|
Post by slappy on Mar 7, 2014 23:51:07 GMT
Do you think we need stricter laws? Are the current laws enough? Maybe we need less restrictions?
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Logo (The Horrorshow Freak) on Mar 7, 2014 23:54:11 GMT
Less strict. I have a paper on it in the personal section
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 8, 2014 0:10:42 GMT
Parts of me that want all 3 but obviously that can't happen.
I'm really torn.
|
|
|
Post by Logo (The Horrorshow Freak) on Mar 8, 2014 0:32:47 GMT
Lol. Read my persuasive essay, you won't think so for lkng
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 8, 2014 0:36:05 GMT
I'm totally for defending yourself however you can.
There just needs to be a way to stop the mass shootings. Maybe that means letting more well trained citizens have them so they can put a stop to it.
|
|
|
Post by Logo (The Horrorshow Freak) on Mar 8, 2014 0:37:28 GMT
I can agree to that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gun laws
Mar 8, 2014 2:48:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 2:48:28 GMT
I'd happy if we banned guns altogether. Not for the military, mind you, but for people.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 8, 2014 3:00:16 GMT
I'd happy if we banned guns altogether. Not for the military, mind you, but for people. What if the military/government then decides to start doing terrible things. How do the people fight back?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gun laws
Mar 8, 2014 3:23:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 3:23:44 GMT
We don't. We die.
I'd take my chances with grand conspiracy as opposed to some random drive-by, someone who just decided they don't like me, mistaken identity, or the plethora of other reasons I could be shot. Works for Australia.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 8, 2014 3:49:05 GMT
We don't. We die. I'd take my chances with grand conspiracy as opposed to some random drive-by, someone who just decided they don't like me, mistaken identity, or the plethora of other reasons I could be shot. Works for Australia. You don't think criminals will still be able to obtain guns after they are banned? Jamaica has a near complete gun ban, if they do allow you to own one you must pay thousands of dollars every year to keep it and they have terrible gun violence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gun laws
Mar 8, 2014 3:55:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 3:55:56 GMT
We don't. We die. I'd take my chances with grand conspiracy as opposed to some random drive-by, someone who just decided they don't like me, mistaken identity, or the plethora of other reasons I could be shot. Works for Australia. You don't think criminals will still be able to obtain guns after they are banned? Jamaica has a near complete gun ban, if they do allow you to own one you must pay thousands of dollars every year to keep it and they have terrible gun violence. I refer you once again to Australia. Or England. They have a complete ban on guns and have no problem with gun violence. They still have problems with violence, but not a bunch of people shooting each other.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 8, 2014 4:03:24 GMT
You don't think criminals will still be able to obtain guns after they are banned? Jamaica has a near complete gun ban, if they do allow you to own one you must pay thousands of dollars every year to keep it and they have terrible gun violence. I refer you once again to Australia. Or England. They have a complete ban on guns and have no problem with gun violence. They still have problems with violence, but not a bunch of people shooting each other. Different cultures, just like Jamaica. Then in China, you don't see mass shootings but you do see mass stabbings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gun laws
Mar 8, 2014 4:59:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 4:59:46 GMT
I refer you once again to Australia. Or England. They have a complete ban on guns and have no problem with gun violence. They still have problems with violence, but not a bunch of people shooting each other. Different cultures, just like Jamaica. Then in China, you don't see mass shootings but you do see mass stabbings. I'd say our culture is closer to England and Australia than it is to Jamaica. In fact, when Australia did the ban, not only were people shouting the same things about gun rights and protecting their homes that the are in America, but the guy who signed it in lost his entire political career because of it. The two arguments that people always say are: 1) How will we protect ourselves? and 2) You can't take away our rights! Well, here's the thing: First off, the second amendment was written during a time when there was the threat of the Queen of England deciding she's moving in and taking over your home. It was created so you could protect yourself from the aftershock of retaliation from the Revolution, not so you could shoot a turkey with an AK-47 or blow up your neighbor with some Semtex. Also, it's important to realize that when the amendment was written guns were muskets, meaning there was a decent chance they wouldn't even kill. Today, people want semi-automatic pistols to protect themselves from robbers; it's not even remotely the same thing. You want to know the safest way to protect yourself if someone's robbing you? Let them rob you. Murderers don't just kick down random doors, shoot people, then leave. You want to protect your family? Stay the hell away from the intruder. You're not protecting yourself, you're protecting your Xbox. Fact is, in households with guns, there's a much, much bigger chance of that gun harming your loved ones instead of helping them. Now, as far as our rights go, we've already lost all of them. They tapped our phones, and people said "I've got nothing to hide." They stopped the media from printing stories, and people say, "There's some things that we shouldn't know." They open Guantanamo to get around due process, and people say, "Fuck 'em; they're terrorists." We're closing off our damn boarders everywhere, yet saying "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, and all that shit." There's even so much as talk about tightening gun control and suddenly it's, "Hell no! That's our right!" In my state, I can walk into Walmart (Yes, a fucking Walmart), walk up to the counter, show them my license, and walk back out with a gun. That's all it takes. As long as you aren't flagged, here's your gun. As long as you haven't shot someone before or have warrants out on your arrest, have a gun. Look under your chairs! You get a gun! You get a gun! Everybody gets a gun! No psychological evaluation. No training. No wait. Nothing. I could walk in there, slap down a list entitled "People to kill," with names crossed off, blood all over my clothes, and a heroine needle in my arm, and as long as my ID doesn't pop up with a red flag, I can walk out with a gun powerful enough to blow up an elephant's head if I shot him in the anus. Yet, we talk even of making things a little tougher, and good God, it's un-American. Well, really quick, you know what is American, according to our founding fathers? Rich, white males. Fuck everyone else. Slavery, wife-beating, and family neglect were more than common. When they wrote "All men are created equal," they meant just that. All. Men. And black people weren't really considered human. Here's the thing that I really don't get: People made bomb shelters during the Cold War because of the fear of bombs. Now, that's over, and anyone making a bomb shelter is a looney. So, why don't guns work the same way? People bought guns to protect themselves from the Queen's Army. Well, that's not an issue anymore, so why aren't people who buy guns equated with tinfoil hats and radio signals in their teeth? In conclusion, fuck.
|
|
|
Post by (s)aint on Mar 8, 2014 5:59:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 10, 2014 0:49:28 GMT
If we are going to only apply the amendments to back when they were written that means free speech doesn't apply to TV, radio or the internet.
"I could walk in there, slap down a list entitled "People to kill," with names crossed off, blood all over my clothes, and a heroine needle in my arm, and as long as my ID doesn't pop up with a red flag, I can walk out with a gun powerful enough to blow up an elephant's head if I shot him in the anus."
That is certainly hyperbole and not true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gun laws
Mar 10, 2014 1:13:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 1:13:34 GMT
If we are going to only apply the amendments to back when they were written that means free speech doesn't apply to TV, radio or the internet. "I could walk in there, slap down a list entitled "People to kill," with names crossed off, blood all over my clothes, and a heroine needle in my arm, and as long as my ID doesn't pop up with a red flag, I can walk out with a gun powerful enough to blow up an elephant's head if I shot him in the anus." That is certainly hyperbole and not true. Yes, it would still apply, since it applies to the press. And yes, it was exaggerated for effect, but there is still no waiting period for any gun and no tests to see if the person is mentally stable enough to not kill people. Only those who have criminal charges are not allowed to own guns, and that's still something that's easily bypassed.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 10, 2014 1:18:40 GMT
If we are going to only apply the amendments to back when they were written that means free speech doesn't apply to TV, radio or the internet. "I could walk in there, slap down a list entitled "People to kill," with names crossed off, blood all over my clothes, and a heroine needle in my arm, and as long as my ID doesn't pop up with a red flag, I can walk out with a gun powerful enough to blow up an elephant's head if I shot him in the anus." That is certainly hyperbole and not true. Yes, it would still apply, since it applies to the press. And yes, it was exaggerated for effect, but there is still no waiting period for any gun and no tests to see if the person is mentally stable enough to not kill people. Only those who have criminal charges are not allowed to own guns, and that's still something that's easily bypassed. So how can you say it still applies to the press if the gun amendment doesn't apply to today? What kind of gun can you get from Wal-Mart without a waiting period? And what tests should be run to see if a person is mentally stable? Every person who wants a gun has to go see a psychiatrist first? It's easily bypassed by them getting illegal guns. Making guns illegal will not stop bad guys from getting them, it will only prevent good guys from defending themselves. If someone is going to kill, they aren't going to care about breaking the no gun law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gun laws
Mar 10, 2014 1:27:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 1:27:46 GMT
Yes, it would still apply, since it applies to the press. And yes, it was exaggerated for effect, but there is still no waiting period for any gun and no tests to see if the person is mentally stable enough to not kill people. Only those who have criminal charges are not allowed to own guns, and that's still something that's easily bypassed. So how can you say it still applies to the press if the gun amendment doesn't apply to today? What kind of gun can you get from Wal-Mart without a waiting period? And what tests should be run to see if a person is mentally stable? Every person who wants a gun has to go see a psychiatrist first? It's easily bypassed by them getting illegal guns. Making guns illegal will not stop bad guys from getting them, it will only prevent good guys from defending themselves. If someone is going to kill, they aren't going to care about breaking the no gun law. You misunderstand my point about looking at the time of when they were written. You're looking at what they encompass instead of why they were written. And yes, I think there should be a psychological evaluation before buying a weapon. I'd be open to suggestions on better ways to weed out the violent, but this is the best option I see. I could buy a handgun, rifle, or shotgun from Walmart right now. No waiting at all. The whole "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns," argument stopped working the second Australia banned guns. People always talk about how criminals will still get guns, and it's true, but making guns nearly impossible to get would make it a lot harder for criminals to get them. People who rape people aren't going to care that they're breaking the law, so according to that argument, rape might as well be legal, too. No one's ever said, "Man, I'd sure like to fuck someone against their will at knifepoint, but I don't want to go to jail." EDIT: Forgot one. It's easily bypassed with fake IDs.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 10, 2014 2:02:21 GMT
So how can you say it still applies to the press if the gun amendment doesn't apply to today? What kind of gun can you get from Wal-Mart without a waiting period? And what tests should be run to see if a person is mentally stable? Every person who wants a gun has to go see a psychiatrist first? It's easily bypassed by them getting illegal guns. Making guns illegal will not stop bad guys from getting them, it will only prevent good guys from defending themselves. If someone is going to kill, they aren't going to care about breaking the no gun law. You misunderstand my point about looking at the time of when they were written. You're looking at what they encompass instead of why they were written. And yes, I think there should be a psychological evaluation before buying a weapon. I'd be open to suggestions on better ways to weed out the violent, but this is the best option I see. I could buy a handgun, rifle, or shotgun from Walmart right now. No waiting at all. The whole "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns," argument stopped working the second Australia banned guns. People always talk about how criminals will still get guns, and it's true, but making guns nearly impossible to get would make it a lot harder for criminals to get them. People who rape people aren't going to care that they're breaking the law, so according to that argument, rape might as well be legal, too. No one's ever said, "Man, I'd sure like to fuck someone against their will at knifepoint, but I don't want to go to jail." EDIT: Forgot one. It's easily bypassed with fake IDs. They had to have known about technological advances. They could not have been ignorant to think guns would not evolve. Maybe they couldn't have thought guns would be like they are but they certainly couldn't have thought muskets would be the go to gun hundreds of years later. Because no one could lie or cheat their way through a psychological exam. If you are going to kill someone waiting 3 days isn't going to stop that. But there are no good rapes. There are good guns. Drugs are illegal and people still get drugs. So why would a ban on guns work? Law abiding citizens aren't going to use fake IDs. All these gun laws do are hurt law abiding citizens who want to protect their families. None of the proposed laws impact criminals.
|
|