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?
As long as people aren't using the guns to kill, it doesn't matter.
Well, in many ways it does. Owning a military grade weapon is essentially pointless, even if it were modified for competition, the potential to cause harm is far greater than that of a handgun. As many of us have said before, we're not advocating the banning of guns, we're advocating stricter gun control policy. Background checks, reducing the type of weapons available to civilians, that sort of thing.
But now imagine that the government becomes corrupt and tries to establish a dictator or something. How would you defend yourself without a gun?
This argument is stupid. An untrained civilian population has very little chance against the American military's technological advantage, and training. It's stupidity is further increased by the implication that America will magically transform into a totalitarian state in which people will unite whole heartedly and resist.
You do have a point there, if every single person owned a gun lots of people might be shot. But at the same time look at Switzerland, every single resident is required to have a machine gun in their house and most will have many other guns but Switzerland's crime rate is almost null.
This is excessively exaggerated. No citizen is required to keep a weapon at home except those who do military service, they just take their service weapon back home. I personally don't know anyone that has many weapons at home, this is an exageration too. And even though our crime rate is low, sadly low=/=almost null.
Besides, there are gun licenses to be acquired first. Even though the latest case has shown that some weapons do not need one, and that our gun legislations need to be updated (for several reasons).
Besides, there are gun licenses to be acquired first. Even though the latest case has shown that some weapons do not need one, and that our gun legislations need to be updated (for several reasons).
I totally agree with that.
This argument is stupid. An untrained civilian population has very little chance against the American military's technological advantage, and training. It's stupidity is further increased by the implication that America will magically transform into a totalitarian state in which people will unite whole heartedly and resist.
If (hypothetically) the next president wanted to be a dictator it would be easy because of all the stuff Obama passed giving the president control over everything. But just because the order was sent out does not mean that all of the army would comply. And look at what happened in all those (2) African countries were the people rose up against there oppressive governments.
After all of the work that those of us who support gun ownership put into making viable arguments, one person has to go and set off the alarm again.
Let me put this in bold: I, as well as people such as Kasic, NoName and EmperorPalapatine do not support gun ownership because we're worried about governmental corruption. I don't even live in the US. We support gun ownership for reasons listed in the previous 59 PAGES
Can you read? What I said means that we do not support gun ownership so that idiots can think they can overthrow the government. My god, do you have no literacy skills whatsoever? Also, both your posts are spam.
Modified for, maybe. I'm not aware of any assault rifles that were developed for the sole use of competition shooting. Link some if there are any...
Well, some, mainly AR type rifles, are built from the factory designed for competition. I suppose you could call them modified but it's a thin line. I'm not aware of any rifles that were designed from scratch (not using an existing rifle design) and built solely for competition. Link to Colt CRE-18 competition rifle
Swords aren't guns. For one, they're highly conspicuous, and they are heavy. There's also a lot less of them out there, and what sports do use swords usually use specialized ones and aren't lethal.
I wasn't saying swords and guns are the same, by any means. I was saying that both were originally intended for no other purpose but to kill.
Well, in many ways it does. Owning a military grade weapon is essentially pointless, even if it were modified for competition, the potential to cause harm is far greater than that of a handgun. As many of us have said before, we're not advocating the banning of guns, we're advocating stricter gun control policy. Background checks, reducing the type of weapons available to civilians, that sort of thing.
Why is owning a "military grade weapon" pointless? Personally, I own and do a lot of things that are mostly pointless. The potential is there, but why go after assault rifles? How does it help anything to ban assault rifles when a handgun is used in the majority of killings. If you said a ban on handguns, I might not agree but I would at least understand the reasoning.
If (hypothetically) the next president wanted to be a dictator it would be easy because of all the stuff Obama passed giving the president control over everything. But just because the order was sent out does not mean that all of the army would comply. And look at what happened in all those (2) African countries were the people rose up against there oppressive governments.
Which African countries? Africa has several countries.
Your hypothetical situation has no merrit. Simply because you claim something to be hypothetical does not mean that it is reasonable. Hypothetical senarios must be based around logic, reason and probability. Otherwise it devolves into what you're saying, which is utter nonsense.
Using your logic I could say hypothetically we should all carry guns because they'll help in the midst of a dragon attack.
Give me a reasonable situation where America has the potential to become a totalitarian state.
You have the backbone of a jellyfish.
Why? Because I trust the Canadian government to not be crazy?
Number 1: I havent been keepin an eye on this but here it goes. The 2nd ammendment was meant for the citizens of the US to be able to fight and revolt against a tyrannical government. For instance a repeat of the American Revolution. I will quote Thomas Jefferson here "If the government fears the people there is liberty but if the people fear the government, it is tyranny." Now what do we live in??? I'll be it the military has advanced technnology but do you really think our own military will turn their guns on their fellow people? There will be some who just want their paycheck and theyll support it and thats a dictatorship or tyrannical government. You dont support us we will kill you or take your pay. More than likely the first. If we have enough stand up against it, it won't happen. There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. I dont think the U.S. government can manage that and we have some of the military on our side. This is why I support the Libertarian party and Ron Paul, and the NRA. Look up Gary Johnson, Ron Paul and Alex Jones on Youtube. Here a couple links you can actually look at. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMp6VCmKYH0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX_NaaKqwV8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRX3fUwUtIE These are all good videos, please watch them. Bottom line: We live in a tyrannical government and we need to step up to this! RON PAUL!
Can someone please help me understand this insanity? Where does this paranoia stem from? Well aside from...
Alex Jones
This man is truly insane. As this video shows Alex Jones, not only failed to debate anything relating to the subject at hand, but flat out refused to, despite that being the purpose of the entire debate.
Now, I realize I'm using an extremist as my primary evidence, but I simply cannot account for American citizen's paranoia. It's almost as if the cold war never ended.
