By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Shooting at Batman Premiere - 12 dead / Your opinions on gun laws

Mr Khan on 21 July 2012
sperrico87 said:
brendude13 said:
sperrico87 said:

You both have a complete misunderstanding about our Constitution and our culture.  The Constitution guarantees, among many things, a right to bear arms, and to defend ourselves and practice our lives how we see fit as long as we don't harm others. 

You think the Police can protect you?  The Police only do what they're told to do, depending on whom is in charge.  They can't protect you from harm any more than you can protect yourself.  You would rather live in a controlled police-state than a free state?  Shameful.

If you're asking me whether I would rather live in a country where any idiot can't walk down the street holding an extremely dangerous weapon and my safety is in the hands of trained professionals, then yes.

A country where gun laws are tight is not a "police state". Infact, in the UK, we can obtain double barreled shotguns fairly easily if we don't have a criminal record and the gun is registered with the police, and a double barrel shotgun is more than enough to protect our homes, so you don't have an argument. If you want a truly "free state", why not legalise drugs and start handing out nuclear weapons to the population, there are some things we can't be trusted with.

Well, aside from the fact that there'd be no feasible way to "hand out" nukes to individual people, lol, drugs should be legalized.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that drug prohibition decreases drug use and crime.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Many people do drugs just to be rebellious againt the system, and still many others are put in prison as addicts instead of receiving treatment, which costs half as much per year as incarceration.

Some Schedule I drugs are there for good reasons, just that others are not. I see the utility in the war on drugs when it's actually fighting dangerous drugs, and not Marijuana.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
sperrico87 on 21 July 2012
Mr Khan said:
sperrico87 said:
brendude13 said:
sperrico87 said:

You both have a complete misunderstanding about our Constitution and our culture.  The Constitution guarantees, among many things, a right to bear arms, and to defend ourselves and practice our lives how we see fit as long as we don't harm others. 

You think the Police can protect you?  The Police only do what they're told to do, depending on whom is in charge.  They can't protect you from harm any more than you can protect yourself.  You would rather live in a controlled police-state than a free state?  Shameful.

If you're asking me whether I would rather live in a country where any idiot can't walk down the street holding an extremely dangerous weapon and my safety is in the hands of trained professionals, then yes.

A country where gun laws are tight is not a "police state". Infact, in the UK, we can obtain double barreled shotguns fairly easily if we don't have a criminal record and the gun is registered with the police, and a double barrel shotgun is more than enough to protect our homes, so you don't have an argument. If you want a truly "free state", why not legalise drugs and start handing out nuclear weapons to the population, there are some things we can't be trusted with.

Well, aside from the fact that there'd be no feasible way to "hand out" nukes to individual people, lol, drugs should be legalized.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that drug prohibition decreases drug use and crime.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Many people do drugs just to be rebellious againt the system, and still many others are put in prison as addicts instead of receiving treatment, which costs half as much per year as incarceration.

Some Schedule I drugs are there for good reasons, just that others are not. I see the utility in the war on drugs when it's actually fighting dangerous drugs, and not Marijuana.

I approach it from a principled position, which is that instead of saying it should continue because "parts of it are good", we should just throw the whole thing out, then see where we are.  Look at what Portugal has done with their drug laws.  They figured it out.  Eventually.



 

curl-6 on 21 July 2012
brendude13 said:
sperrico87 said:

You both have a complete misunderstanding about our Constitution and our culture.  The Constitution guarantees, among many things, a right to bear arms, and to defend ourselves and practice our lives how we see fit as long as we don't harm others. 

You think the Police can protect you?  The Police only do what they're told to do, depending on whom is in charge.  They can't protect you from harm any more than you can protect yourself.  You would rather live in a controlled police-state than a free state?  Shameful.

If you're asking me whether I would rather live in a country where any idiot can't walk down the street holding an extremely dangerous weapon and my safety is in the hands of trained professionals, then yes.

A country where gun laws are tight is not a "police state". If you want a truly "free state", why not start handing out nuclear weapons to the population, there are some things we can't be trusted with.

This pretty much.

Call me elitist, but I don't like the idea that any Tom Dick and Harry can walk into a shop and buy a gun. I'm not comfortable with the idea of just anybody with enough money having easy access to such a deadly weapon.

State control is NOT inherently bad. It can go too far and be misused, but people need some sort of regulation, or they'll just run around doing all kinds of dangerous and evil things. Of course thjere are those who will try to do it anyway, but that's no reason to make it easy for them.



brendude13 on 21 July 2012
curl-6 said:
brendude13 said:

If you're asking me whether I would rather live in a country where any idiot can't walk down the street holding an extremely dangerous weapon and my safety is in the hands of trained professionals, then yes.

A country where gun laws are tight is not a "police state". If you want a truly "free state", why not start handing out nuclear weapons to the population, there are some things we can't be trusted with.

This pretty much.

Call me elitist, but I don't like the idea that any Tom Dick and Harry can walk into a shop and buy a gun. I'm not comfortable with the idea of just anybody with enough money having easy access to such a deadly weapon.

State control is NOT inherently bad. It can go too far and be misused, but people need some sort of regulation, or they'll just run around doing all kinds of dangerous and evil things. Of course thjere are those who will try to do it anyway, but that's no reason to make it easy for them.

I edited that over an hour ago!?



sperrico87 on 21 July 2012
curl-6 said:
brendude13 said:
sperrico87 said:

You both have a complete misunderstanding about our Constitution and our culture.  The Constitution guarantees, among many things, a right to bear arms, and to defend ourselves and practice our lives how we see fit as long as we don't harm others. 

You think the Police can protect you?  The Police only do what they're told to do, depending on whom is in charge.  They can't protect you from harm any more than you can protect yourself.  You would rather live in a controlled police-state than a free state?  Shameful.

If you're asking me whether I would rather live in a country where any idiot can't walk down the street holding an extremely dangerous weapon and my safety is in the hands of trained professionals, then yes.

A country where gun laws are tight is not a "police state". If you want a truly "free state", why not start handing out nuclear weapons to the population, there are some things we can't be trusted with.

This pretty much.

Call me elitist, but I don't like the idea that any Tom Dick and Harry can walk into a shop and buy a gun. I'm not comfortable with the idea of just anybody with enough money having easy access to such a deadly weapon.

State control is NOT inherently bad. It can go too far and be misused, but people need some sort of regulation, or they'll just run around doing all kinds of dangerous and evil things. Of course thjere are those who will try to do it anyway, but that's no reason to make it easy for them.

You presume that all of us are unable to make good decisions without a level of government control?  I think that is totally false.  That's just an insult.  The vast majority of people are inherently good, and will make good choices.  Would you shoot into a crowd and kill for no reason if you were able to get a gun without submitting to a background check?  Would you stick a syringe of heroin in your arm just because it was legal to do so?  Would you drive while intoxicated and risk killing someone if there wasn't a fine and license suspension?



 

Around the Network
brendude13 on 21 July 2012
sperrico87 said:

Well, aside from the fact that there'd be no feasible way to "hand out" nukes to individual people, lol, drugs should be legalized.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that drug prohibition decreases drug use and crime.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Many people do drugs just to be rebellious againt the system, and still many others are put in prison as addicts instead of receiving treatment, which costs half as much per year as incarceration.

If drugs were legalised then there would be no deterrent for addicts, as soon as they're addicted to a hard substance they'll be as good as dead. Drugs like marijuana should be legalised though, think of all the money and police time wasted cracking down on those types of drugs.



sperrico87 on 21 July 2012
brendude13 said:
sperrico87 said:

Well, aside from the fact that there'd be no feasible way to "hand out" nukes to individual people, lol, drugs should be legalized.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that drug prohibition decreases drug use and crime.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Many people do drugs just to be rebellious againt the system, and still many others are put in prison as addicts instead of receiving treatment, which costs half as much per year as incarceration.

If drugs were legalised then there would be no deterrent for addicts, as soon as they're addicted to a hard substance they'll be as good as dead. Drugs like marijuana should be legalised though, think of all the money and police time wasted cracking down on those types of drugs.

You cannot protect people from themselves.  Try as you might, it is an impossible task and it will only lead toward the incremental stripping away of our freedoms and rights as individuals.  Tyranny, in other words.



 

curl-6 on 21 July 2012
sperrico87 said:
curl-6 said:
brendude13 said:
sperrico87 said:

You both have a complete misunderstanding about our Constitution and our culture.  The Constitution guarantees, among many things, a right to bear arms, and to defend ourselves and practice our lives how we see fit as long as we don't harm others. 

You think the Police can protect you?  The Police only do what they're told to do, depending on whom is in charge.  They can't protect you from harm any more than you can protect yourself.  You would rather live in a controlled police-state than a free state?  Shameful.

If you're asking me whether I would rather live in a country where any idiot can't walk down the street holding an extremely dangerous weapon and my safety is in the hands of trained professionals, then yes.

A country where gun laws are tight is not a "police state". If you want a truly "free state", why not start handing out nuclear weapons to the population, there are some things we can't be trusted with.

This pretty much.

Call me elitist, but I don't like the idea that any Tom Dick and Harry can walk into a shop and buy a gun. I'm not comfortable with the idea of just anybody with enough money having easy access to such a deadly weapon.

State control is NOT inherently bad. It can go too far and be misused, but people need some sort of regulation, or they'll just run around doing all kinds of dangerous and evil things. Of course thjere are those who will try to do it anyway, but that's no reason to make it easy for them.

You presume that all of us are unable to make good decisions without a level of government control?  I think that is totally false.  That's just an insult.  The vast majority of people are inherently good, and will make good choices.  Would you shoot into a crowd and kill for no reason if you were able to get a gun without submitting to a background check?  Would you stick a syringe of heroin in your arm just because it was legal to do so?  Would you drive while intoxicated and risk killing someone if there wasn't a fine and license suspension?

Of course not EVERYBODY is uncapable of making good decisions without government control; there are definiterly people who will do the right thing, but there are many that can't and won't.



Viper1 on 21 July 2012

Banning guns doesn't take the guns away from the criminals.

Does banning drugs keep you from being able to buy drugs?



The rEVOLution is not being televised

sperrico87 on 21 July 2012
Viper1 said:
Banning guns doesn't take the guns away from the criminals.

Does banning drugs keep you from being able to buy drugs?


True, true.  Also, love your signature.  The rEVOlution has only just begun.  People are waking up all over the country.