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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Social media abuzz over Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones (Gun control debate goes awry...)

Tagged games:

 

Should there be more of a restricted Gun Control in the United States?

Yes 47 67.14%
 
No 23 32.86%
 
Total:70
DaHuuuuuudge on 08 January 2013
killerzX said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle.


assault rifle? who even owns those. they're illegal. have been since 1986. and have been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934.

I live in Washington state, and at my local outdoors store you can buy M4s, Aks, and a whole plethora of other fully automatic assault rifles.



Around the Network
killerzX on 08 January 2013
brendude13 said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Guns of all kinds are tools. If you banned all tools that can do harm we wouldn't have cars to drive, saws to cut, or knives to chop.

That's a bad example, yet I see it all the time.

Ban cars, society will collapse.
Ban fully automatic and hi-cap weapons, hunters will have to reload slightly more often.

fully automatic weapons are banned.

Also, there are heavy restrictions with the use of cars. Speed limits, having to have lessons and a test before you get a licence etc. Why can't restrictions be imposed on how people use guns?

there are over 20,000 laws and regulations on firearms, you dont think thats enough? firearms are at least as regulated as cars are. furthermore owning cars is a constitutionally protected right, owning firearms is.





sc94597 on 08 January 2013
Runa216 said:
killerzX said:
Runa216 said:
killerzX said:
sc94597 said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle

Holy shit, please educate yourself at least. This topic has been discussed for the last month and you still think an assault weapon = assault rifle.

both are made up terms, 'assault weapon' is just more made up. it is a term conjured up by anti-constitutionalist, progressive statist hoplophobes, soley to disingenously confuse the low information voter into thinking certain black guns a more deadly than some gun with wooden furniture.

wow....anti-constitutionalist?  you people will make up ANY word to discredit those who disagree with you, won't you?

wha?

its simple

constitionalist = somebody who supports the constitution

anti-constitutionalist= somebody who doesnt support the constitution.

the only thing being made up is the term "assault weapon"

I'm from Canada, and as a person who HAS the right to a gun, I find it hilarious to see your backwards nation screaming about the right to own a tool for killing.  Because that's the problem here.  The issue isn't guns, the issue is people who care more about owning and collecting guns than the actual implications of these devices, which are, at their core, tools for killing.  That's what a gun is for:  killing things.  When I hear about someone who fetishizes a gun or makes a big hooplah out of it, I don't see someone who just wants to protect their family, I see someone clinging to archaic beliefs who cares more about their own rights and entitlements than the betterment of the whole.  Capitalists, Republicans, Traditionalists, they're all code for "I'm selfish and care more about myself than others."

So you reprimand somebody for using an accurate term for the context such as "anti-constitutionalist" and then you go and label people yourself. Oh how great! I'm not a republican, nor a laissez-faire capitalist, nor a "traditionalist." I'm a human being who feels that the use of the terminology of "betterment of the whole" is a facade used to take away the rights of all people (the whole), and is another form of mobocracy. But of course, you're Canadian. Why not let Americans be the "backwards" nation we are, and why do you care so much about the internal affaris of the United States? The loyalists felt the colonies were backward in the 18th century, and they seemingly do today. Many things don't change no matter the times, it seems. Yet like it or not, it was these values that made the United States great: capitalism included. It was the freedom and liberty that enabled people to make the inventions and the discoveries they had made. To take that away is to destroy the character of what's great about the United States: why so many people have immigrated to this country. So of course people are going to look at the past for answers, and certainly nothing is wrong with that, because for all that was supposedly "backwards" about this country certainly something was done right: including the constitution itself.



killerzX on 08 January 2013
DaHuuuuuudge said:
killerzX said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle.


assault rifle? who even owns those. they're illegal. have been since 1986. and have been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934.

I live in Washington state, and at my local outdoors store you can buy M4s, Aks, and a whole plethora of other fully automatic assault rifles.

only if they were made and registered before 1986 you do. if not they are nothing more than semi-automatic look a likes.



Kasz216 on 08 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
 

The difference is that those who would fight would be fighting against a tyrannical regime for liberation. Russia didn't have a concept of proper, lawful liberation nor egalitarianism when it enacted its Civil War, other than one of class warfare, and they essentially traded one regime for another in hopes of enabling one group over another through government. That is distinct from the matter of maintaining one's property and person from a state which chooses to act through force to intrude upon your individual liberties. Nobody is saying that a rebellion by White Supremacists (or whoever) can't happen, but it isn't a reason to get rid of arms or to disregard any notion of property rights, or individual rights. Rebellion is necessary in the totalitarian regimes of the middle east, is it not? Could they get out of such regimes politically? Now the United States isn't at that point, but certianly first world countries aren't immune from an absolute government. Guns right now act as deterents. The government doesn't do what it wants through direct force because it knows that if it were to disregard the people on matters as well as their individual rights there would be opposition by a majority, not some secluded, minority "white supremacist" group. And no, I don't think such an issue is a "right-wing" issue. It's an issue of individual rights which all people, regardless of their ideology should secure. Because the only thing that we have to protect us against an out of control government is our rights, and the only way to secure these rights from a forceful entity is by force.

Also your solution to the food problem is less government, not more government, Your solution is to end government support, not to enact a ban on such foods. You give people the choice they deserve as free, adults to decide what they want to do with their own life without government factors. This is a good thing. Hence there must be a way to decline violence without giving government more powers. Which to me makes it seem silly to give the government the power to disarm the population.

That first statement is going to lead into a rhetorical circle. If Americans are trustworthy enough that we can believe that American guys with guns are motivated by the desire to enforce liberty, then why not trust the current wielders of legitimate force in America? You can either trust Americans who wield force, or you're admitting that some Americans are more trustworthy than others, which is a biased argument.

Who are the "current wielders of legitimate force in America"? Well they're the people, or at least they were initially suppose to be.

The state is not an exception of the people and it's subservient to ALL people, at least in a republic this is the case. Force is not acceptable at all, unless as a reactionary step, as per the definiton of the non-aggression axiom. This includes the state, specific groups, etc, etc. If a group initiates force then it is an enemy, and that includes the initiation of force by the state.

This is not what i was disputing. You were saying that if the American people were fighting an armed revolt, it would be for "better" reasons than other peoples have in the past, and that therefore they would be more trustworthy than other peoples in armed rebellion. I'm stating that if Americans are so trustworthy, than the government should be trustworthy, and therefore we shouldn't need weapons to use against the government if we're so righteous and responsible in the first place.

Americans are either responsible wielders of force, or they're not. The alternative is to say *some* Americans would be more responsible users of force than others, which is very slippery ground to tread on.

Isn't tht EXACTLY what you are argueing though?

I'm guessing for example you don't want gun bans to extend to the military.



Around the Network
kain_kusanagi on 08 January 2013
DaHuuuuuudge said:
killerzX said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle.


assault rifle? who even owns those. they're illegal. have been since 1986. and have been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934.

I live in Washington state, and at my local outdoors store you can buy M4s, Aks, and a whole plethora of other fully automatic assault rifles.

Check again. They probably aren't full auto. You need a special permit that costs a lot to get full auto. Contrary to popular belief the guns you're talking about come mostly in semi-auto for civilians. Those AK-47s you saw probably can't even be modified into full auto without a machine shop to mill it out and the parts needed to make it full auto aren't something you can buy at a local gun store or show.

Semi-Auto does not equal "Assault Weapon"

Shotguns for competition and duck hunting come in Semi-Auto models and so do hunting rifles for deer, elk, ect.

Full auto means you hold the trigger down to empty the magazine. Semi-Auto means you can only fire as fast as your finger can pull and release and repeat.



DaHuuuuuudge on 08 January 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
DaHuuuuuudge said:
killerzX said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle.


assault rifle? who even owns those. they're illegal. have been since 1986. and have been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934.

I live in Washington state, and at my local outdoors store you can buy M4s, Aks, and a whole plethora of other fully automatic assault rifles.

Check again. They probably aren't full auto. You need a special permit that costs a lot to get full auto. Contrary to popular believe the guns your talking about come mostly in semi-auto for civilians. Those AK-47s you saw probably can't even be modified into full auto without a machine shop to mill it and the parts needed to make it full auto are something you can buy at a gun show.

Semi-Auto does not equal "Assault Weapon"

Shotguns for competition and duck hunting come in Semi-Auto models and so do hunting rifles for deer, elk, ect.

My apologies on the mislabling, however my point still stands, assault rifles are legal for purchase.



killerzX on 08 January 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
DaHuuuuuudge said:
killerzX said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle.


assault rifle? who even owns those. they're illegal. have been since 1986. and have been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934.

I live in Washington state, and at my local outdoors store you can buy M4s, Aks, and a whole plethora of other fully automatic assault rifles.

Check again. They probably aren't full auto. You need a special permit that costs a lot to get full auto. Contrary to popular belief the guns you're talking about come mostly in semi-auto for civilians. Those AK-47s you saw probably can't even be modified into full auto without a machine shop to mill it out and the parts needed to make it full auto aren't something you can buy at a local gun store or show.

not to mention doing that would be a felony





killerzX on 08 January 2013
DaHuuuuuudge said:
kain_kusanagi said:
DaHuuuuuudge said:
killerzX said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle.


assault rifle? who even owns those. they're illegal. have been since 1986. and have been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934.

I live in Washington state, and at my local outdoors store you can buy M4s, Aks, and a whole plethora of other fully automatic assault rifles.

Check again. They probably aren't full auto. You need a special permit that costs a lot to get full auto. Contrary to popular believe the guns your talking about come mostly in semi-auto for civilians. Those AK-47s you saw probably can't even be modified into full auto without a machine shop to mill it and the parts needed to make it full auto are something you can buy at a gun show.

Semi-Auto does not equal "Assault Weapon"

Shotguns for competition and duck hunting come in Semi-Auto models and so do hunting rifles for deer, elk, ect.

My apologies on the mislabling, however my point still stands, assault rifles are legal for purchase.

no they arent. they were banned in 1986, and heavily regulated to the point of obscurity starting in 1934



kain_kusanagi on 08 January 2013
DaHuuuuuudge said:
kain_kusanagi said:
DaHuuuuuudge said:
killerzX said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle.


assault rifle? who even owns those. they're illegal. have been since 1986. and have been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934.

I live in Washington state, and at my local outdoors store you can buy M4s, Aks, and a whole plethora of other fully automatic assault rifles.

Check again. They probably aren't full auto. You need a special permit that costs a lot to get full auto. Contrary to popular belief the guns you're talking about come mostly in semi-auto for civilians. Those AK-47s you saw probably can't even be modified into full auto without a machine shop to mill it out and the parts needed to make it full auto aren't something you can buy at a local gun store or show.

Semi-Auto does not equal "Assault Weapon"

Shotguns for competition and duck hunting come in Semi-Auto models and so do hunting rifles for deer, elk, ect.

Full auto means you hold the trigger down to empty the magazine. Semi-Auto means you can only fire as fast as your finger can pull and release and repeat.

My apologies on the mislabling, however my point still stands, assault rifles are legal for purchase.


The term "Assault Rifle" if it means anything would refer to the weapons used by military for assault on enemy forces. The guns you are talking about may look cooler than a hunting rifle but they are no different than a hunting rifle.