Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Warborg

Members+
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Warborg

  • Rank
    Newbie Poster
  1. 2nd Amendment text: 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. Militia: 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. Yes, I do understand the 2nd amendment, and I don't think the constitutional rights angle is "BS", and no I'm not misinterpreting it. In mentioning constitutional rights, it isn't just about guns, it's about the idea of rights being slowly removed whenever the government sees fit. Right now it might be guns, next time perhaps the 1st amendment is too broad, maybe we should limit that. It's the potential for a snowball effect that is the real threat, little by little rights being removed or cut back until you see that you have no real rights anymore. That is the true danger in this type of thinking. Also, you say you don't believe guns need to be banned, just no assault rifles (I don't necessarily disagree here, I don't see much of a purpose for your average citizen to have one), but then you go on to no need for pistols which would be one of the most commonly owned I would think, and the most easily handled and secured, so we are left with rifles and shotguns (and you go on to talk about rednecks, which I think shotguns and rifles being their preference). You seem very dismissive of the idea of home defense in relation to guns, which I don't quite understand but that is certainly your prerogative. However, I do think that a handgun has a place for home defense, and a pistol in many of those cases is the easiest to wield, especially in a home environment, especially if the defender might be small of stature like a smaller woman that is home alone, for instance. Pistols are best for short range, close quarters, which I think is exactly what a home defense situation would be. Now you do mention stricter regulation, on that I have no problem with. In addition, you point out how guns are stolen or wrongfully used because someone didn't secure them properly. In situations like that, I do believe the gun owner should be held responsible. If you are attesting to the fact that you are responsible enough to own a gun, you should equally be responsible enough to secure them properly and if you aren't and something happens, you should pay the piper as well. Lastly, as to our "gun culture ridden society", I apologize that we in the U.S. haven't reached the obvious level enlightenment of whatever society you hail from, I'm glad someone from your level of cultural perfection was able to chime in. (While trying not to choke on the hypocrisy I commonly see of other countries bashing the U.S. for thinking it's superior, all the while implying their society is that much better)...
  2. Between your "interests" statement and telling people that don't agree with your view to "fuck off", it's pretty difficult to take you seriously.
  3. It's pretty interesting how you completely ignored my post and the counter argument to your position... It's pretty much what politicians do as well, they focus on any facts that bolster their side and completely disregard anything that brings up a point against their stance. I can't respect an argument that is incapable of considering both sides of the issue at hand because it highlights the fact that you have blinders on. The FACT is that the old cliche of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is an absolute. As I said, I'm not a gun fan, I don't own one, and most of my friends don't either, so I'm not making the argument against gun bans just because it cuts into a passion of mine or anything. You say "get rid of them all"... I pose the question to you: How do you do that? Pandora's box has been opened. Will they be able to pass a law that simply causes all the guns to evaporate? If they can, then maybe you are on to something... But I'm thinking that may not happen. And of course, we all know how all criminals get their guns legally, so those laws will totally prevent them from getting them, right? Many of the criminals that have perpetrated gun violence have planned out what they have done for months, and have gotten the guns legally... And if they were unable to do so, they would have gotten them illegally. If they weren't able to get a gun, I'm fairly certain they could have come up with another method to wreak havoc, or do you not believe that either because guns are the root of this violence? What if we miraculously get all guns to disappear and then we see an outbreak of knife/sword/sharp object violence? Do we then start to ban all sharp objects? So please, you want to take a stance of getting rid of guns in America... I'd actually like to see you back up your stance with some actual ideas that would work outside of "Ban the guns". This goes beyond the issue of guns, this goes into the area of Constitutional Rights. Lastly, let's also take another theoretical view here... Again, we've manage to "ban guns" to where only law enforcement has them (legally)... Now I'm pretty sure if there is an effective ban, normal citizens aren't going to be able to get them, but at the same time anyone with criminal intent isn't going to surrender them and they aren't going to be registered to be tracked down. So now you have a situation where criminals still have their guns, and the "legal" citizens no longer have any defense against them. Is this an acceptable position in your eyes?
  4. I tire of seeing "America Bashing", often citing violence or our involvement in other's business or perhaps how we supposedly think ourselves superior to the rest of the world (ironic really, considering how these posts condemn the U.S. for thinking themselves superior while the poster is implying their country's superiority)... Am I trying to say America is perfect? Far from it, not even close. But the bashing is getting really old, and anyone that does bash another country is pretty much a hypocrite. Now this post where appearantly your view is that we sit around the breakfast table with a .45 strapped to our hips and a firearm locker in each room. I'm not a fan of guns, I don't own one and only one person I know does own one... In my 41 years I've shot a real firearm exactly once at a target. Do I think gun control is going to work? No. It would work if we were able to wave a magic wand and make most/all of the guns just disappear, but that isn't an option. The genie is out of the bottle. Gun control has been implemented in other countries, very strict, it hasn't stopped the violence. And let's take this school shooting as an example: If I were crazy enough to want to take out a bunch of kids and teachers at an elementary school, and I didn't have a gun, would that stop me? Or could I just drive my truck through the schoolyard? Or make some sort of bomb at home? Or walk through the school with knives/swords/machetes/whatever? People enact the violence, not the weapons/tools. Do we start banning everything that can cause harm? An article with some examples of gun violence in more than just America, and also examples of how they are also used in defense: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-25/news/32853144_1_gun-control-jeanne-assam-gunman-intent
×
×
  • Create New...