Quantcast
Locked: Call your Congressman tomorrow as Obama is giving his speech!

Forums - Politics Discussion - Call your Congressman tomorrow as Obama is giving his speech!

JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

LOL so great!

Let's start prohibition again, because drunk drivers kill people...seriously this "we need to ban assault rifles" is just utterly ridiculous.



Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

Because the preservation of freedom is just as much about stopping people from doing things as it is about letting people do them, since true, universal freedom is an impossible paradox.

Therefore we categorize them. Mr. Thompson's freedom to live is of a greater importance than Ms. Smith's right to buy something she can shoot for a minute straight without reloading, having been demonstrated that said item has little use for any reason other than infringing on Mr. Thompson's right to life.

Except for, you know. Protecting Ms. Smith's right to life.

And what threatens Ms Smith to the degree that she needs high levels of continuous fire?

The only thing that line of thought could lead into is the line that everyone needs all kinds of weapons for fear that somebody else could have them, and then there goes society.

I'm willing to concede that, in the short term and before there is a viable alternative, some people may need some sort of firearm, but nothing more than what is necessary to ward off an intruder or at least keep them pinned down until the police can arrive. Hell, i'd even be willing to concede matters of target practice, but even then, high-capacity clips have no good reason for existence.

Things which are benevolent or benign are welcome in free societies. Things inherently malignant are not.


As far as I'm concerned, there is a sweet spot betwee gun rights and gun control, and we ought to find it. As any gun advocate will argue, countries with very lower gun ownership rates and very strict gun control laws can have just as much violent crime as America. Gun control won't solve corrupt police forces (Russia, Brazil) and sometimes too much of it can lead to people just using other things to kill (Cuba). That being said, there are plenty of countries out there, such as Australia, Canada and Western Europe, that have moderate gun control laws, moderate rates of gun ownership, and also manage to have much lower violent crime rates. The US really needs to look at these other countries, and conduct it's own studies, to see just how affective certain gun control laws can be, and if they are effective they should be implemented.



Mr Khan said:

And what threatens Ms Smith to the degree that she needs high levels of continuous fire?

The only thing that line of thought could lead into is the line that everyone needs all kinds of weapons for fear that somebody else could have them, and then there goes society.

I'm willing to concede that, in the short term and before there is a viable alternative, some people may need some sort of firearm, but nothing more than what is necessary to ward off an intruder or at least keep them pinned down until the police can arrive. Hell, i'd even be willing to concede matters of target practice, but even then, high-capacity clips have no good reason for existence.

Things which are benevolent or benign are welcome in free societies. Things inherently malignant are not.

Maybe because she runs a watch shop in West L.A. like Lance Thomas did, being held up on a nearly daily basis and having to kill five armed robbers in shootouts over a three year period? Maybe because every bullet doesn't connect, and in such situations a determined attacker can absorb a ridiculous amount of rounds before going down? Why should some anti-gun piss pants get a veto over her safety?

And you have an exceedingly strange definition of a free society.



Batman’s Stance on Guns: “These Are the Weapons of Cowards”

Batman said it people, move along.


Now to be serious, every threat on gun control, are all the same. I can't stop smiling at each argument. I don't know why But everything look just silly SILLY ! :D

Defending ourself against Crabe people sound less crazy ...



I see nothing wrong with stronger background checks on weapons, and the banning of assault rifles. After all, why would people need assault rifles anyway?

I completely get and respect the idea of defending yourselves against tyrannical government, but lets be practical here in 2013.. Are people in America really going to open fire on the government and military if government gets bad enough? I don't see that ever happening.. If they do, they will be arrested and the government will have an excuse to tighten their tyranical grip anyway.

On the other hand, no matter what restrictions you put on guns, criminals will find ways to get their hands on them no matter what. That's what criminals do. So essentially you'll have less "good" people with guns, and more "bad" people with guns. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.



Around the Network

yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh leaders who take off gun from the people are who again? hitler? stalin? etc? etc?
yeahhhh we want our guns!!!!! like el salvador! jamaica! guatemala! etc! etc!



 

Metallicube said:

I see nothing wrong with stronger background checks on weapons, and the banning of assault rifles. After all, why would people need assault rifles anyway?

I completely get and respect the idea of defending yourselves against tyrannical government, but lets be practical here in 2013.. Are people in America really going to open fire on the government and military if government gets bad enough? I don't see that ever happening.. If they do, they will be arrested and the government will have an excuse to tighten their tyranical grip anyway.

On the other hand, no matter what restrictions you put on guns, criminals will find ways to get their hands on them no matter what. That's what criminals do. So essentially you'll have less "good" people with guns, and more "bad" people with guns. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.

It isn't about need.

Why would they need to infringe your right to own a weapon? <- this is the problem. I may never own a weapon, but I certainly don't appreciate having my constitutional rights limited because of a select few incidences.

The assault weapons aren't the issue, these nutcases would have just used a shotgun/handgun(s)/grenades/bomb/whatever to inflict just as much damage.

It's absurd to suggest that by limiting capacity of magazines, this would mitigate damage.

It doesn't even begin to address the fact that criminals have their own networks to procure weapons. Ultimately this will prevent weapons from being purchased by law-abiding citizens, and do nothing against stopping criminals. 



dsgrue3 said:

The assault weapons aren't the issue, these nutcases would have just used a shotgun/handgun(s)/grenades/bomb/whatever to inflict just as much damage.

Can civilians legally purchase grenades in the US? Just curious.



dsgrue3 said:
Metallicube said:

I see nothing wrong with stronger background checks on weapons, and the banning of assault rifles. After all, why would people need assault rifles anyway?

I completely get and respect the idea of defending yourselves against tyrannical government, but lets be practical here in 2013.. Are people in America really going to open fire on the government and military if government gets bad enough? I don't see that ever happening.. If they do, they will be arrested and the government will have an excuse to tighten their tyranical grip anyway.

On the other hand, no matter what restrictions you put on guns, criminals will find ways to get their hands on them no matter what. That's what criminals do. So essentially you'll have less "good" people with guns, and more "bad" people with guns. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.

It isn't about need.

Why would they need to infringe your right to own a weapon? <- this is the problem. I may never own a weapon, but I certainly don't appreciate having my constitutional rights limited because of a select few incidences.

The assault weapons aren't the issue, these nutcases would have just used a shotgun/handgun(s)/grenades/bomb/whatever to inflict just as much damage.

It's absurd to suggest that by limiting capacity of magazines, this would mitigate damage.

It doesn't even begin to address the fact that criminals have their own networks to procure weapons. Ultimately this will prevent weapons from being purchased by law-abiding citizens, and do nothing against stopping criminals. 


If I want a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb, I should be allowed to have it!



dsgrue3 said:
JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

LOL so great!

Let's start prohibition again, because drunk drivers kill people...seriously this "we need to ban assault rifles" is just utterly ridiculous.

Drunk drivers do kill people, so I think you meant that cans of beer don't crash cars.