Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.) I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons. Supporting evidence: the following skit: What's your reason? Setting: A gun shop, modern day. A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please." The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?" The Customer says "I need one for personal protection." The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell." The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!" The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left. Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun." Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks. The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting." The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy. The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states. The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff. Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says. The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot! The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet. The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!" The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves. Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says. The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other". "Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly. The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer. "Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows. "Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
BTW, I thought it was established that there are gun owners and gun lovers.
It was. It was also established many times over that you and partydevil strawman the hell out of our arguments and lump together everyone who doesn't share a want for a complete ban on guns in the civilian population as some sort of stereotypical ad hominem. We established that quite well.
some NRA terrorist?
NRA isn't a terrorist organization no matter how many times you attack it.
The extremist gun lovers will go that far and I'm worry some retards would consider it. I just hope they'll get caught before they act. I hate those sick ****!
Let me amend your statement to be much more accurate.
"The extremists will go that far and I'm worry some retards would consider it. I just hope they'll get caught before they act."
While in this case, if Obama was attacked for increasing gun regulations, it would likely be by some gun nut, anyone who attacks the head of a country with intent to assassinate is classified as an extremist.
NRA isn't a terrorist organization no matter how many times you attack it.
Excuse me but the NRA is a terrorist organization. Here's a small sample of their criminal activities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121406045.html and they still going at it. Remember, there's a lot of money to make from selling murdering weapons, and that Lapierre ******* probably get's some money from his buddies (gun making retards) who want things to stay the way they are.
While in this case, if Obama was attacked for increasing gun regulations, it would likely be by some gun nut, anyone who attacks the head of a country with intent to assassinate is classified as an extremist.
There are many of those retards out there and it's too easy for them to access weapons thanks to the National Retard Association.
Interesting. You chose to avoid that we pointed out how you were lumping stereotypes like nobody's business. Care to address this, before going on about the idea that those of us who support guns think there should be no gun laws? Which, as you may not have worked out, we do want gun restrictions.
Here's a small sample of their criminal activities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ⦠5.htmlrn and they still going at it.
Link didn't work.
Remember, there's a lot of money to make from selling murdering weapons, and that Lapierre ******* probably get's some money from his buddies (gun making retards) who want things to stay the way they are.
There is, except the NRA isn't a gun dealership. It's an association of people who advocate the safe usage of guns and the rights of citizens to own firearms. They do not as a group do anything remotely terrorist like.
It's not some military arms company that supplies civilians like you make it out to be.
You chose to avoid that we pointed out how you were lumping stereotypes like nobody's business.
Obviously. 3/4 of his argument is calling the opposition, "retards" "rednecks" "terrorists" "gun loving" and whatever else. Only a small portion of what he says, that people do bad things with guns and that people make money from selling guns, is even partially true.
Which, as you may not have worked out, we do want gun restrictions.
I'll repeat this just to be on the clear side, even though you'll be calling us retarded redneck gun lovers come 2 pages from now.
We want more gun restrictions. We agree that the current state of affairs in the US in regards to gun policy is lacking.
However, we do not see why people who can prove themselves responsible and who wish to own a gun should not be able to do so. We are not saying that even those responsible people should be carrying around RPGs, AK-47s, M-16s and who knows what else. If people want to shoot those (minus the RPG...) they can go to a gun club where such things would be under lock and key, or join the military.
Interesting. You chose to avoid that we pointed out how you were lumping stereotypes like nobody's business. Care to address this, before going on about the idea that those of us who support guns think there should be no gun laws? Which, as you may not have worked out, we do want gun restrictions.
Then why all the fuss about Obama's proposition then? Yes stereotypes in this case fits the target because the majority are way too dumb to own such power in their hands. If it were for me, they wouldn't be any guns at all, except for the military and law enforcement, period. Yeah I know, some will come with the fore father crap, the evil government takeover, the violent history of the US argument but shouldn't we put an end to this paranoia eventually and realize that the US territory is safe to live in? Stop seeing enemies everywhere and maybe the ideas of owning a gun would become obsolete.
BTW, AG need to fix the link problem, it's getting annoying.
Then why all the fuss about Obama's proposition then?
Masterforger, wolf1991, Salvidian and I were questioning 404011xz, SteveeXb, and PauseBreak on why they thought the new gun policy was bad.
Then you and partydevil come in, and like usual, throw ad hominems and sarcastic remarks all over the place, act like we're idiots, and leave.
If you didn't mean to include us, then don't say, "you" when in response to our posts.
Yes stereotypes in this case fits the target because the majority are way too dumb to own such power in their hands.
Perhaps, but this it still isn't appropriate to just attack the opposition like that. Name calling is for grade school, if you want to sway them, actually present your case, don't just treat them like an idiot and ride your high horse off into your imaginary sunset.
If it were for me, they wouldn't be any guns at all, except for the military and law enforcement, period.
We know.
Stop seeing enemies everywhere and maybe the ideas of owning a gun would become obsolete.
And I'll respond again.
WE AREN'T. If you're going to make statements like that, ADDRESS THEM TO THE RELEVANT PEOPLE. I can only assume that, since you're quoting my post and you're speaking directly to me, that you're saying that I think there's enemies everywhere and that I'm paranoid about a government takeover.
404011xz, SteveeXb, and PauseBreak and others are the ones who have said that.
NOT Masterforger, wolf1991, Salvidian and I. So again, stop lumping us all together.
Thank you, Kasic. As for you, SSTG, would you kindly (powerful phrase) reply to the actual arguments instead of finding fault in the wrong place? You are just like the paranoid fools you keep whining about, just you whine for different reasons. What part of gun legality AND strict gun laws is hard for you to understand?
It was also established many times over that you and partydevil strawman the hell out of our arguments and lump together everyone who doesn't share a want for a complete ban on guns in the civilian population as some sort of stereotypical ad hominem. We established that quite well.
i have already stated more then once that i'm not for a entire ban on guns. also are the strawmans i made here sarcastic. (atleast the last few. dunno befor that.) and even tho i did agree whit most of what sstg said 55 pages ago. he seems to get more radical. and i find myself less often agreeing whit everything he said. there are true points in what he said. like some dumbnuts thinking about shooting obama for this. but i'm not that radical that i believe this are most of the gun lovers.
i hope it is clear now, and that you dont team me up whit what sstg say's in the future. thx.
Guns can be confiscated during any 'emergency'. example.
"A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006." - taken from Wikipedia
Excuse me but the NRA is a terrorist organization. Here's a small sample of their criminal activities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ⦠5.htmlrn and they still going at it. Remember, there's a lot of money to make from selling murdering weapons, and that Lapierre ******* probably get's some money from his buddies (gun making retards) who want things to stay the way they are
The I just heard some stats the other day about the NRA. It turns out, a majority or gun owners aren't a part of the NRA. So, don't lump gun owners in with the NRA.
However, we do not see why people who can prove themselves responsible and who wish to own a gun should not be able to do so. We are not saying that even those responsible people should be carrying around RPGs, AK-47s, M-16s and who knows what else. If people want to shoot those (minus the RPG...) they can go to a gun club where such things would be under lock and key, or join the military.
I agree. Except for the whole going to gun clubs to shoot assault rifles. That, I don't see the sense in. I don't know how many gun clubs you've been to, but they really don't have any type of security. It'd be really easy to go and take those guns. Most killings are not even done with assault rifles. Restricting or even banning ownership of them does nothing.
Then why all the fuss about Obama's proposition then? Yes stereotypes in this case fits the target because the majority are way too dumb to own such power in their hands. If it were for me, they wouldn't be any guns at all, except for the military and law enforcement, period. Yeah I know, some will come with the fore father crap, the evil government takeover, the violent history of the US argument but shouldn't we put an end to this paranoia eventually and realize that the US territory is safe to live in? Stop seeing enemies everywhere and maybe the ideas of owning a gun would become obsolete.
I agree that we don't need the 2nd amendment in America, nowadays. But, what about in the future? Are we always going to be free from a tyrannical government? It might be in a thousand years but I guarantee that the 2nd amendment will be needed eventually. Get rid of it now and your potentially dooming the future of this country.
i have already stated more then once that i'm not for a entire ban on guns.
Yes, you have. But you also mock and group people like SSTG does.
also are the strawmans i made here sarcastic.
My point. As stated here. "Then you and partydevil come in, and like usual, throw ad hominems and sarcastic remarks all over the place, act like we're idiots, and leave."
he seems to get more radical.
He's been this way from the very start. I also recall previous gun control threads where I asked him kindly, more than once, to stop the stereotyping.
there are true points in what he said. like some dumbnuts thinking about shooting obama for this.
Which really isn't about gun control, but about violent extremists.
i hope it is clear now, and that you dont team me up whit what sstg say's in the future. thx.
I was grouping you in part with the attitude portion, not the gun control stance.
So, don't lump gun owners in with the NRA.
Not that the NRA is a terrorist organization to begin with.
Except for the whole going to gun clubs to shoot assault rifles. That, I don't see the sense in. I don't know how many gun clubs you've been to, but they really don't have any type of security.
It's my personally thought of solution which would allow people who like shooting those types of guns to be able to do so even with a ban on automatic weapons. Of course, security and such would need to be vamped up.
Most killings are not even done with assault rifles. Restricting or even banning ownership of them does nothing.
True, but why does the average civilian need an assault rifle? Those ARE made for killing, and only killing. When you think home defense, you don't think machine gun. When you think target practice, you generally don't think AK-47 (or at least I don't). Those are simply dangerous weapons, they are not for sport. If people want to shoot them, fine, but we don't need them floating around people's homes.
But, what about in the future? Are we always going to be free from a tyrannical government?
I've said this before. If the government really wanted to suppress us and had the military on their side, a bunch of untrained civilians with hunting rifles or even assault rifles would be absolutely useless. Modern military tech is soooooooooooooooooooooooo much further along than what we civilians have. So unless you are advocating that people own tanks, helicopters, RPGs and what not, we wouldn't stand a chance anyhow.
But you also mock and group people like SSTG does.
you group aswell.
"Then you and partydevil come in, and like usual, throw ad hominems and sarcastic remarks all over the place, act like we're idiots, and leave."
(havn't seen this, i'm not that into this topic anymore. obama is going the right way. so i'm now watching what is going to happen. do they pass or not) and sorry that i get annoyed of this topic and do not reply on everything all the time. i have better things to do then this topic. as i said befor. personally i dont care if you guys keep shooting each other. just want to bring over the point that you dont need guns. as they seem to think.
He's been this way from the very start.
hmmm no, he has learned some points that he is taking over the top now. things he didn't say in the begin.
I also recall previous gun control threads where I asked him kindly, more than once, to stop the stereotyping.
tbh, i dont see what is wrong whit stereotyping. we all do that. look at yourself. your stereotyping me for being sstg and for having his ideas. stereotyping happens all the time and people laugh about it. stereotypes hold some truth but is taken a step further then reality go's. if you know that, then what is wrong whit stereotypes?
Which really isn't about gun control, but about violent extremists.
showing the point that a average joe whit a gun for self defense can easly use it to kill someone if they dont agree. i.e. showing the risk of guns everywhere.
now come and say strawman again. just because it didn't happen. but looking at the rage of some of these average joe's. you can't convince me that non of them are having the idea. or even are planning for it.
I was grouping you in part with the attitude portion
sofar i know do i say when i'm wrong and do i no longer hammer on statements i made that have been proven wrong to me.
or is this whole grouping only because i use the words "gun lovers"? if so then i want to make clear that i do not have the same idea if who these people are as sstg does.
I don't know how many gun clubs you've been to, but they really don't have any type of security.
what isn't there can be created. and it will be created if the law say's so.
Of course, security and such would need to be vamped up.
Yes, vampires would be quite the deterrent.
True, but why does the average civilian need an assault rifle? Those ARE made for killing, and only killing. When you think home defense, you don't think machine gun. When you think target practice, you generally don't think AK-47 (or at least I don't). Those are simply dangerous weapons, they are not for sport. If people want to shoot them, fine, but we don't need them floating around people's homes.
Do I need an electric mixer for the kitchen? No, I don't. Do I need to own several different kitchen knives? No. They are not made only for killing. Assault rifles are made for accuracy, rate of fire, ruggedness, as well as other things that make them great for competition as well as very enjoyable to shoot. They're easy to use, easy to shoot and most of all they're fun. All guns are made for killing, when it comes down to it. Your argument applies to all guns. Also, machine guns are different from assault rifles. What credible threat is there for a law abiding citizen, as an overwhelming majority of gun owners are, to own an assault rifle?
I've said this before. If the government really wanted to suppress us and had the military on their side, a bunch of untrained civilians with hunting rifles or even assault rifles would be absolutely useless. Modern military tech is soooooooooooooooooooooooo much further along than what we civilians have. So unless you are advocating that people own tanks, helicopters, RPGs and what not, we wouldn't stand a chance anyhow.
if you look at history and how many times that's been said before you'd realize how completely ridiculous it is to even think it. That advanced military tech is really working over in Iraq and Afghanistan against mostly untrained civilians with ak-47s. Also, You might wanna take a look at the Vietnam War.
showing the point that a average joe whit a gun for self defense can easly use it to kill someone if they dont agree. i.e. showing the risk of guns everywhere.
You must be very paranoid walking around in public, if the average joe is just a murderer waiting to snap and kill people.
as well as other things that make them great for competition
seriously? a assault rifle for competition? what is the sport in shooting a paper whit 100 bullets? have ever seen a actual competition gun? they look nothing like a normal gun at all. a competition gun has hundreds of settings that you dont have whit a normal gun of any kind.
hat advanced military tech is really working over in Iraq and Afghanistan against mostly untrained civilians with ak-47s. Also, You might wanna take a look at the Vietnam War.
you didn't fight untrained troops there. and in vietnam more vietnamese died then usa soldiers. but they could hide in the forest and knew the forests, unabling the usa to move forward because of the ****load of traps.
You must be very paranoid walking around in public, if the average joe is just a murderer waiting to snap and kill people.
(havn't seen this, i'm not that into this topic anymore. obama is going the right way. so i'm now watching what is going to happen. do they pass or not) and sorry that i get annoyed of this topic and do not reply on everything all the time. i have better things to do then this topic. as i said befor. personally i dont care if you guys keep shooting each other. just want to bring over the point that you dont need guns. as they seem to think.
I totally agree with all you've said and it's a waste of time to talk to the so-called moderated ones because even when they keep saying they don't agree with the NRA views, they still get offended when I call it a terrorist organization. They are also naive to think that the National Retard Association doesn't have a monetary gain by protecting gun factories and the gun nuts. BTW, that link that doesn't work talks about how the NRA sabotaged the ATF because they tried to put an end to gun factories selling to the Mexican drug cartel and they wanted everyone who sells guns to keep logs on their sales.
