Originally posted by Robtard
That's not really an answer though, I asked where do you (personally) draw the line on "a right to bear arms". Talking handguns all the way to tactical nukes.
Civilians should not have hand grenades, missile launchers, mortars, tanks, rocket launchers, exposive devices, RPG's, automatic weapons (unless grandfathered or have a FFL) and obviously WMD's.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Civilians should not have hand grenades, missile launchers, mortars, tanks, rocket launchers, exposive devices, RPG's, automatic weapons (unless grandfathered or have a FFL) and obviously WMD's.
So you do believe that "a right to bear arms" isn't carte blanche to own any type of weapon imaginable and that it comes with restrictions.
And while I have to agree with you on that being sensible, this would be you restricting people on perceived freedoms, which you claimed others (me included here) were doing earlier in the thread.
Originally posted by Robtard
So you do believe that "a right to bear arms" isn't carte blanche to own any type of weapon imaginable and that it comes with restrictions.And while I have to agree with you on that being sensible, this would be using restricting people of perceived freedoms, which you claimed others (me included here) were doing earlier in the thread.
Civilians not having tanks and nukes does not infringe on our liberties.
Originally posted by Robtard
But not allowing assault rifles does?BTW, private citizens do own tanks.
Any citizen that own's a private tank has many permits and lots of money.
Like I have said before assault rifles are not anymore dangerous then other rifles, and in many states like California they are required to be sold with "bullet buttons."
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Like I have said before assault rifles are not anymore dangerous then other rifles, and in many states like California they are required to be sold with "bullet buttons."
All of this is also skipping past the part where there's no real good reason to have an assault rifle if you're a civilian.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The second clause of that sentence would seem to refute the first. Other kinds of guns don't require special modifications to make them less efficient at killing.All of this is also skipping past the part where there's no real good reason to have an assault rifle if you're a civilian.
Not really, a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.
If they gun is then modified to become less dangerous because people generally are afraid, so be it.
Originally posted by Newjak
What he quoted wasn't even related to the topic at hand. It states nothing saying the founding fathers added the second amendment to keep governments in check.
LOL. Obviously, if you read the ENTIRE article and you still think that then you have a serious reading comprehension problem, dude. "Not related to the topic at hand"? LMAO. You serious? I thought we were discussing the American citizens right to bear arms and why the second amendment was put into place in the first place. Why don't you enlighten me then what this thread is about then if not that?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oi!PR, I apologize for my arguments being so harsh and directed at you (you just happened to make the best arguments from the other side, imo). You're not a stranger on the internet. You're a cool dude I've had the pleasure of talking to for years. You deserved a bit more respect than what I sent. So forgive the harshness of how I presented the arguments. I don't know how to make my arguments any less harsh, however.
Huh? Did I miss something?
Originally posted by Star428
The Nazis disarmed their citizens too so none of their citizens could fight back.Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it- George Santayana (Spanish philosopher)
Wake up, sheep, before it's too late.
Banning one kind of ammo isn't the same as banning all guns.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not that I'm for "no guns", but Australia seems to be doing okay, much like other countries where it's illegal or very difficult to get guns
Most first world countries without guns are fine for the most part, yep. My own included.
It's like some americans think we live in a perpetual state of mad max-ness.
Originally posted by Star428Okay I reread the article for sake of accuracy. It was a waste of time then as it was when I read it yesterday.
LOL. Obviously, if you read the ENTIRE article and you still think that then you have a serious reading comprehension problem, dude. "Not related to the topic at hand"? LMAO. You serious? I thought we were discussing the American citizens right to bear arms and why the second amendment was put into place in the first place. Why don't you enlighten me then what this thread is about then if not that?
Part of the reason I said it was related is that this article is pure propaganda at best. Seriously there are no statistics, references to indicate or backup what they are saying.
It's just a regurgitation of arguments you've already made. Most of the article wasn't even on the 2nd amendment. It was bashing Obama as a tyrant. The 2nd amendment is mentioned twice maybe three times. Both times I just get one person's thoughts on what it should mean. And what they think the founding fathers meant. Also they do not show any statistics at all related to gun safety or why the gun is needed.
I mean seriously if that is the best you can do as a source of truth I'm firmly comfortable disregarding your arguments as not fact checked or based.
Originally posted by ReflassshhFair point but I would rather have some statistics and references to fact check compared to nothing but a single biased opinion.
To be fair, statistics are not %100 reliable, as can be easily manipulated or even made up. Specially in an article so clearly biased.
All I got from that article is someone saying they hate Obama and that we need guns because of it.
Originally posted by Reflassshh
Wouldn't less restriction make current situation even worse?
Nope and yup.
Depends. Some research shows more relaxed gun laws improve the violent crime situation (which means there is less of it when more guns are present).
This article is dedicated to this very topic and offers great arguments from both sides.
The overall conclusion is more guns does not mean more or less gun crime.
In other words, "gun restrictions" or "liberal gun laws" is a red herring. If you want to stop gun violence, address everything else but the guns. 😉
Originally posted by Reflassshh
Ah ok.
Two adults talking about one of the most hotly debated political topics in America but doing so maturely? There is still hope, yet. 😉
Originally posted by dadudemonIn other words, "gun restrictions" or "liberal gun laws" is a red herring. If you want to stop gun violence, address everything else but the guns. 😉
The first step of that? Stop enshrining the Second Amendment so much. 🙂
Originally posted by Omega Vision
If you're saying that the way to reduce gun violence is to ameliorate the American gun culture, I agree.The first step of that? Stop enshrining the Second Amendment so much. 🙂
Whats wrong with average citizens having guns against these gansta police killing average citizens? It really sounds loop holish, people here dont like the out of control police who have guns, but dont want average citizens to have them either! That leaves the criminals left to have all the power.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Whats wrong with average citizens having guns against these gansta police killing average citizens? It really sounds loop holish, people here dont like the out of control police who have guns, but dont want average citizens to have them either! That leaves the criminals left to have all the power.
Here's the thing that confuses the phuck out of Europeans: American police are already armed to the teeth compared to any cop in Europe west of Ukraine, and Americans still feel so unsafe that they think that private citizens should be packing too. Maybe we wouldn't feel so unsafe if we didn't live in a society that treats owning a gun as a right and refuses to do anything substantive to regulate the sale and distribution of firearms and ammunition.
I don't think you understand the meaning of 'loophole'
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't like police brutality, but I've never said that police shouldn't have guns.Here's the thing that confuses the phuck out of Europeans: American police are already armed to the teeth compared to any cop in Europe west of Ukraine, and Americans still feel so unsafe that they think that private citizens should be packing too. Maybe we wouldn't feel so unsafe if we didn't live in a society that treats owning a gun as a right and refuses to do anything substantive to regulate the sale and distribution of firearms and ammunition.
I don't think you understand the meaning of 'loophole'
There is many internet debating vocabulary which I don't bother to learn so feel free to add in the right one.
Simply put if police, government and criminals all are packing, I think a citizen should as well.. More or less we know where we stand.