man shot in dayton

[87GT]

Yes, cause criminals obey the laws...

 

you missed the dumb meme face at the end of my post?

[CRed05]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

 

It's not a perfect article, it is cracked after all, but it does make a lot of good points that I agree with, ESPECIALLY about the 2nd amendment. I've always felt that way about people who bring up The Constitution on ANY topic.

[87GT]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

 

It's not a perfect article, it is cracked after all, but it does make a lot of good points that I agree with, ESPECIALLY about the 2nd amendment. I've always felt that way about people who bring up The Constitution on ANY topic.

 

If the bible is still true to this day then so is the constitution :dumb::dumb::dumb:

[1fast5gp]

you missed the dumb meme face at the end of my post?

 

lol... nope I didn't. :lolguy:

[spectragod]

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/one-shot-another-beaten-near-eagle-ridge-apts/nP9Rd/

 

That's a real nice area, pretty much the norm, especially in the warmer months.

[RedRocket1647545505]

This thread will have to wait until I get off work in the morning for my response...

[Green Bastard]

I'm not opposed to what sweden does in the way of everyone carrying guns. it would seem like an invitation to crime, however people would think twice about having the upper hand as it would be easier to be shot trying to commit a violent crime.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Why can't a grass roots solution be hatched here?

 

You cannot legislate stupidity out of existence.

 

Is there a way we could prevent, restrict, the bad guys from getting guns? There are all sorts of successful restrictions in America...cant drive until your 16. You dont hear about to many under age kids driving (except that "its fun to do bad things" guy). Why is it so hard to keep guns out peoples hands who should have them?

 

Is there a way to keep people from getting marijuana, cocaine, heroin? All of that shit is illegal, yet it still is so easy to get your hands on. Just because you throw out a law against it, does not mean those who ignore the laws are going to pay it any mind.

 

Right i mean who would expect criminals to listen. And i don't know specifics, but i would assume most criminals don't start out using a fire arm in their first offense.

 

Nor do they end their careers with firearms. Look at England. They outlawed firearms, and guess what? People started stabbing other people. Well then they outlawed knives, and guess what happened? People started beating each other to death. The fact is, you cannot stop it. You can only prepare yourself to prevent it from happening to you.

 

Why does it go hand in hand that restrictions for criminals means restrictions for law abiding citizens?

 

I agree; it does not go hand in hand. But it is the other way around. You restrict it by law, and the only people who are truly restricted are the law abiding citizens.

 

And there are all kinds of restrictions too. The average guy doesn't need 10 semi auto assault rifles. And if he wants them, great. But he shouldn't he be looked at a little more closely that the regular gun buyer?

 

common sense would dictate that a guy with 10 assault rifles is more likely to do an under the table sale to someone who shouldnt have a gun than the gun owner who only has 1 or 2.

 

How many guns are too many? and who exactly gets to decide that? James Holmes only had one rifle as far as I know. 12 dead and 58 injured is acceptable in that case?

 

You don't need more than 100hp. Your wife/GF doesn't need makeup. BRB, sending the police over your way to arrest you for a potential high speed pursuit, and your wife/GF for being a potential prostitute.

 

Last I checked, our judicial system revolves around 'innocent until proven guilty'. If that's changed, I must have missed the memo. You step onto a slippery slope if you start scrutinizing people for things they might do.

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

 

Sighhhh..... Here I go:

 

"Guns don't kill people. People Kill people" = FALSE

 

Cars are meant to drive. Yea, you can race them, but the point of them is to start up and move on down the road at a pace faster than a human can walk. Blaming an inanimate object is stupid, no matter that object's intended purpose. I can leave my keys in the ignition all day long and not have a single worry about it starting itself up and driving away. Same goes for a gun. I can leave that thing loaded until it falls apart from rust and not have a single worry about it pointing itself at someone and shooting them. People operate these objects. They do not operate themselves.

 

"Fire and Drugs Kill People, Too. You Wanna Outlaw Matches and Drugs?" = FALSE

 

He argues that guns are mean to kill. I disagree. Guns, as he pointed out, are meant to be a force multiplier. Same as a hammer. Hammers were invented because man was too weak to overpower something else. Same goes for firearms. They were invented because some person (empire) was too weak to overpower another. Enter the tool known as the firearm. Before guns came along, other objects were adapted in order to make the killing of humans and other beings much easier. That still doesn't take away from the fact that they do have a use. I will touch more on this later.

 

"Guns save lives" = FALSE

 

This section is full of holes.

 

For starters, he mentions the shooter was wearing body armor. Glad to see he got his facts straight...:dumb:

 

He then references a study that shows no references to where they obtained their information...:dumb:

 

He seems to side with Trayvon Martin as if the case were already decided...:dumb:

 

He mentions guns are offensive in nature and not defensive. To a point, he is right, but we're arguing semantics here. A good defense is a good offense, in my opinion. If a pull out a gun because I intend to protect myself, and then I don't end up firing it, is that not defensive? Again, semantics.

 

"Well the Second Amendment says..." = FALSE

 

He mentions it being an amendment, therefore, an add-on to the Constitution. He fails to mention it was a RIGHT. He comments on it being written during the time of muskets and now that we have AR-15s, it is somehow invalid...:dumb:

 

This leads me to my closing thoughts:

 

The overall theme he seems completely lost on is why Americans are granted the RIGHT to own firearms in the first place. It's not for hunting. it's not for sport. It's not to protect yourself from a mugging. It's to protect yourself from our own damn government. Plain and simple and rarely mentioned or understood by those on both side of the argument.

 

Let me give you (a link to) a little history lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

 

Read up on that particular event and you will know why we still have the Second Amendment. The founding fathers who drafted the Constitution just finished dealing with such a situation. What do you think was their priority at that time? I assure you it was to prevent it from happening again. The idea behind it is that the People are armed enough to rise up, form militias, and take back their country from an oppressive government. If you allow your government to strip you of this right, then how do you accomplish this task of taking back your country? Honestly. I would love to know how you do this. Tell me a legitimate and full-proof way to do this, and I'll hand over my last line of defense/offense.

 

I don't give a flying fuck how many thugs are shot on a daily basis. I don't give a shit that your 90 year old grandmother saved herself from a mugging with her .38 special. I couldn't care less that 12 people were killed and 58 were injured by a gun-wielding lunatic. (Obviously I'm not serious, because I really do care and am trying to make a point.) All I truly care about is that the American People are properly prepared in case such an event happens again, because if it does, your silly 100 homicides per year will seem quite miniscule in comparison. It happens every single day in other countries all over the world. That is the single most important thing to remember when we think about why guns have such a presence in this country.

 

I've mentioned it before, and I'll mention it again. The First Amendment grants us the right to run our mouths about our government in (almost) any way we choose. If that fails to produce the change we, as a country, seek, the Second Amendment is there to back us up. No more. No less.

[1fast5gp]

 

He argues that guns are mean to kill. I disagree. Guns, as he pointed out, are meant to be a force multiplier. Same as a hammer. Hammers were invented because man was too weak to overpower something else. Same goes for firearms. They were invented because some person (empire) was too weak to overpower another. Enter the tool known as the firearm. Before guns came along, other objects were adapted in order to make the killing of humans and other beings much easier. That still doesn't take away from the fact that they do have a use. I will touch more on this later.

 

Couldn't have stated better. If his argument was true, Bow and arrows should be outlawed, Knives should be outlawed, any sharp objects should be outlawed. If you want that take it any further, rocks and sticks should be outlawed too because humans in past civilizations used it as tool to kill as well. You can argue that bows and arrows were designed to hunt, but the same argument can be made for guns.