Username [Register?]: | Password [Lost Password?]: Save Password?
Bottom of Page
INTL v5.0 > Site Comments > Archives > Archived Forums > Serious Discussions: Too serious to have a double entendre in the title > Gun Control > Viewing Thread
Also Here: 1 guest.
Page: [ 1 2 3 ] [ Thread Views: 8066 | Total Posts: 60 ]
Rate This Thread: Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
Angus

D'oh!

Ballkicks: (+621 / -84)
Posts: 2742 (0.467)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
Gender: Unspecified
(Originally posted on: 06-22-04 07:34:12 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I haven't read a gun control debate in a while so why not. The issue is too complicated for me to have a true opinion on right now, so I want to hear other peoples' opinions. It is a 2nd Ammendment right but how far should we restrict it?
etymxris
INTL Developer

JUST AS PLANNED

Ballkicks: (+179 / -16)
Posts: 942 (0.16)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Reply 1 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-22-04 09:51:31 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

We should do like the Swedes and put microtags in gunpowder. The debate of how to properly regulate firearms was heated when the DC sniper was terrorizing NOVA and MD, but fingerprinting technologies that operate on the barrel of a gun are quite fallible.

I consider myself a bit of a diluted libertarian. In general, I despise the government regulating personal effects. Most salient to my own life is the regulations what types of software can be made and used. Anyway, modern implements have forced a reconsideration of the ideology that created the second amendment. Sure, there were "big" weapons at the end of the 18th century, but nothing like atomic bombs. Were were even quite far from creating gatling guns.

It's very easy to come up with extreme examples, and it will rightly be objected that the debate in the country today isn't about whether Joe Schmoe can create his nuclear reactor. However, the extreme cases point out that there has to be some regulation of firearms. So by establishing that there is some line, we are left with deciding not whether bearing arms is an inherent right, but whether, empirically, certain arms are "safe enough" for the populace to bear.

Furthermore, ideological justifications of the right to bear arms also require tempering. Some say that the right to free speech and government dissent is nothing without fire power to back it up. However, for this to maintain validity, it seems we'd have keep the citizens on equal footing with the government's military. This is both impractical and dangerous. I, for one, would not sit easy with random people owning tanks.
http://clevernothing.org
Dante

cocks in my mouth

Ballkicks: (+661 / -97)
Posts: 4779 (0.81)
Reg. Date: May 2004
Location: N by NW
Gender: Male
Reply 2 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-22-04 10:00:32 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

The second amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that I find any problem with. It is completely outdated. It was designed to give power to the people, so they would have the ability to rebel, but was never intended to be all-encompassing. The founding fathers wrote this in a time where guns were so unreliable, innaccurate, and difficult to reload that it took an efficent army to use them effectively. Today any fucking bastard can take a M-16, and go postal.

No one needs to own an assult rifle for "fun" or for hunting, not even collectors. The state militas were the part of the constitution that were suppost to have the real power to rebel against the national government anyways, not the common people. That is a role that they are still able to perform, making the populace's job that of a watchdog rather than an army.

There are far too many unnecessary deaths due to the lack of any control our government has on these fucking handcannons. The Brady Bill was a step in the right direction, but more still needs to be done.
"Thus the metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
-Dave Barry
Pertti Susilainen
Head Priest

mr. sukkit

Ballkicks: (+924 / -57)
Posts: 7104 (1.109)
Reg. Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mayrit
Gender: Male
Reply 3 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 04:02:23 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

What does the second ammendment say, and anyway, why should it be held as a sacred principle that should never be changed?
-Ne con ic noht singan
-Hwre u meaht singan
uselessinformation
I wasted my fucking time earning this title

cutesy gonzo journalism reference

Ballkicks: (+368 / -31)
Posts: 3099 (0.466)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fredericton, NB
Gender: Male
Reply 4 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 11:22:29 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I'm against gun control, and in favour of gun education. Same stance I have on everything that people want to ban (or keep banned); porn, drugs, prostitution, etc. If it isn't violating anyone's rights, it shouldn't be banned. Gun ownership doesn't violate anyone's rights.

Oh, on a sidenote, would it be possible for you yanks not to try to keep the debates here specific to your country? It's pretty damned annoying to open a thread hoping for a good debate and finding an amerocentric one instead. I realise that if you want to debate US politics or something similar that this would be impossible to do, but if it's for a more generic topic like this one, do you think it'd be all right if the rest of us didn't have to wade through your constitutional amendments, supreme court decisions, etc.?

Sukkit,

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword.

- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Stormraider
User is currently banned until further notice.

im gay

Reply 5 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 11:51:19 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

The thing I find interesting, is that to this day the 2nd Amendment is still clung to as a defense. The first damned line of it says "a well regulated militia". In other words, the MILITIA has the right to bear arms, and the sole purpose of this, is to defend the state. It does not say that every Tom, Dick and Harry has the right to have his own semi-auto rifle for "bird hunting".

As for where I stand, in general, is single-shot rifles and shotguns allowed, for hunting purposes, and nothing else. There's no need for handguns or rifles to be kept at home. If you want to fire them at competitions, well I think that's unnecessary too, but fine, keep them in a registered armory until said competitions or practices, and return them there after.
Stormraider- 73.275% of your daily dose of Cynical Jackass!!
Passionate Apathy: Not just a paradox, but a lifestyle.
kigai

Ballkicks: (+2 / -0)
Posts: 4 (0.001)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Autzen Stadium; Home of the Ducks
Gender: Male
Reply 6 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 11:58:27 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

to ask that is kind of hard in My humble opinion. How better to address an issue than with personal application? Branching off does and will happen. Take if we were to discuss terrorism, I am pretty sure that Americans will talk of 9/11 and iraq, and Brits of the IRA, Pakistanis and Inndians , of the Kashmir conflicts, and Spain of the Basques..there are four different courses there alone. to try and keep the debates very wide spanning stands to have the conversation lose some focus and become rather vague.... just a word of mind
etymxris
INTL Developer

JUST AS PLANNED

Ballkicks: (+179 / -16)
Posts: 942 (0.16)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Reply 7 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 12:09:19 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Stormraider:
The thing I find interesting, is that to this day the 2nd Amendment is still clung to as a defense.

The Constitution is just words on paper. There are many things in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that I agree with. But I agree with them not because they are in the Constitution, but because they are right. It seems that the bulk of those appealing to the Second Amendment are the same that appeal to the literal writings of the Bible. Apparently, that some one or group of people found it worthy of scribbling down at one point in time is salient to the lives of those so far removed in time.
http://clevernothing.org
uselessinformation
I wasted my fucking time earning this title

cutesy gonzo journalism reference

Ballkicks: (+368 / -31)
Posts: 3099 (0.466)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fredericton, NB
Gender: Male
Reply 8 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 12:28:07 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from kigai:
to ask that is kind of hard in My humble opinion. How better to address an issue than with personal application? Branching off does and will happen. Take if we were to discuss terrorism, I am pretty sure that Americans will talk of 9/11 and iraq, and Brits of the IRA, Pakistanis and Inndians , of the Kashmir conflicts, and Spain of the Basques..there are four different courses there alone. to try and keep the debates very wide spanning stands to have the conversation lose some focus and become rather vague.... just a word of mind


It's not hard to do at all. Keep the specific national references out of the topic post, and put the examples into context when they're used later. I wouldn't have a problem with any of this if people would bother to put stuff (second amendment, brady bill, to use examples from this thread) in context. Granted, I understand both of these examples, but many people outside of the US would not, and it's exclusive of these people.

You could argue that maybe I'm being unfair in targetting Americans with what I've said, particularly since not nearly all of them do this, but I've honestly not seen anyone from outside of the US doing this here.
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword.

- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
themookish
racist flaming is FUNNY

I suck. I sucked when I got here, I continue to suck now, and I'll be damned if I don't continue sucking until the end of time.

Ballkicks: (+14 / -62)
Posts: 56 (0.009)
Reg. Date: Apr 2004
Location: Tampa, Florida
Gender: Male
Reply 9 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 01:43:34 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Firearms help keep things in check.

Adolf Hitler was a big advocate of Gun Control.
etymxris
INTL Developer

JUST AS PLANNED

Ballkicks: (+179 / -16)
Posts: 942 (0.16)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Reply 10 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 02:01:12 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from themookish:
Firearms help keep things in check.

Adolf Hitler was a big advocate of Gun Control.

He was also a vegetarian. That doesn't justify an equivocation between eating only vegies and killing Jews. And neither does gun control.

That said, there is something to this point. An armed populace makes a humble government. But I think where this once was a viable situation, it is no more. The increase in population, population density, and the devastation possible with modern weaponry all contribute to make unhindered gun ownership an untenable proposition.
http://clevernothing.org
uselessinformation
I wasted my fucking time earning this title

cutesy gonzo journalism reference

Ballkicks: (+368 / -31)
Posts: 3099 (0.466)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fredericton, NB
Gender: Male
Reply 11 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 02:10:24 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from etymxris:
Quoted from themookish:
Firearms help keep things in check.

Adolf Hitler was a big advocate of Gun Control.

He was also a vegetarian.


Myth. Hitler was apparently fond of sausages. No, that isn't an innuendo. He didn't eat a lot of meat, but he wasn't a vegetarian.
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword.

- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
etymxris
INTL Developer

JUST AS PLANNED

Ballkicks: (+179 / -16)
Posts: 942 (0.16)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Reply 12 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 02:50:43 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from uselessinformation:
Quoted from etymxris:
Quoted from themookish:
Firearms help keep things in check.

Adolf Hitler was a big advocate of Gun Control.

He was also a vegetarian.


Myth. Hitler was apparently fond of sausages. No, that isn't an innuendo. He didn't eat a lot of meat, but he wasn't a vegetarian.

Conceded. However, were he a vegetarian, it would not be a mark against vegetarianism.
http://clevernothing.org
Angus

D'oh!

Ballkicks: (+621 / -84)
Posts: 2742 (0.467)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 13 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 03:57:50 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
That said, there is something to this point. An armed populace makes a humble government. But I think where this once was a viable situation, it is no more. The increase in population, population density, and the devastation possible with modern weaponry all contribute to make unhindered gun ownership an untenable proposition.


That is a huge part of my reasoning when I lean more towards free gun ownership. Nearly every bad regime has had some form of gun control to keep the populace in check, or back in Feudal Japan when there was "sword control" and peasants were forced to give up their weapons to the warlords. I think that is also a reason the martial arts became so popular, just as a way to defend yourself without a weapon.
uselessinformation
I wasted my fucking time earning this title

cutesy gonzo journalism reference

Ballkicks: (+368 / -31)
Posts: 3099 (0.466)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fredericton, NB
Gender: Male
Reply 14 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 04:19:00 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from etymxris:
Quoted from uselessinformation:
Quoted from etymxris:
Quoted from themookish:
Firearms help keep things in check.

Adolf Hitler was a big advocate of Gun Control.

He was also a vegetarian.


Myth. Hitler was apparently fond of sausages. No, that isn't an innuendo. He didn't eat a lot of meat, but he wasn't a vegetarian.

Conceded. However, were he a vegetarian, it would not be a mark against vegetarianism.


Agreed.
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword.

- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Stormraider
User is currently banned until further notice.

im gay

Reply 15 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 08:16:00 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
That is a huge part of my reasoning when I lean more towards free gun ownership. Nearly every bad regime has had some form of gun control to keep the populace in check, or back in Feudal Japan when there was "sword control" and peasants were forced to give up their weapons to the warlords. I think that is also a reason the martial arts became so popular, just as a way to defend yourself without a weapon.



That's pure paranoia, though. I wish I could find the gun control topic at SPSW where it was described in detail just how pointless owning a gun on the chance the government goes fascist, but without it, I'll just summarize. Were the government to go berserk, here's your two options:

a) The military backs them; and your rifles are useless.

b) The military DOESN'T back them, and arms civilians. Your rifles were useless.


10,000 middle-aged men with shotguns and hunting rifles do not keep a government in check. Hell, 10 MILLION of them wouldn't even do that.
Stormraider- 73.275% of your daily dose of Cynical Jackass!!
Passionate Apathy: Not just a paradox, but a lifestyle.
Angus

D'oh!

Ballkicks: (+621 / -84)
Posts: 2742 (0.467)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 16 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 09:49:26 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

It is paranoia now, but I think that back in the early days of the constitution it was actually a logical thought. 10,000 men with shotguns does nothing against a government with missile defense systems and stealth bombers, but back when guns were innacurate and unreliable, 10,000 middle aged men with shotguns could actually make a difference, since the army wasn't armed much better.
emtilt

the cow of horses

Ballkicks: (+486 / -41)
Posts: 5238 (0.786)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Last Week
Gender: Male
Reply 17 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-23-04 10:19:17 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

My stance is pretty much in line with useless's first post. If it doesn't directly infringe on the rights of others, it should not be banned, and owning a gun does not do this. SO, I feel that the government should not interfere with it.
"Extreme Ironing combines the excitement of an extreme sport with the satisfaction of freshly-ironed clothes."
-from 'Extreme Ironing', Wikipedia.org
Skizzles
INTL Premium Member
Okay, Okay! I take it back. Unfuck you!

I <3 you too.

Ballkicks: (+145 / -59)
Posts: 744 (0.125)
Reg. Date: Mar 2004
Location: Out of the Silent Planet
Gender: Male
Reply 18 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-24-04 12:55:12 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from themookish:
Firearms help keep things in check.

Adolf Hitler was a big advocate of Gun Control.


Myth.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Yeah...
Pertti Susilainen
Head Priest

mr. sukkit

Ballkicks: (+924 / -57)
Posts: 7104 (1.109)
Reg. Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mayrit
Gender: Male
Reply 19 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-24-04 12:56:53 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Thanks for posting the second ammendment, useless.

As Stormraider has said, in case of revolution the power of the people won't really depend on their weapons, but on their numbers.
-Ne con ic noht singan
-Hwre u meaht singan
Kerplowie
I Have No +K

Ballkicks: (+4 / -15)
Posts: 14 (0.002)
Reg. Date: Apr 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Reply 20 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-24-04 01:48:15 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from emtilt:
My stance is pretty much in line with useless's first post. If it doesn't directly infringe on the rights of others, it should not be banned, and owning a gun does not do this. SO, I feel that the government should not interfere with it.


But you also have to think about it in a ethical sense. Is it right for a person to own something that threatens another person's life? Pro gun activist love to play the whole damsel in distress card where they point out that women are more prone to rape and stuff like that, that's why they need firearms to defend themselves or the whole protection of family from robbers thing. But statics have shown that immediate family and friends suffer more from gunshot wounds or death compare to gunshot usage on agressors. Violence only begets violence.
emtilt

the cow of horses

Ballkicks: (+486 / -41)
Posts: 5238 (0.786)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Last Week
Gender: Male
Reply 21 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-24-04 03:03:42 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Owning a gun isn't violent. Only firing it at a person is, and that is illegal. I could stab someone with a kitchen knife, if I so desired, but that doesn't mean kitchen knives should be illegal. I never said anyhting about women needing them or anything of that sort. I merely said that I am of the belief that if something does not directly infringe on the rights of others, then it should not be banned. So that argument really doesn't matter to me.
"Extreme Ironing combines the excitement of an extreme sport with the satisfaction of freshly-ironed clothes."
-from 'Extreme Ironing', Wikipedia.org
etymxris
INTL Developer

JUST AS PLANNED

Ballkicks: (+179 / -16)
Posts: 942 (0.16)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Reply 22 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-24-04 03:18:24 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

For those advocating the right to bear arms, is there a line or a limit? I mean, is it OK for your neighbor to own a howitzer or a tank? How about a missle silo? I'm just curious where the line is drawn. There are two extremes, that of banning all weapons (including knives, forks, etc) and that of allowing anything (including nukes). This isn't a binary issue, and I don't think anyone lies on either extreme. So it would be helpful, I think, if rather than saying, "I'm for gun ownership" or "I'm for gun control", you said what limitations or rights should be allowed.

It's very difficult to argue against a position that merely says, "I support the ownership of firearms." Well, I do too! But I still think there should be limits. What exactly is up in question is exactly what those limits should be.

EDIT: So I won't seem like a hypocrite, my own position is that the status quo is acceptable.
EDIT2: status quo in the US
http://clevernothing.org
This reply was last edited on 06-24-04 03:26:54 PM by etymxris.
Angus

D'oh!

Ballkicks: (+621 / -84)
Posts: 2742 (0.467)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 23 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-24-04 03:25:56 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from etymxris:
For those advocating the right to bear arms, is there a line or a limit? I mean, is it OK for your neighbor to own a howitzer or a tank? How about a missle silo? I'm just curious where the line is drawn. There are two extremes, that of banning all weapons (including knives, forks, etc) and that of allowing anything (including nukes). This isn't a binary issue, and I don't think anyone lies on either extreme. So it would be helpful, I think, if rather than saying, "I'm for gun ownership" or "I'm for gun control", you said what limitations or rights should be allowed.

It's very difficult to argue against a position that merely says, "I support the ownership of firearms." Well, I do too! But I still think there should be limits. What exactly is up in question is exactly what those limits should be.


Maybe anything with an explosive round like a tank or a cannon should be banned for private ownership? And it is more difficult to obtain a license the more powerful the gun is. It took my cousin months to get a license to own a fully automatic Mini 14(sp? I don't know gun types very well.). And for every new automatic weapon you buy you must reaplly for a new license. It helps makes sure lunatics aren't buying ak-47's all the time.
themookish
racist flaming is FUNNY

I suck. I sucked when I got here, I continue to suck now, and I'll be damned if I don't continue sucking until the end of time.

Ballkicks: (+14 / -62)
Posts: 56 (0.009)
Reg. Date: Apr 2004
Location: Tampa, Florida
Gender: Male
Reply 24 of 60 (Originally posted on: 06-24-04 03:38:41 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Eh, It's much easier to illegally obtain a gun than go through licensing. Which is probably why so many people don't go through all the paperwork. That's how it is in my state anyway.

(I live in Florida)
Quick Reply
Page: [ 1 2 3 ] Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
[ Thread Views: 8066 | Total Posts: 60 ]