Jump to content

Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public's Health


Sturg1647545502

Recommended Posts

Guest 614Streets
I've come to the conclusion that everyone that is for gun control is a fucking tool. There is a reason they are called crimnals.

 

Crimnals don't give a crap about laws.

 

 

Nice , James jackson slang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gun Control= Hippie tree hugging douche.

 

 

Why the fuck is it so hard to explain that you DO NOT NEED TO TAKE AWAY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS GUNS. We are not the ones committing the violent crimes.

 

I want to see ACTUAL numbers of crimes that were commited with guns that involved drug or gang violence. Then see how those orginal numbers stack up. How many actual murders were commited with Registered guns by the actual owner of the gun.

 

If they pass a law stating we have to turn in our guns i sure as fuck wont do it they will have to come take them from me.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple quotes for the conversation:

 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Benjamin Franklin

 

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Benjamin Franklin

 

You can't have a free USA without an armed populace. Period.

 

Throw your distaste for the cost away. The bill for the alternative is much steeper.

 

/thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer *** I am pro-gun, and hold an Ohio CCW permit ***

 

Does it occur to any other pro-gun zealot that maybe gun control laws aren't really written with the intention of taking guns from law abiding citizens and leaving criminals to lay waste to the population? Consider the long term effect of strict gun control; that being *the source of guns used to commit crimes will go away*. Someone hit on it earlier, how many registered gun owners commit crimes? Not many? Well then, where do the criminals get guns from? And how can we reduce or eliminate this as a source for criminals to obtain weapons?

 

Get over your quaint little "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" rhetoric and think about the bigger picture here. Just for a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's it? That's the best argument you all have? Heron(sic)? God have mercy on us. Do you people realize that guns don't, in fact, grow on trees in tropical climates?

 

OK? So since they don't grow on trees there is no black market with weapons that could be smuggled into the states? I know people that walk back across the border with stillettos and switch blades. Both did not grow on trees, both are illegal in the US. Just as easy to pack a small gun and walk back across. That isn't even a professional doing it for mass profit. Alcohol was illegal and it was smuggled/produced everywhere. If you think no one would smuggle or produce firearms if they were outlawed maybe you should lay off the stuff growing on trees in tropical climates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK? So since they don't grow on trees there is no black market with weapons that could be smuggled into the states? I know people that walk back across the border with stillettos and switch blades. Both did not grow on trees, both are illegal in the US. Just as easy to pack a small gun and walk back across. That isn't even a professional doing it for mass profit. Alcohol was illegal and it was smuggled/produced everywhere. If you think no one would smuggle or produce firearms if they were outlawed maybe you should lay off the stuff growing on trees in tropical climates.

 

You are completely missing the point. Just because something is possible to obtain illegally, does not make it logical to insist that it be legalized. You are basically saying that no laws should ever be passed, and no enforcement should ever be attempted against anyone at any time, and it is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves from a particular threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are completely missing the point. Just because something is possible to obtain illegally, does not make it logical to insist that it be legalized. You are basically saying that no laws should ever be passed, and no enforcement should ever be attempted against anyone at any time, and it is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves from a particular threat.

 

 

explain to my why we need more gun laws??

 

more like enforcing the ones already on the books. if you say we dont need more gun laws then what the hell are you trying to say?

 

*the source of guns used to commit crimes will go away*

 

ummm that will never happen. :rolleyes:

 

 

Get over your quaint little "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" rhetoric and think about the bigger picture here. Just for a second.

 

 

fact of the matter is.... "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" that is a fact plain and simple.

 

 

Well then, where do the criminals get guns from?

 

 

so your saying that every gun the criminals have... came from a registered gun owner??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are completely missing the point. Just because something is possible to obtain illegally, does not make it logical to insist that it be legalized. You are basically saying that no laws should ever be passed, and no enforcement should ever be attempted against anyone at any time, and it is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves from a particular threat.

 

 

No you are missing the point

 

There does not need to be any more gun control laws. The current laws are enough. If not to much as they are.

 

If you have such a great understanding of what should be done about gun laws lets hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are completely missing the point. Just because something is possible to obtain illegally, does not make it logical to insist that it be legalized. You are basically saying that no laws should ever be passed, and no enforcement should ever be attempted against anyone at any time, and it is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves from a particular threat.

 

No you are missing the point. You said that outlaws are getting their guns from legal owners so, if you outlaw them they will eventually disappear. We are saying if there is no longer any legal owners to take those guns from they will some place else to get them. The only thing you do by outlawing them is take them away from the people willing to obey the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the pro-gun lobby in the US is that the basic message is that 'anyone (without abridged rights) should be able to have a gun any where, at any time, since it says so in the constitution'.

 

The problem with refusing to recognize that gun control laws do have benefits, is that the opposite is insisting that no gun control law has a benefit, and therefore any laws should be thrown away in favor of a gun-rich society. Some would even go so far as to argue that it's a citizen's *responsibility*, not just a right, to carry a gun at all times in order to defend themselves.

 

Looked at from a second amendment prospective, this argument makes sense. What the founding fathers didn't foresee was the modern handgun shrinking in size and cost to the point where it is trivial to obtain one and conceal it to the point where you can be a mortal threat with little advanced warning. This is where gun control laws have stepped in and attempted to return civil society to just that, a civil landscape where people don't have to fear imminent death if they should choose not to carry with them the means to defend themselves to any possible threat.

 

My point, in summary, is that refusing to value gun control laws has just as grave a consequence as refusing to value second amendment rights. When the gun control issue comes up, and people immediately respond with "pry my gun from my cold dead hand", they are basically saying they prefer anarchy to civility. Open your minds just a little and consider that properly executed gun control might improve what has become, there is no doubt, a very unfortunate consequence of the evolution of the handgun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jeffmeden I think you are missing a big point actually.

 

Read the Benjamin Franklin quotes again.

 

Its not just the petty criminals an armed populace gains protection from. In fact I would say they are inconsequential.

 

No, it is the organized crinimals. You know, those things called fascist states, dictatorships, kingships, religious regimes, and other unsavory "governmental" constructs. All of which need a cowed populace to thrive.

 

Is the United States the same as it was in the lat 1700s and early 1800s when the federals and states very literally vied for authority and power? No. But the constitutional presence of that gun-wielding amendment you seem to hate so much, and the idea behind it, were absolutely crucial to forming the entity you now llive in and benefit from. And even granting the difference of today from the land of our forefathers, don't be so naive as to think the need has evaporated just because its never been actively excercised.

 

And so - to quote myself:

You can't have a free USA without an armed populace. Period.

 

Throw your distaste for the cost away. The bill for the alternative is much steeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jeffmeden I think you are missing a big point actually.

 

Read the Benjamin Franklin quotes again.

 

Its not just the petty criminals an armed populace gains protection from. In fact I would say they are inconsequential.

 

No, it is the organized crinimals. You know, those things called fascist states, dictatorships, kingships, religious regimes, and other unsavory "governmental" constructs. All of which need a cowed populace to thrive.

 

Is the United States the same as it was in the lat 1700s and early 1800s when the federals and states very literally vied for authority and power? No. But the constitutional presence of that gun-wielding amendment you seem to hate so much, and the idea behind it, were absolutely crucial to forming the entity you now llive in and benefit from. And even granting the difference of today from the land of our forefathers, don't be so naive as to think the need has evaporated just because its never been actively excercised.

 

And so - to quote myself:

 

If you think owning a handgun, shotgun, rifle, or anything else easily obtained legally is doing anything to preserve democracy, you are pretty darn naive. What the founding fathers had laid the groundwork for was a well run militia, at the smallest necessary level, to defend the sovereignty of the people. Read: Army, National Guard, State Guard, etc. They did NOT mean every man/woman/child should have guns in their basement because one day the government might try to do something you don't like. You are going to be pretty ineffective when the revolution comes.

 

You think I hate the second amendment? You haven't heard a word I've said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...