, but wasn't the right to bear arms put into the US constitution to make sure that the people could defend themselves against a corrupt, undemocratic government, should the need arise?
How will they do that with handguns and the odd hunting rifle? :confused:
It makes sense that the law-abiding public should have whatever weaponry they like. Criminals will get their fully automatic guns in spite of laws, not because of them.
Originally posted by Spider AL
Correct me if I'm wrong, Kain, but wasn't the right to bear arms put into the US constitution to make sure that the people could defend themselves against a corrupt, undemocratic government, should the need arise?
Where was the revolution when Bush came into power?!
It's not the smartest thing in there. However will instaure a dictatorship on a country is sure to have the backing of the army.
but does anyone seriously foresee a time when the general population of the US is going to rise up and overthrow a corrupt government? Cos i can't see that i can.
It made sense to add it to the constitution at the time, and after the war of independence... but i hardly think we are in the same situation these days.
If the constitution is to allow guns to protect democracy, then it doesn't protect their use for self defence or hunting, does it?
umm, im pretty sure the constitution never said that they were to be used to protect democracy, that may have been the original reason they though of it, but if it were only for that reason, that would hve been written in, it allows, for the u.s. citizen to bear arms
we were given the right to overthrow the current government should it become too powerful, by means of protest or use of arms. But then again, noone excercises that right anymore. :(
probably because our government isn't too powerful, yet
Patriot Act my man, patriot act.
Tons of people being unlawfully imprisoned because an officer had a hunch, or a bad feeling. People being held without trial, families not notified for days, they get no phone calls. Unlawful searches of private information, random unlawful and unwaranted phone taps.
not to mention unwarranted searches of private property (aka houses).
I'm pretty sure they've become a wee bit too powerful.
it may be wrong, but not too powerful, and i would much rather have their hunches be wrong, then have them be right and have nobody act on it...
BTW, you don't seem like the kinda guy to ever join the military, are you
Actually I've often thought about it. And I come from a military family.
interesting... you just don't come off as that sort of guy... i apologize for judging you as not someone to join the military, if i may ask, what branch? again, i will pass a judgement, and say it wasn't the marines or Navy
Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
again, i will pass a judgement, and say it wasn't the marines or Navy
I think passing judgement on something you've already shown yourself to be wrong on is a bad idea. That's how you step on toes at the same time you put your foot in your mouth.
And why not marines or Navy? Just curious why Army or Airforce seems more likely for Sith....:giveup:
Lol, actually Marines and Navy were my considerations. My uncle served as a navy SEAL. Both my Opas were marines. My mothers father fought in the Korean war. My fathers father Served in World War 2 and the Korean War.
because the marines and Navy are a more conservative bunch of soldiers, however, seeing his family ties to those two branches, i can see why he would choose those, as if i had family ties to the army or AF i would join those instead, even though i prefer the environment of Navy and marines, thanks for the insight sith
Yes the Navy. Stuck on a boat for several months with 2000 other men :D(talking about an aircraft carrier here).
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Stuck on a boat for several months with 2000 other men :D eheeheeheeheeheehe, the odds are in my favour! <_< >_>
what?
I hate guns (
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2491946,00.html)
At what point do we say enough is enough?
And more guns certainly isn't the answer. If more of those kids had had guns MORE people would be dead.
She was about to turn 18 :(
And more guns certainly isn't the answer. If more of those kids had had guns MORE people would be dead. Hm. Guns don't help, but I think one should focus on eradicating the culture of fear in the US before you start limiting gun-ownership. Any measures to limit gun-ownership will naturally make those who own guns nervous. And that can't be a good thing. :( Rather worrying, in fact.
I dont necessarily think that banning guns is going to help. But when I hear of things like this and I hear people saying they need guns to protect themselves. Well, it makes me sad.
I've been known to get severely depressed over the state of the world. In fact, sometimes I consider my life to be one long search for a way to change things.
One long, hopeless road, paved with the dreams of the innocent, lined with the weeds of popular apathy, which are watered by the tears of the multitudes.
Still, you have to laugh, don't you.
:joy:
To all the anti gun nutty hippies, who are obviously the minority according to the poll, I offer you this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-29-sword-death_x.htm)
Yeah, it's too bad we have violence of any sort. And that we have guns to help engage in violence. But those are the facts. We as a species are not able nor ready to lay down our arms. So we won't. It's that simple. With or without guns, people will engage in, and fall victim to violence. If you simply must have a big cause to champion and crusade against, try doing something about violence. Your chances of getting rid of that are as realistic as getting rid of guns.
I don't think anyone here is saying guns are the only reason we have violence, it's just it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than it is a sword or knife. it's easier to live from a knife or sword wound than from a gunshot wound. Also swords and knives only work at short distance (unless you throw them <_<). And I'm not saying get rid of all guns, just the ones the average citizen DOES NOT NEED. What average citizen needs an assault rifle? Do you really need or have to have an AK-47? no. You can say I don't need models or a computer, but they are less likely to be used to kill someone or cause fatal injury. They've put restriction on alcohol, cigarettes, and cars. So why not guns?
As usual, InsaneSith, you make good and valid points.The problem I have here seems to lie in a piss-poor definitions of terms. What you define as something the "average citizen DOES NOT NEED", I consider a harmless hobby, not unlike watching football, or playing softball, or countless other lawfull activities that are not needed and can possibly cause injury or even death. I'm not saying those activities are the same, or share statistics. Just that both are lawfull, and if done properly can be harmless.
Also what you, and lots of ignorant people consider an "assault weapon", I call just a regular ol' gun with purely cosmetic changes. Keep in mind that the only difference in what keeps a rifle from being called an assault rifle is almost always APPEARANCE ONLY and the letter of the law. Not the intent of the law. Nothing about the functionality of the weapons is different. The rate of fire is the same, the same ammunition is used, and in most cases, the cosmetic changes made can actually reduce the level of accuracy, making them less lethal.
My last comment regards yours.
They've put restriction on alcohol, cigarettes, and cars. So why not guns? What restrictions on alcohol, cigarettes, and cars would you be talking about? Oh, you mean really ****ing high taxes? So if you can afford the weapons, you should be able to have what you want?
Originally posted by CapNColostomy
What restrictions on alcohol, cigarettes, and cars would you be talking about? Oh, you mean really ****ing high taxes? So if you can afford the weapons, you should be able to have what you want? I mean age wise, and the kinds you can purchase. Certain kinds of Vodka are not able to be bought, atleast not in Texas, ones over a certain proof or size. Same with whiskeys. Certian features on cars are illegal, you can no longer smoke a filterless cigarette without being fined (wtf?).
The common reference of assualt rifle would be your fully automatic high caliber rifle. Usually AK-47 or m16 or what have you.
stupid people cause restriction and in the end the harmless people get punished for it, but it does help decrease the idiotic accidents that happen.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
you can no longer smoke a filterless cigarette without being fined (wtf?).
WTF indeed. That's a new one on me.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
The common reference of assualt rifle would be your fully automatic high caliber rifle. Usually AK-47 or m16 or what have you.
Yeah, I kinda gathered that. But I like to be nitpicky when it comes to this subject simply because lots of people assume the term assault weapon ALWAYS means automatic weapons. You've seperated yourself from that crowd, and I applaud you for that. I agree that there really is no practical use for the "average citizen" to have automatic weapons, although I can't say honestly that I wouldn't like to have one or two myself.;)
Originally posted by InsaneSith
stupid people cause restriction and in the end the harmless people get punished for it, but it does help decrease the idiotic accidents that happen.
Well said, and I agree. It's a shame. Unfortunately it also causes people to make impromptu swords to behead their coworkers. I'm not sure there's a lesser of two evils to be found there.
But a coworker with an impromptu sword can be run away from, and he can do nothing if he can't catch you.
A coworker with a fully automatic weapon can easily shoot you in the back :(
Like I said, I don't want guns banned, but I do want more restrictions on guns. If we can't teach kids to be responsible with them, they shouldn't HAVE them.
it is interesting to see the gulf of understanding that exists on this issue. Those of us that have grown up in countries without guns just can't really imagine anyone wanting one, or any way that having MORE guns in circulation could make things better... but those of you that have grown up with a gun culture can't see any reason not to have guns. Most interesting...
Originally posted by ET Warrior
But a coworker with an impromptu sword can be run away from, and he can do nothing if he can't catch you.
Originally posted by CapNColostomy
To all the anti gun nutty hippies, who are obviously the minority according to the poll, I offer you this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-29-sword-death_x.htm)
That's interesting. The guy with a nearly severed head might have something to say about how easy you seem to think it is to run from a sword weilding coworker were he alive and able to do so.
It certainly seems unusual that the other man wouldn't be able to escape, if all the OTHER employees got out....but at least in THIS case, the ONLY person who got injured was the man who was intended to be injured.
How often do you hear of shooting crimes where some innocent 12 year old died from a stray bullet?
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I say we should be allowed to have any weopon we want! we should have assault rifles and the best bullet proof armor availible!
-the criminals have weopons WE need weopons and armor to defend ourselves! I think I'll just stay up here in Canada... :)